Battered women morally entitled to kill abusers, U of O professor asserts

[alp227]

OTTAWA — Battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusive partners, even those who are passed out or asleep, says a respected University of Ottawa law professor.

Elizabeth Sheehy raises the provocative idea in her new book, eight years in the making, called Defending Battered Women on Trial. It will be published Dec. 15 by UBC Press.

“Why should women live in anticipatory dread and hypervigilence?” she writes in the book’s concluding chapter. Would it not be just, Sheehy asks, “to shift the risk of death to those men whose aggressions have created such dehumanizing fear in their female partners?”

In an interview with the Citizen, Sheehy — who received a prestigious award from the Canadian Bar Association for her scholarship on women and the law this summer — answered that question in the affirmative.

full: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/story.html?id=9270200

if that was the case, George Zimmerman would be dead today.

[Decaffeinated]

1. No way for that one to be abused...

[DoBotherMe]

3. Worried?

[joeglow3]

9. Or, possess common sense?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. I don't think the poster is "worried"

in any way that you imply, I think the poster is concerned about another "stand your ground" law that will be used to legalize murder.

[1000words]

25. This woman is trying to sell her book

Profit is coming at the expense of her credibility, imo.

[LanternWaste]

45. I'd much rather see a law abused than a person.

I'd much rather see a law abused than a person.

(Since we're using passive-aggressive irrelevancies and all...)

[1000words]

48. How do you feel about abusing a law that results in the death of another?

That's what we're talking about.

[GodlessBiker]

78. Abuse of that law would be a crime. Those who kill in self defense are always ...

in danger of being second-guessed after the fact. Many have acted in a way which they thought was self defense, only to be convicted of a crime at trial.

We should not let the exceptions to the rule consume the rule. Yes, it is bound to be abused but, in many, many cases, it won't be.

Having said that, I'm not sure the proposed law is a good idea.

[Blanket Statements]

2. Morally yes, legally no

[Aristus]

34. That's what I was going to say.

Although if I was a judge facing a battered woman convicted of killing her abuser, I'd sentence her to time-served and send her on her way...

[Kelvin Mace]

35. I would say morally no

and legally no.

Once you open that line of reasoning, how do we decide it is "justified"?

[Blanket Statements]

44. I think the law does a good job at defining justifiable homicide

Generally speaking.

There are a lot of monsters that I have no problem with being killed off from a moral standpoint. It doesn't mean I think it should be legal to kill them as one sees fit

[HappyMe]

4. Legally, no.

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Morally - maybe.

edit to add - Only in a self defense situation, not when someone is passed out or asleep.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Only if at the point of the murder it was not possible for them to walk out of the house.

"He deserved it" is not, and must never become, an acceptable justification for murder.

"It was self defence", though, obviously is.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Or as they say here in the South

"He needed killin'."

And I agree, outside of self-defense, bit justifiable.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. I can't agree.

Using potentially lethal force to stop a violent assault? Sure...no moral problem with that whatsoever. Preemptively against a past abuser? Nope. Not for me, anyway...

[seabeyond]

7. it wouldnt be preemptive fro past. what is to come. most dangerous time for a woman is when

she walks away.

[Decaffeinated]

8. Then she needs to keep walking away...

That's what got that idiot woman in Florida in trouble. She came back with the gun when there was no imminent danger and took a shot towards kids....

[seabeyond]

10. you are arguing something not in OP and ignoring the point of the OP. how come?

no one is saying it is legal. so that would be strawman. the point, that it SHOULD be legal. keep walking until dead. that would be the argument.

edit to add: this is not my belief. it is the argument being made in OP.

[Decaffeinated]

11. That's fine...

My point was that if the law were enacted moronic and dangerous behavior like that I spoke about could potentially be legal.

[seabeyond]

12. you seem to totally dismiss the danger for women. and again... such this is no surprise

i am done with this conversation. just clarifying the issue since yours was the effort to derail from conversation.

[DragonBorn]

15. No it shouldn't be legal

Why does it not surprise me that an Anti gun poster is arguing FOR killing a person that is not a direct threat to a persons safety.

Battered women have many resourses from the government and private foundations to get away and get help. If when they leave they still feel threatened many people, including cops advocate for the woman to arm herself. Ironically enough you seek disarmerment for most of the population. Would you support a battered woman being granted a CCW? Would you want a newspaper to publish that she had a firearm in the house?

This is the argument most pro gun poster make that you have dismissed previously in the past. Maybe you can rethink you position.

