Equality before the law?

[BruceVC]

 

Patriarchy at work: http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hires-hitman-but-goes-free-1.2079731

 

This...

 

No words.

 

Only silence.

 

I'm not shocked, it appears the husband was a violent and abusive man. No wonder no charges were filled against his wife?

[Volourn]

Did you actually read the article? L0L

[BruceVC]

Did you actually read the article? L0L

 

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot

 

There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision

 

So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now "   

[Volourn]

What evidence? Nothing in the article suggests there is any such evidence. Just the judge taking the woman - who tried to murder someone  using a HIT MAN -  at her word. Even IF he was abusive (which according to the udner cover agent says she told him no)  she shouldn't be able to get away with hiring hit men to commit murder.

 

Do you support cold blooded pre planned murder? This was NOT self defense.

 

But, hey,  she has to be telling the truth because she is a woman and women never lie.

 

I mean according to you he is scumbag because she claims that he hit her but she is a-okay even though she planned to commit murder for money. LMAO

 

btw, Charges were filed. That's why the judge was involved. Duh.

 

I think you better read the article again.

 

Why do you disrepect women so much that you can't treat them equally.

 

I guarantee you if a man hired a hit amn to murder his wife and then accused her of abuse you would still want him in prison.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

What evidence? Nothing in the article suggests there is any such evidence. Just the judge taking the woman - who tried to murder someone  using a HIT MAN -  at her word. Even IF he was abusive (which according to the udner cover agent says she told him no)  she shouldn't be able to get away with hiring hit men to commit murder.

 

Do you support cold blooded pre planned murder? This was NOT self defense.

 

But, hey,  she has to be telling the truth because she is a woman and women never lie.

 

I mean according to you he is scumbag because she claims that he hit her but she is a-okay even though she planned to commit murder for money. LMAO

 

btw, Charges were filed. That's why the judge was involved. Duh.

 

I think you better read the article again.

 

Why do you disrepect women so much that you can't treat them equally.

 

I guarantee you if a man hired a hit amn to murder his wife and then accused her of abuse you would still want him in prison.

 

Yes Volo, I know charges were filled. I meant to say " the charges were dropped "

 

And I support the idea that it is quite possible for a man or women to be driven to the point where they could want to hire a hitman to kill there partner. They do this because of the cycle of abuse and fear and divorce is just not an option

[Gorth]

...or a substantial life insurance.

[TrashMan]

Which is BS.

 

Not only was divorce a very real option, but the guy was worth a lot of $$$ dead.

The police caught her red-handed.

 

The collossal amount of f***-up to let her go free is unbelievable.

[Fighter]

I'm not shocked, it appears the husband was a violent and abusive man. No wonder no charges were filled against his wife?

 

You're crazy trying to justify this and this attitude is exactly what's wrong with modern feminism. Women now get preferential treatment in many areas of life and we all have to fall in line and pretend it's ok.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Patriarchy at work: http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hires-hitman-but-goes-free-1.2079731

....Wat....

 

A woman plans to kill her husband(who just happens to be worth over 1 mil dead) calmly and without reporting any abuse on his part and his caught and has charges brought against her. When she arrives in court she says that he was abusive towards her and gets off.

 

Even if her claims of abuse are true, no punishment at all for attempted murder is an abortion of justice.

[Shallow]

Bruce, there's evidence that she tried to kill him, there's 0 evidence he was abusive, according to the article she actively said this was just about the money to the hitman-cop, in any event:

1. It isn't self defense when you aren't in immediate danger, I can't shoot a guy and then say "Self defense, we got into a fight back in highschool!". The same rules should obviously ****ing apply to hiring a hitman to kill the guy I got into a fight with back in highschool.

2. If she'd gone to the cops saying he was abusive they would've probably believed her with 0 evidence like the judge/jury did here, you know, the perks of being a women and all, thus leaving was an option.

3. You'd never defend this if she was a man, the insane extent of your whiteknighting is truly frightening.

[Gorth]

Split off from the patriarchy thread...

[BruceVC]

Bruce, there's evidence that she tried to kill him, there's 0 evidence he was abusive, according to the article she actively said this was just about the money to the hitman-cop, in any event:

1. It isn't self defense when you aren't in immediate danger, I can't shoot a guy and then say "Self defense, we got into a fight back in highschool!". The same rules should obviously ****ing apply to hiring a hitman to kill the guy I got into a fight with back in highschool.

2. If she'd gone to the cops saying he was abusive they would've probably believed her with 0 evidence like the judge/jury did here, you know, the perks of being a women and all, thus leaving was an option.

3. You'd never defend this if she was a man, the insane extent of your whiteknighting is truly frightening.

 

I'm surprised you have such contempt for the Canadian legal system. Two courts held the same judgement that she was a victim of sustained abuse and then the Canadian Supreme Court decided she had suffered enough and ordered  a stay of proceedings, effectively exonerating her from these charges

 

Yet you and others think all this other evidence was somehow overlooked and she " wasn't really a victim of abuse ". Wow she must be really clever to con the entire Canadian legal system so thoroughly....at least you guys can see it

 

And people think I'm arrogant

[Shallow]

 

Bruce, there's evidence that she tried to kill him, there's 0 evidence he was abusive, according to the article she actively said this was just about the money to the hitman-cop, in any event:

1. It isn't self defense when you aren't in immediate danger, I can't shoot a guy and then say "Self defense, we got into a fight back in highschool!". The same rules should obviously ****ing apply to hiring a hitman to kill the guy I got into a fight with back in highschool.

2. If she'd gone to the cops saying he was abusive they would've probably believed her with 0 evidence like the judge/jury did here, you know, the perks of being a women and all, thus leaving was an option.

