If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   In Germany today, women who kill their abusive husbands are more likely to be jailed for murder than husbands who beat their wives to death, thanks to law passed in 1941. Gee... the more you hear about the Nazis, the harder it is to like them   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 134
    More: Asinine, Nazis, West Germany, murders, minimum sentence, penal codes, Armin Meiwes, retrials  
•       •       •

3992 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:44 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 01:45:04 PM
Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.
 
2014-02-06 01:45:41 PM
Ahh Germany, what a progressive place! All that booming economy and super hippy friendly towns just makes the birth land of a World War that much better!
 
2014-02-06 01:48:09 PM
So, subby used to like the Nazis?
 
2014-02-06 01:48:38 PM
You know who else passed a law in 1941 that... oh... err... um, nevermind then; I see this is already covered. Sorry!
 
2014-02-06 01:48:38 PM
"The Nazi law favoured - and still favours - the strong who murder the weak, Koenig argues. ".


What this "Jesus" plainly fails to realize - it's the meek who are the problem!
 
2014-02-06 01:49:42 PM
FTFA:  "This means that a man who beats his wife over many years, finally killing her, is less likely to be convicted of murder...The argument is that there was nothing "sneaky" or "treacherous" about the killing - it was frontal and direct and might have been expected."

Say, just for the sake of argument, like invading a country with whom you have a standing peace treaty?
 
2014-02-06 01:51:35 PM
Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.
 
2014-02-06 01:52:36 PM
I did nazi see this one coming.
 
2014-02-06 01:53:11 PM
karavansara.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-06 01:53:46 PM
Too soon?
 
2014-02-06 01:54:40 PM
Makes sense.

Killing your abusive husband is pre-meditated murder.

Killing your spouse while beating them is a crime of passion.

Intent matters.
 
2014-02-06 01:55:18 PM
How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?
 
2014-02-06 01:55:27 PM
Thread status: Godwin'ed on entry.
 
2014-02-06 01:57:25 PM

comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.


How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...
 
2014-02-06 01:58:47 PM
The picture if Marianne, in the article, "That's a man, baby!"
 
2014-02-06 01:59:09 PM

Arkanaut: How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?


Yeah, this. How do you not scrutinize, or simply erase, everything put on the books by Adolph&Co.?
 
2014-02-06 01:59:16 PM
Ummm - to be perfectly honest, the law makes sense.  And implying that the law deals with gender is misleading at best (out-right lying at worst).

If you act in a way that is dangerous, for a long time, and then something really bad happens - it's not the same as if you plot to make sure something really bad happens.

If I'm a repeat drunk driver - I'm a horrible person.  And after many years of drunk driving, I hit someone and they die.  That's horrible.  I've committed a crime - but it's NOT the same as me plotting to kill that person and doing it.  In the troll-bait headline, the husband is abusive but NOT trying to murder someone.  He's a criminal, yes, but his intent is not murder.  The wife that plots to kill her husband and then does it, established intent and exhibited no warning signs.  Regardless of gender, if someone beats you - they are criminals and yes - you should get out/press charges.  But that doesn't give you the right to kill them.  And intentionally killing someone is a worse crime that accidentally killing someone.
 
2014-02-06 01:59:40 PM

GaidinCanuck: Killing your spouse while beating them is a crime of passion.


You have an interesting opinion of the definition of the word "passion", and I wish to avoid your newsletter.
 
2014-02-06 02:04:19 PM
Just because it is legal to ride your horse down main street, with your .45-70 in a rifle scabbard; doesn't mean the cops won't pull you over if you fail to signal your turn properly.

/ actually had a guy do that last year; they got him for failing to signal properly
 
2014-02-06 02:11:03 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-06 02:12:54 PM

PunGent: comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...


Unless the woman in question is in restraints, she is to take her first unguarded moment and go to the police.  Any expectation less than that is to treat women like children. Remember, she has shelters and any number of laws to protect her.  And that's not counting friends and family.

Self defense requires the act to be an immediate response to an immediate assault.  If you hit me, I can't walk out to my car, get my gun, come back and shoot you.  If I can walk to my car, I am required to leave and report the matter to the police.  Anything else would be murder.
 
2014-02-06 02:13:04 PM
If we dont allow women to murder their husbands then they will be afraid to disagree with thier husbands or something. I can't be arsed to understand feminist logic
 
2014-02-06 02:13:55 PM

comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.


Quiet you!  We can't have reason here!  There's gender indignation to be had!
 
2014-02-06 02:15:20 PM
I was expecting more right-wing passive agressive "I hate zoshalsum!" comments. There's only one.