This Professor is nuts she really shouldn't be spreading these types of ideas.

[seabeyond]

18. am i arguing women should be able to murder? is that what you read in my post?

i would suggest i made it very clear this was not MY opinion, but what the OP was about.

you do get the difference, dont you? cause it seems very obvious to me especially seeing how i highlighted it in BOLD print, ya know.

this is once again, making up an argument i have not made, so you can easily argue.... with yourself.

secondly... if it is so easy for women to leave and not be murder, tell me why so many women, even getting protection are..... murdered.

either lack of information or dismissal of the real issue, on your part.

[DragonBorn]

75. Did I misunderstand?

it wouldnt be preemptive fro past. what is to come. most dangerous time for a woman is when she walks away.

no one is saying it is legal. so that would be strawman. the point, that it SHOULD be legal. keep walking until dead. that would be the argument.

From your posts it appeared that you where playing Devils Advocate and while not directly saying this should be legal you where arguing for it.

secondly... if it is so easy for women to leave and not be murder, tell me why so many women, even getting protection are..... murdered.

It is relatively easy to leave an abuser. There are many government and private entities willing to help and assist battered women, you can get a emergency restraining order barring the individual from the house. Women get murdered either when they go back to an abuser or if the abuser finds them with the intend to do them harm. Restraining orders are just pieces of paper if you want to protect a battered woman from an abuser start arming them and giving them proper training. Advocating them shooting their abuser while they sleep just turns them into murders.

If I misunderstood you so badly why don't you just come out and say that people who are sleeping should not be murdered, even if they are abusive. That would set me strait.

[seabeyond]

76. "this is not my belief. it is the argument being made in OP." just happens to miss the bold print?

really?

and yes.. you are wrong, once again that it is relatively easy for a woman who is abused to walk away. almost half of the women murdered by mate is when they walk away, EVEN WITH police help and restraining order. so you can keep saying it is easy for the abused to walk away, but the fact that is when they are mostly murdered, would make you wrong. factually incorrect. uninformed. clear enough?

and lastly.... once again, create an argument i did not make, simply because i am correcting the errors in your post. you do not get to make shit up and say, i said it.

[DragonBorn]

120. Your play devils advocate...

it wouldnt be preemptive fro past. what is to come. most dangerous time for a woman is when

she walks away.

no one is saying it is legal. so that would be strawman. the point, that it SHOULD be legal. keep walking until dead. that would be the argument.

edit to add: this is not my belief. it is the argument being made in OP.

Your playing devils advocate. You are arguing the pro side of the pro murder professor while simultaneously saying that you don't hold these beliefs. So why defend them or argue them?

and yes.. you are wrong, once again that it is relatively easy for a woman who is abused to walk away. almost half of the women murdered by mate is when they walk away,

How am I wrong? I don't think you even understand what your typing or need a refresher on basic statistics.

Almost half of the women murdered by a partner is when they leave an abusive relationship. You are starting out with a sample size of all women murdered by a partner, not how many leave a abusive relationship. So the real question on if it is relatively easy to leave an abusive relationship would be how many females left an abusive relationship vs how many where murdered.

If 10 women where killed and 4 of them where by abusive ex husbands when they left but 1000 women in total left abusive relationships it would stand to reason that yes it is relatively easy to leave.

almost half of the women murdered by mate is when they walk away,EVEN WITH police help and restraining order. so you can keep saying it is easy for the abused to walk away, but the fact that is when they are mostly murdered, would make you wrong. factually incorrect. uninformed. clear enough?

That's why I advocate arming women if they chose too, a restraining order is only a piece of paper and it wont do a damn thing against an individual who is looking to do harm. That's why I also called out the fact that you advocate against CCW's and firearms. Which is the surest way to protect a women from a man intent on doing her harm. I'm betting you won't address that again and gloss over it because it is squarely at odds with a position you hold.

You keep saying that this is not your belief but you previously played the devil advocate for the pro murder side..... It just seems odd. Also why don't you just come out and say people should not be murdered when their sleeping I'm still waiting on that.

[seabeyond]

122. i am not playing devils advocate. i am not playing... at all. i am stating the risk

when a woman walks from an abusive relationship. she knows the odds of being murdered by mate goes way up

that simple

[DragonBorn]

124. ok fair enough

I misunderstood.

[laundry_queen]

144. "It is relatively easy to leave an abuser." Clark, you serious? WTeverlivingF! nt

[BainsBane]

65. anti-gun poster?

