Mary Winkler gets 7 months, 60 days (-time served) for killing husband

Apparently, you better not criticize the wife too much. During the trial, Mary Winkler stated she had been physically and emotionally abused by her husband. But at the time of her arrest, when asked if she had been physically abused, she said 'Nah', but that her husband had been critical of her housekeeping and that she had 'just snapped'.

Better not ask for too much more out of Mrs. Corleone in the way of housework. :dizzy2:

So she was in jail for 5 months during the trial, leaving only 2 months for her to serve out for sneaking up on her husband and shooting him in the back with a shotgun at the parsonage where he was a minister.

Nice.

Wow, what an abomination from our justice system.

Crazed Rabbit

If you watch the publicized cases in the media though, any wife who kills her husband or does something criminal always alleges it was due to an abusive husband. Husbands never allege their crimes were due to an abusive wife.

Its like playing the "I'm female and he's the evil husband" card

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Better not ask for too much more out of Mrs. Corleone in the way of housework. :dizzy2:

---

But you (and all of us) already know better than that, Don, don't we ? :whip:
Well, apparently except for that guy who bought it. He must have forgotten.

Isn't sexism great! :shame:

I know two women who have been involved in physically abusive relationships. Neither, at the time, would have admitted to the authorities that they were abused. Both would, at the time and for some time after the eventual split, have said that they loved their partner. If they hadn't eventually left (in both cases they misguidedly stayed "for the children") could they have turned on their abuser? I couldn't say.

Both are now in a happy relationships and neither can believe how stupid they were.

I'm not just saying Mary Winkler never came forward to the authorities with the abuse claims. I'm saying after she was picked up for the shooting, they point blank asked her and she said "Nah, I just got mad". The abuse charges came later, after she lawyered up.

Must be nice to have a vagina...:juggle2:

Eh, sometimes, I get this feeling that men aren't really the ones in charge of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Eh, sometimes, I get this feeling that men aren't really the ones in charge of the world.

---

Just to be a contrarian, it can still be concluded that we still are in charge of the world. It's just that the "we must protect the weaker sex" sentiment changes from keeping her safe from the outside world and opening the doors for her to having her get the better deals from the Courts.

I agree though. This is not right; there was no abuse claim until she, as said, "lawyered up."

However the court obviously decided that there was evidence enough of abuse, otherwise we wouldn't have this result.

I would rather believe that their verdict was more informed from their time in court than ours is through a snippet of information from a news site.

Just a wig and a few boots do not prove abuse. For all we know she could have bought them herself or wanted to use them and now just lies to gets out of jail.
The problem is, they asked the kids and none of them said the husband was abusive and have not witnessed anything wrong - even saying that their mother was making things up.
But the jury just ended up weighing her arguments only as they couldn't ask the husband and because she made herself cry hard enough, she got off with less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

However the court obviously decided that there was evidence enough of abuse, otherwise we wouldn't have this result.

I would rather believe that their verdict was more informed from their time in court than ours is through a snippet of information from a news site.

---

I think it more had to do with the jury recognizing that there was no extended family, and the kids would have wound up going into orphanages.

Believe me, having served on an American jury, you don't want to start placing your faith in their objectivity. I was in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff was suing a pharmacy, because he claims he slipped on some ice in the parking lot. Now mind you, there was never any evidence that the plaintiff ever even fell down, let alone was inured. That came solely from his word, and despite the wrenching agony of the spinal injury he suffered, he left the scene without ever even going into the pharmacy for aid. ~:confused:
So we go into deliberations. We elect a foreman, and just to save some time, we took a quick headcount where everyone was standing. The first time through, about 3 people said they were leaning towards the plaintiff, 7 towards the defendant and 2 were undecided.

But the last plaintiff voter speaks up first. "How can you all find for the defendant?" she huffs. "It was him dumping water in the parking lot that caused the ice in the first place". Wrong. Not sure where she got this from, because the 'ice', assuming there actually were some though that was sketchy, was supposedly left over from a winter rain 3 days prior. When I raised this point, she responded with "Oh, what difference does it make. The guy's not going to pay anyway. It's free money from his insurance company".

As you can see, a preponderance of the evidence is not first in every American juror's mind.