/Entertain me, monkeys!
 
2014-02-06 02:15:45 PM

GaidinCanuck: Makes sense.

Killing your abusive husband is pre-meditated murder.

Killing your spouse while beating them is a crime of passion.

Intent matters.


Funny, in all the hate crime threads everyone says intent doesn't matter.
 
2014-02-06 02:16:49 PM
Judging from the headline, subby doesn't like grammar nazis, either.
openclipart.org
 
2014-02-06 02:17:14 PM
I'm getting a kick out of some of these situational comparisons.

Try to remember the norm back then, and in many cases, now. Husband beats wife. Wife is trapped in house by circumstances, either financial, social, protection of children or emotional, so cannot leave house or has nowhere to go. Husband realises this and continues physical abuse unabated until wife dies or retaliates. Who can say they might not do the same when they reach their breaking point? No easy answer.
 
2014-02-06 02:17:29 PM
Many German women have nice breasts.

I feel this should be relevant somehow.
 
2014-02-06 02:18:09 PM

Arkanaut: How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?


Exactly.  I was always under the impression that in West Germany, they simply started from scratch.  East Germany had its own problems but I thought the west had started over.

Learn something new every day.
 
2014-02-06 02:19:29 PM

PunGent: comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...



Then they bring that to the police, get put into protective custody, and the asshole gets to go to jail for it. 

Killing someone without due process? That's a murderin'.
 
2014-02-06 02:21:40 PM
Yea, but without the Nazis where would we get really bad white guys?
 
2014-02-06 02:29:33 PM

brimed03: Arkanaut: How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?

Yeah, this. How do you not scrutinize, or simply erase, everything put on the books by Adolph&Co.?


More to the point, how did the Allies not simply erase and re-write EVERYTHING that was on the books when Germany was conquered?  Seems like you'd want to just start over from scratch after that.
 
2014-02-06 02:33:40 PM

HMS_Blinkin: brimed03: Arkanaut: How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?

Yeah, this. How do you not scrutinize, or simply erase, everything put on the books by Adolph&Co.?

More to the point, how did the Allies not simply erase and re-write EVERYTHING that was on the books when Germany was conquered?  Seems like you'd want to just start over from scratch after that.


Thank Gott they didn't, would you want Americans defining what's allowed in German beer?
 
2014-02-06 02:33:57 PM

vharshyde: PunGent: comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...


Then they bring that to the police, get put into protective custody, and the asshole gets to go to jail for it.


Ideally.

In the real world...not so much.
 
2014-02-06 02:35:26 PM

comslave: PunGent: comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...

Unless the woman in question is in restraints, she is to take her first unguarded moment and go to the police.  Any expectation less than that is to treat women like children. Remember, she has shelters and any number of laws to protect her.


You're adorable.  Spend some time working probate court and get back to me.

Restraining orders would be more helpful if they were printed on kevlar.
 
2014-02-06 02:36:06 PM

PunGent: comslave: [...] If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...


I was thinking his/her ethical sensibilities are equal to a block of cement, or a tree stump.
 
2014-02-06 02:39:01 PM

PunGent: Then they bring that to the police, get put into protective custody, and the asshole gets to go to jail for it.


Ideally.

In the real world...not so much.


You're probably right. It is much better to just let them play judge, jury, and executioner. Who needs cops? Just be a man and take the law into your own hands!
 
2014-02-06 02:41:44 PM

whither_apophis: GaidinCanuck: Makes sense.

Killing your abusive husband is pre-meditated murder.

Killing your spouse while beating them is a crime of passion.

Intent matters.

Funny, in all the hate crime threads everyone says intent doesn't matter.


intent vs motive.

motive doesn't matter, intent does.

"i intend to kill him because he's black" vs "i intend to kill him because he looked at me funny" - motive, doesn't matter.

"i intend to kill him because he beats me" vs "i was beating her because she burned my steak, and i hit her too hard and she died" - intent, the difference between second and first degree motive.
 
2014-02-06 02:42:57 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: whither_apophis: GaidinCanuck: Makes sense.

Killing your abusive husband is pre-meditated murder.

Killing your spouse while beating them is a crime of passion.

Intent matters.

Funny, in all the hate crime threads everyone says intent doesn't matter.

intent vs motive.

motive doesn't matter, intent does.

"i intend to kill him because he's black" vs "i intend to kill him because he looked at me funny" - motive, doesn't matter.

"i intend to kill him because he beats me" vs "i was beating her because she burned my steak, and i hit her too hard and she died" - intent, the difference between second and first degree motive murder.


ftfm
 
2014-02-06 02:47:51 PM

comslave: And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.