Talk about a non-sequitur.

[seabeyond]

66. ya. cause i am all over those gun threads... nt

[BainsBane]

68. seriously

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. I'm pro-gun and I think there should be no DV exception to SYG. n/t

[KitSileya]

13. I cannot condone murder, but the picture is more nuanced than black and white.

It is very clear that an abused woman faces the most dangerous time in the abusive relationship as she is leaving it. 45% of femicides happen when the man discovers he is losing control over her. Violence increases dramatically when a woman leaves an abusive relationship, according to the first Governor's report on domestic violence.

I cannot discount that some women may feel so threatened at all times when planning to leave an abusive relationship that killing their abuser isn't preemptive, but an answer to a clear and present threat - the certain knowledge that their abuser will kill them if they leave. To them, it may be as present while he is sleeping as when he is standing before them with fists or weapons raised... at least the statistics support them in that belief.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. There is nothing wrong with a woman

taking steps to defend herself when she decides to leave. However, pre-emptive murder cannot be one of those steps.

[KitSileya]

42. I guess I was trying to see if there was a way to see it as not pre-emptive murder.

As it is, it seems even when directly threatened by an abusive spouse, an abused woman doesn't have the right to self-defense, if you look at how many abused women are in prison for doing exactly that. My thoughts went along the lines of seeing that whole period as threatening, regardless of whether the abuser's fist was physically raised then and there, that it could be argued shooting the abuser in his sleep could be seen as self defense.

To illustrate my thinking - if you had been held captive and abused by someone, and in order to get free, you have to get past your captor. Your captor goes to sleep, you manage to get free, and before you leave the house, you take a frying pan and bash his head in, to make sure that he cannot follow you. Is that self defense?

[Kelvin Mace]

43. I agree there is a double-standard

And we need to treat mean AND women the same in court.

In your example I can't see self-defense in "bashing" his head in to "be sure" he stays asleep. Simply dialing 911 and whispering "help" is enough to get the police to your house, then they can deal with the situation.

That said, I believe men have a VERY hard time understanding what it is like to be "cowed" by someone, since they consider such to be "unmanly".

[KitSileya]

46. It's thought-provoking for sure.

One of the arguments against your scenario of calling 911, at least in the case of abused women, if not in my hypothetical captive's, is that women are more in danger after they have left their abusers than while they are with them. This includes cases where the abuse has been reported to the police, which you would think would give you protection. However, this is not so- current legal protection such as restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are written on. In most cases, the woman must leave everything, change her name, and live in some degree of fear for the rest of her life.

[exboyfil]

151. Which cases?

For the one in Florida the woman went back and shot in the direction of the man and a child. I still think the sentence was too harsh. The one that gets to me is in Tennessee where the Pastor's wife killed her husband while he slept. She received no prison time for that homicide (instead time served).

In your hypothetical if a spouse prevents the other from leaving, then force can be used.

[FarCenter]

14. Morally, they are entitled to ask for, and receive, effective protection by law enforcement

Practically, the homicide may or may not be found justified by a jury.

[Squinch]

47. See "Castle Rock vs. Gonzales." They are not entitled to ask for, nor are they likely to receive

effective protection by law enforcement.

In that case, the police decided that the father's rights to see his children was greater than the mother's right to demand that the restraining order was enforced.

The father killed the children.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision by the police to NOT enforce the restraining order, even though they were fully able to, because they felt the father had the right to see his children.

So, no. Effective protection by law enforcement is not something that can be counted on.

[libodem]

16. I hate to see it come to that

But I can totally empathize with those women who do, because they fear for their lives.

Usually women, receive much harsher sentences than if the situations were reversed. At least the sentences should be equal.

It seems as if it is tolerated and understood that a man occasionally, just has to beat his wife to death, because she just didn't know when to shut up. If the woman retaliates no such understanding is given. Men judges punish hard to make an example of those who fight back.


I like what this woman has to say. Maybe abusers would back off if they knew this was a possibility.

[NoOneMan]

30. "Usually women, receive much harsher sentences than if the situations were reversed"

Are you sure about that? It wasn't my perception that men that kill their female partners get lesser penalties than women who kill their male partners. Do you have any stats to back that up?

I was under the impression (based on nothing mind you) that women can more often get justifiable homicide than men (and probably rightly so).

[xulamaude]

147. "Do you have any stats to back that up?"

The stats are out there for anyone to find.

[NoOneMan]

148. Where? First Google I found shows the opposite from bjs.gov

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/SPMUREX.TXT
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SPOUSMUR.PDF

On average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.