Lady, if you have a probelm with your realtionship you don't shoot the guy. You divorce.If you kill him, you go to jail on a nice electric chair like the guy would have if he killed you.
I once had reconstructive surgery on my balls in secondary school because an enraged female rammed her boot in my groin.I couldn't urinate for 2 days, and even now I can't get a proper erection......And she got away with it....because she was a she and she was "justified" for doing what she did because after she hit me I slapped her on the cheek.....nice.
Male feminists are crap-heads I tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Lady, if you have a probelm with your realtionship you don't shoot the guy. You divorce.If you kill him, you go to jail on a nice electric chair like the guy would have if he killed you.
I once had reconstructive surgery on my balls in secondary school because an enraged female rammed her boot in my groin.I couldn't urinate for 2 days, and even now I can't get a proper erection......And she got away with it....because she was a she and she was "justified" for doing what she did because after she hit me I slapped her on the cheek.....nice.
Male feminists are crap-heads I tell you.

---

BEST POST EVAR!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Lady, if you have a probelm with your realtionship you don't shoot the guy. You divorce.If you kill him, you go to jail on a nice electric chair like the guy would have if he killed you.
I once had reconstructive surgery on my balls in secondary school because an enraged female rammed her boot in my groin.I couldn't urinate for 2 days, and even now I can't get a proper erection......And she got away with it....because she was a she and she was "justified" for doing what she did because after she hit me I slapped her on the cheek.....nice.
Male feminists are crap-heads I tell you.

---

:shocked2:

:clock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Lady, if you have a probelm with your realtionship you don't shoot the guy. You divorce.If you kill him, you go to jail on a nice electric chair like the guy would have if he killed you.
I once had reconstructive surgery on my balls in secondary school because an enraged female rammed her boot in my groin.I couldn't urinate for 2 days, and even now I can't get a proper erection......And she got away with it....because she was a she and she was "justified" for doing what she did because after she hit me I slapped her on the cheek.....nice.
Male feminists are crap-heads I tell you.

---

I'm glad you got to atleast pop her back. I always say that once a chick hits you, she just grew a :clock: (minus the L) and she's fair game.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Must be nice to have a vagina...:juggle2:

---

Well Dave, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine you can try it out. In fact you can have it both ways. Just think of the movie star potential...and if anyone tells you to go **** yourself...you can.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Well Dave, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine you can try it out. In fact you can have it both ways. Just think of the movie star potential...and if anyone tells you to go **** yourself...you can.:laugh4:

---

When did this thread turn into a Cameron Diaz comedy movie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

In fact you can have it both ways. Just think of the movie star potential...and if anyone tells you to go **** yourself...you can.:laugh4:

---

Not a bad idea, I'd never be lonely on a Friday night.:laugh4:

Why should it matter is she was abused anyway? If she killed him in self-defence while he was attacking her, fair enough: but she shot him in the back, while he was in bed. That's pre-meditated murder, whatever he's done.

I hope karma bites back, and she gets what she deserves, preferably death or at least a kick in the teeth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BKS

but she shot him in the back, while he was in bed. That's pre-meditated murder, whatever he's done.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think it more had to do with the jury recognizing that there was no extended family, and the kids would have wound up going into orphanages.

Believe me, having served on an American jury, you don't want to start placing your faith in their objectivity. I was in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff was suing a pharmacy, because he claims he slipped on some ice in the parking lot. Now mind you, there was never any evidence that the plaintiff ever even fell down, let alone was inured. That came solely from his word, and despite the wrenching agony of the spinal injury he suffered, he left the scene without ever even going into the pharmacy for aid. ~:confused:
So we go into deliberations. We elect a foreman, and just to save some time, we took a quick headcount where everyone was standing. The first time through, about 3 people said they were leaning towards the plaintiff, 7 towards the defendant and 2 were undecided.

But the last plaintiff voter speaks up first. "How can you all find for the defendant?" she huffs. "It was him dumping water in the parking lot that caused the ice in the first place". Wrong. Not sure where she got this from, because the 'ice', assuming there actually were some though that was sketchy, was supposedly left over from a winter rain 3 days prior. When I raised this point, she responded with "Oh, what difference does it make. The guy's not going to pay anyway. It's free money from his insurance company".

As you can see, a preponderance of the evidence is not first in every American juror's mind.

---

Anecdotal and irrelevant unless proven that the jury in this case was just as lax. Besides which I said the court not the jury. I presume that the judge sets the sentence once the verdict is delivered?

I don't disagree that the sentence was light for the killing of a man, whether the claims of abuse are true or not.

I see a number of people in this thread making swinging judgements about the treatment of domestic violence in the courts and, frankly, this disturbs me.