I can't find a way to say this politely, so I'm just going to come out and say it: Kill yourself.
 
2014-02-06 02:48:19 PM
more likely to be jailed for murder?

maybe because they murdered them and the husbands would be charged with assault causing death, which is a different charge DUUUH
 
2014-02-06 02:51:02 PM

Mr. Right: Arkanaut: How? How did the Germans not totally rewrite their legal code after 1945?

Exactly.  I was always under the impression that in West Germany, they simply started from scratch.  East Germany had its own problems but I thought the west had started over.

Learn something new every day.


It turns out Top Secret! wasn't a documentary -- East Germany wasn't just Nazis all over again (although functionally the East German state was pretty similar in lots of ways).

Come to think of it East Germany could easily have had more of an overhaul than West Germany, since the Soviets exerted a lot more influence, whereas the Western powers were more interested in getting the German civil infrastructures back up and running to help counter the Soviet threat.
 
2014-02-06 02:52:07 PM

CleanAndPure: Many German women have nice breasts.

I feel this should be relevant somehow.


It is very relevant and thank you for your insight. Summon Banned to provide evidence.
 
2014-02-06 02:52:16 PM

comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately. In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not. This affects the level of guilt.


Agreed, although I would be inclined to make abusers who kill guilty of murder even if it wasn't intended.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:05 PM
I reckon the law was likely created to control what the common murder scenario of the day was. It was back in 1940 when some scheming German harpy, named Inge was left alone at home stewing, while Otto (a particularly sweaty unemployed sign maker who smelled of rotting onions, stale tobacco and overly hoppy bier) goes out to the Bier Garten to puff on his Meerschaum and boast about how he can shut his woman's mouth just by raising his fat, sausage-like forefinger in an authoritative manner. Occasionally, Otto practices the gesture on the passing waiter, much to the delighted howls of his disabled old friend Uli. Otto, having taken his wife Inge for granted over many years has left himself most vulnerable. Unaware that Inge has been coating his Meerschaum with a tincture of arsenic for the last 7 or 8 years, he gets ill and dies. Naturally, Uli suspects foul play and requests an inquiry, and autopsy. Hence it was discovered that Inge done Otto in. in fact, once the news hit the papers it was discovered that women all over Germany were coating their shameful and irresponsible husband's Meerschaums with various poisons. It was such that something had to be done. So in 1941, they passed that law. Big deal.
 
2014-02-06 02:55:12 PM
keep it fair...

"... women who kill their abusive husbands are more likely than... men who kill their abusive wives."


/etc.
/linguistics
 
2014-02-06 02:55:42 PM

sethen320: So, subby used to like the Nazis?


Sharp dressers, at least. You gotta give 'em that.
 
2014-02-06 02:56:00 PM

R.I.P. Eva Braun


0.tqn.com

 
2014-02-06 02:56:23 PM

comslave: If I can walk to my car, I am required to leave and report the matter to the police.


and yet kanye was fine to go beat up a guy that called his wife names, that guy deserved it.
 
2014-02-06 02:57:38 PM

comslave: PunGent: comslave: Actually, if you beat someone to death, it can be asserted that is manslaughter in that you may not have intended to murder them.

However if you murder someone, regardless of reason, you were seeking their death deliberately.  In one case the result is intended, in the other, it can be asserted that it is not.  This affects the level of guilt.

And since battered women have shelters and other forms of protection at their disposal, claiming abuse as a reason to murder someone is dubious at best.  We don't want situations to arise where women start murdering their husbands based on their assertion of abuse.  If abuse exists, then the police need to be brought in on the first instance.  I accept no excuses for not doing so.

How about "I'll kill you if you go to the police?"  Does that trigger self-defense for the woman?  How about if she gets it on tape?

Just curious where your ethical boundaries are...

Unless the woman in question is in restraints, she is to take her first unguarded moment and go to the police.  Any expectation less than that is to treat women like children. Remember, she has shelters and any number of laws to protect her.  And that's not counting friends and family.

Self defense requires the act to be an immediate response to an immediate assault.  If you hit me, I can't walk out to my car, get my gun, come back and shoot you.  If I can walk to my car, I am required to leave and report the matter to the police.  Anything else would be murder.


You're wrong, of course.

I'm not required to report an assault to the police.

If I can walk to my car, get a gun I'm legally allowed to carry, and return to a place I'm legally allowed to be, then there's nothing illegal about that.

If I am then assaulted or threatened with assault again, and I'm reasonably in fear for my life, I'm within my rights to use that gun to defend myself from the second assault.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report