The average prison sentence for unprovoked wife defendants was 7 years, or 10 years shorter than the average 17 years for unprovoked husband defendants.

Among wives sentenced to prison, 15% received a sentence of 20 years or more (including life imprisonment and the death penalty); among husbands, it was 43%

Of the 222 wife defendants, 70% were convicted of killing their mate. By contrast, of the 318 husband defendants, 87% were convicted of spouse murder.

It isn't even close. Are you sure about that?

[1000words]

17. "Thou shalt not kill."

Just about every religion and spiritual movement cites this fundamental tenet as a basis for morality.

And Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, etc. .... all talking out of their asses, apparently.

[seabeyond]

19. if a person holds a gun to your head and says... i will not shoot for 10 sec. you have gun in your

hand. do you raise and shoot?

if you say no, and are shot dead at 10 sec, then you can use this argument.

[In_The_Wind]

22. If I have my gun in my hand, it wouldn't take 10 seconds for me to use it.

Just sayin'

[seabeyond]

23. lol. that would be the point. nt

[In_The_Wind]

26. And, no one will get the chance to take it away from me to use on another person.

I grew up with guns. If you aren't ready to kill, don't point it.
When I was 17, I was held at gunpoint (by some one I knew) for 5 hours. That'll never happen again if I can stop it.

[LanternWaste]

27. The Torah contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified kil

The Torah contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

And yes, the commandment 'Thou shalt not murder ( transliterated as 'retzach as opposed to 'bloodguilt')', is often re-translated as 'thou shalt not kill'.

[Squinch]

50. None of the major, male-centered religions have ever said, "thou shalt not beat the crap

out of your wife every chance you get and expect her not to defend herself any way she can."

A woman leaving an abusive relationship is in mortal danger.

[Kurska]

53. You're essentially arguing a woman has the right to impose the death penalty.

Keep in mind that the man never even gets to defend himself against the accusation. That doesn't sound like justice to me.

[Squinch]

57. I'm not arguing that at all. There was nothing like that in the post you responded to. BUT,

now I WILL argue for a situation in which the abused has the right to kill an abuser. As I asked down thread, if one of the three girls that Ariel Castro had imprisoned for years had found a gun, would she have been wrong to kill him while he was sleeping in order to get away without him killing her?

I don't think she would. And that's not a far cry from what many women go through.

Edited to add: since some people seem to be very distracted by the gun issue here, ( ) say it is a knife instead.

[stevenleser]

20. Would be hard for me to vote to convict if I was on the jury.

Assuming the abuse was proven, I'm not seeing a guilty vote. Certainly not on murder one, murder two or man 1.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Killing an incapacitated person for what you fear they might do...

based on what they've done in the past is either preemptive or revenge killing. Can't slice it any other way.

Murder.

[HappyMe]

24. I agree.

Passed out or asleep - that's murder.
If both parties are awake and one is being attacked that would be self defense.

[Laelth]

28. Interesting. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[NoOneMan]

29. Again, this shifts the burden of lethal forces to a measure of relative perception

“Why should women live in anticipatory dread and hypervigilence?”

Why should anyone? Shouldn't the moment that anyone feels threatened, whether that threat is real and measurable, be therefore morally entitled to kill? IOW, this is very similar to the sentiment behind "Stand your ground". It matters not what the reality of the situation is, but only what one party perceives the reality is. You are then relying upon the veracity of an individual--who may be under psychological duress (caused perhaps internally as well as externally)--to accurately judge their level of fear and respond appropriately. And that is exactly why people like Georgie Zimmerman can justify their killings: it matters only what is going on inside their head, despite how inaccurate their head is perceiving the situation and what role they may have in creating it or they may have in avoiding it.

Are these good rules for a society to be governed by?

No, a society is morally entitled to lock up those who engage in domestic violence, in order to ensure the abused and potentially abused are safe. A society is not morally entitled to give those who think they are being abused a or those who think they are in danger a free pass to kill.

[HappyMe]

32. Excellent point.

This is dangerously close to an umbrella stand your ground type thing.

[Squinch]

54. It is nothing like George Zimmerman.

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

George Zimmerman had no experience with Trayvon. He had no reason to believe Trayvon was a threat.

This is a situation in which a woman has experienced abuse over and over, perhaps for years. She has probably been threatened, "If you ever try to leave me, I will hunt you down and kill you." If she is a woman who has stayed in an abusive relationship, and is now is at the point of leaving the abusive relationship, the man has probably come close to killing her more than once.