3. You'd never defend this if she was a man, the insane extent of your whiteknighting is truly frightening.

 

I'm surprised you have such contempt for the Canadian legal system. Two courts held the same judgement that she was a victim of sustained abuse and then the Canadian Supreme Court decided she had suffered enough and ordered  a stay of proceedings, effectively exonerating her from these charges

 

Yet you and others think all this other evidence was somehow overlooked and she " wasn't really a victim of abuse ". Wow she must be really clever to con the entire Canadian legal system so thoroughly....at least you guys can see it

 

And people think I'm arrogant

 

It's a very wellknown fact that women can often claim whatever the hell they want in relation to male-women abuse in court and be believed.

 

Gorth, what does equality have to do with this?

[Shallow]

I remember some article in the gamersgate thread saying check your privilege just means men are intruding into a female only safespace, how come people were so pissy about the male only patriarchy safespace?

[Gorth]

Gorth, what does equality have to do with this?

Irony. Is it easier to get away with murder if you are a woman?

 

Edit to add: Not necessarily just this specific case, more like a general observation.

[Enoch]

Wacky Canadians.  Toss out the affirmative defense used by the defendant in the case as a matter of law, but allow the holding to stand?  Wacky.  (Only thing I can think of is that maybe there was some other element of the prosecution's case that had not been satisfied-- if they didn't present evidence to support a necessary element of the accused crime, tossing the affirmative defense is no reason to give them a second chance.)

 

 

That said, the details of Canadjan appellate procedures have little to do with all the ridiculous gender politics bickering that has been going on around here lately.  (Seriously, this place has broken out with a MRA infestation.  I feel like I need a shower after stepping into some of these threads.) 

Edited November 3, 2014 by Enoch

[Malcador]

It really does seem as if she pulled off a masterful con and it is a simple play - say you were abused. She sounds like she sprung from white trash anyway, so that makes it even more likely.

 

Had to laugh about the court caring whether she had been through enough.

 

 

Also, am thoroughly surprised to find Bruce is okay with this.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Malcador

[Blarghagh]

At the same time, a 16 year old boy (15 at the time of the stabbing) who was painfully obviously mentally ill got tried as an adult and sentenced to 20 years in prison for stabbing his teacher Ann McGuire to death.

 

It's times like this I hate the world.

[Hurlshort]

Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff.

[Volourn]

"Also, am thoroughly surprised to find Bruce is okay with this."

 

I'm not. He got triggered by the abuse thing. The moment he read nothing no other facts matter to him. He doesn't need proof. He just needs to hear that line and he'll automatically believe the woman. Because, he believes all men are evil and if theya re accused of something heinous they must be guilty and a woman would NEVER lie.

 

 Then again, even IF the guy was abusive hiring a hitman AFTER the fact is still wrong. And, it's definitely illegal. But, Bruce and co still defends it but he would NEVER defend it if the situation is reverse.

 

Also, Bruce continues to lie. He claimed there were no charges. But, there were charges filed hence why a judge was invovled and there were appeals even to the point that one court said the 'abuse defense' was wrong.

 

Then, there's the fact she would  have access to literal millions if he was dead. Then there's the fact she told the udnercover that she was never abused.

 

EVIL.

 

 

"Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff."

 

A.  He 'got away' with it because there wasn't enough evdience to convict.

 

B. His entire life was ruined. Was foudn guilty in civil court, his professional life was over, and he's now in prison.

 

Oh btw, why is he prison? Because he was trying to get back stuff that was stolen from him (his story). But, as the court rightly said, even if he was telling the truth there taking the law into your own hands and hunting down the thief in a hotel room with armed guards is not acceptable behaviour. Just like hiring a hitman FOR ANY REASON should not be acceptable.

 

So, why are you people defending the woman or the stupid male judge?

 

Patriacrhy my behind.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Volourn

[Shallow]

Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff.

Whilst let's be honest here, OJ did it, and there was pretty good evidence that he did it, there wasn't a recording of him getting it done, and he was judged not guilty because the jury was retarded, not because "Poor OJ has been through enough with his wife allegedly hurting him even though there's 0 evidence.".

 

Patriacrhy my behind.

Don't insult honorable institutions!

Edited November 3, 2014 by Shallow

[Fighter]

I think being ruled not guilty in a freak ruling is quiet different to not even bothering when you catch someone hiring a hitman.

[Blarghagh]

 

Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff.

Whilst let's be honest here, OJ did it, and there was pretty good evidence that he did it, there wasn't a recording of him getting it done, and he was judged not guilty because the jury was retarded, not because "Poor OJ has been through enough with his wife allegedly hurting him even though there's 0 evidence.".

 

My understanding of it was that the prosecutor was an idiot and ended up not doing the bare minimum his evidence was admissable in court? Granted it's been a while since I've read or watched anything about this but that's what I took away from it.

[Namutree]

 

Well, lets not forget that OJ got away with killing his ex-wife and another guy, so it's not like only women get away with this stuff.

Whilst let's be honest here, OJ did it, and there was pretty good evidence that he did it, there wasn't a recording of him getting it done, and he was judged not guilty because the jury was retarded, not because "Poor OJ has been through enough with his wife allegedly hurting him even though there's 0 evidence.".

 

 

 

He was voted not guilty because their wasn't sufficient reliable evidence.

[Valsuelm]

The Canadian 'justice' system can make the U.S. family court system look like a fair, reasonable, and good system.

 

I urge everyone here to go find and watch "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father". I also highly recommend not reading up on it until after you've seen the film. It speaks volumes about the subject of this thread, and is a very good film to watch.

 

Also, Volourn, can you please quote properly? I stop reading your posts where you quote people after the first line or two as much of the time I don't know who you're responding to, the quote is taken out of context, and not knowing who you're responding to I can't go find that context.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Valsuelm