This isn't a matter of discomfort or "feeling threatened." This is understanding the likelihood that someone is about to kill you.

If one of the three girls that Ariel Castro had imprisoned for years had found a knife, would she have been wrong to kill him while he was sleeping in order to get away without him killing her? Because that's a better analogy.

Edited to change the weapon from gun to knife. Because some seem to be distracted and want to make this about guns. Like fish with tinfoil.

[NoOneMan]

87. "in which a woman has experienced abuse over and over, perhaps for years"

Then by all means, the society has every responsibility to lock up the abuser and protect the abused. Period. End of story

[seabeyond]

90. but they do not. Period. End of story. reality gets to be a part of the discussion.

[NoOneMan]

99. So are you suggesting not enough people are arrested and punished for domestic assault?

It would therefore seem saner to argue for a better enforcement of domestic assault laws and tougher penalties than to advocate murder.

[seabeyond]

102. firstly... i am not advocating murder. i ahve never said i agree with the conclusion the OP makes.

i am merely stating the facts that abused women live with and what this OP is saying, addressing misinformation and dismissing very real issues that abused women face. facts.

adn good luck on that. i do not thinl that tougher laws will prevent the abuser of this sort. they see ownership and power and controller over the person they are abusing and feel it is their right or their right to punish if that person leaves.

personally, i do not see that police can protect this woman. a nd i feel for the situation she is in. i know i do not have an answer. and i know she is really, actually, factually in dangers way of being murdered. it si the reality these women live.

[NoOneMan]

110. "i do not thinl that tougher laws will prevent the abuser of this sort"

It isn't easy to be abusive behind bars. Society should have zero-tolerance of domestic abuse. Should.

[seabeyond]

113. well. there is that. i hadnt thought about that cause we cannot even get a man that rapes a 14 yr

old sentenced in jail time.

or a coach that feeds alcohol to his 16 yr old student and rapes her unconscious. so i guess if we gave hard ass sentences to these men. but personally, where we are going in our society, i am not seeing it. congress tells us to put a aspirin between our knees, clarifies "legitimate" rape and calls us sluts if we take BC pills.

but ya... nooneman, that would be the solution. thank you. wont happen, but ya.

[Squinch]

93. Except society doesn't. So no. Not end of story. If that were the end of the story

you and I would be in complete agreement.

But, for example, the Supreme Court has recently made restraining orders useless and unenforceable. So while society is shirking its responsibility, you still have this madman who is fixing to kill you sooner or later. Now what do you do?

[NoOneMan]

101. "Now what do you do"

As members of a society, we need to pursue change to people do not fall in those situations. As individuals, we need to do what we must to protect those we love and the ones around us. Never as a society should we accept failure or complicity and recommend the individuals take matters into their own hands. What I mean is, it depends on the context. Advocating this action to a population isn't exactly practicing responsibility and it is somewhat giving up on what we should really be fighting towards.

[Squinch]

104. That's fine and yes, let's change society. But in the meantime, Mary Smith is in this situation

right now. I can't say I would fault her.

And PS, our laws are right now moving away from protecting women in this position.

[seabeyond]

107. "And PS, our laws are right now moving away from protecting women in this position" yes. nt

[laundry_queen]

145. Everything you said. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Uh, no

Once you start making arguments that "murder" is morally justified outside of any context other than direct self-defense you have moved away from morally defensible actions.

[noiretextatique]

37. i agree with her

if so asshole has just beat the shit out of you then falls asleep on the couch, i would not have the slightest problem with the abused person blowing his ass away. it may be the only time the victim can defend herself...when the perpetrator is incapacitated, that is.

[1000words]

39. Or you could go to a neighbor and call the police.

[HappyMe]

41. Hmm...now it seems guns are okay.

[Squinch]

70. Guns are not the issue. In fact, a gun would, in all likelihood not be available to be used.

The issue is, can you say that it is a certainty in some of these situations that the man will kill the woman if she doesn't kill him first? I think there are instances where you can say that. And if the gun thing is making you confused, then assume she drugs him.

[noiretextatique]

150. what if you HAVE called the police, several times? what if you don't have any neighbors?

a victim of violence does not always have the impeccable logic of random internet posters, or their imagined resources

[Upton]

40. Men can be victims of domestic violence too..

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence


I wonder if it would be okay with this professor if a male victim killed his female abuser? Somehow, I think not.

[Taitertots]

49. Revenge murder is NEVER morally justified

Call the police and leave that person. The idea that first degree murder is acceptable for people who make no effort to seek legal remedy for their problems is fundamentally immoral.

[BainsBane]

51. I don't believe killing is EVER a moral entitlement

They may be adjudicated not guilty due to battered women's syndrome, but that is far from saying their actions are morally just. The solution should be to provide adequate resources to help abused women and men extricate themselves from those situations.

[Kurska]

52. So if someone is trying to mug you and you knock them unconscious, can you shoot them dead?

How is this any different?

Killing is only justifiable as a response to an immediate and present threat.

[1000words]

58. "Killing is only justifiable as a response to an immediate and present threat."

Completely agree, but even law enforcement can't seem to get that one right.

[seabeyond]

59. generally when you get away from a criminal, that is the end. generally, in abusive relationships,

when a woman walks away, the man continues to follow. regardless how long and far she goes, he follows. that is the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship, when she has left. so all the people that tell her the police would save her, do not read the stats or listen to the news. all the people telling women to walk away would be simplifying the situation also.

again.... i am not agreeing with the OP, i am merely pointing out domestic violence reality too many women face.

[Kurska]

56. Hilarious, some very anti-gun and anti-self defense people in this thread doing mental gymnastics

to fit the murder of unconscious people not convicted of anything into their world view.

[Squinch]

60. "Anti gun and anti self defense people." Oy. You really don't get it.

[Kurska]

64. Yeah, gonna be honest. I don't understand why people might think murder is acceptable n/t

[Squinch]

80. That is the point. The point is not about guns. The point is at what point does self defense

become murder. Which would be an interesting discussion if it weren't hijacked by gun ADHD.

If it helps you focus, assume the killing was done with a knife or an overdose instead of a gun.

[Kurska]

82. Well, you can't engage in self-defense against an unconscious man.

If you were attacked by a mugger and knocked him unconcious, do you now have the right to murder him? I mean he could come to at any moment, best to be safe right?



Gun was the example given in the OP, any way it is done it isn't right though.

[seabeyond]

86. the mugger would not come after a person once they got away. the abuser is more likely to murder

once the woman gets away. see the difference?

[Kurska]

89. Possible, but what if you witness someone else comitting a serious crime.

And have reason to suspect they might not want you to tell the police about it and would be willing to kill you to prevent it.

Are you then free to stalk they person down and murder them.

A person who might have the motivation to harm you in the future is very very different than someone who is actively trying to harm at the moment. The law recognizes that distinction.

[seabeyond]

92. good story bro. one is creative writing, though, and another is a very real factual reality.

[Kurska]

94. Wow, one hypothetical situation being responded to with a similar one.

Dunno how I made that grave error of logic.

[seabeyond]

96. no. the fact that a woman is more likely to be murdered when walking than any other time.

that would be factual and not hypothetical. see the difference?

[Kurska]

98. And possible witnesses are murdered all the time in this country.

That wouldn't give the possible witness the right to murder an unconscious person, nor would it give a woman the right to do the same thing.

[seabeyond]

105. i do not think the stats even come close to being comparable. prove it. oh, and edit:

i am not saying that i agree with the conclusion of this Op arguing facts on the murder rate of abused women that walk from abusive relationships.

[Kurska]

108. Never said you were

Just because one is more common does't influence the amount of danger a person is in. The question is what is right once you're in the situation.

[seabeyond]

109. one is way more possible than another, yet that does not have a factor in lever of fear of being

murdered?

jump into an ocean where no sharks are seen, the odds of dying being eaten by shark way low. jump into an ocean into middle of school of sharks, the odds go way up of dying. to suggest that a one in a zillion chance of being murdered cause witnessed a crime is relative to the woman that walks away in an abusive relationship is ... wrong.

i am pointing out why this woman is making her points. it is something as a society we should know and be aware of. being a woman that has NEVER been abused, never been in a situation where i did not have 100% control of my own action, never had a situation where a man was disrespectful, let alone abusive, i too use to think the woman should just walk.

then i got educated and i understand the situation is not so simplistic.

that is all i am saying in this thread.

[Kurska]

114. The fear of being murdered is equally strong in both situations

It is the probably of the situation actually happen in the first place, but assuming they both happened that is the moral question I am presenting to you (one is more common, both have happened rather a lot).

If you don't think the woman should just walk, what do you think she should do?

[seabeyond]

117. i am way fearful sitting in the woods, afraid a bear will eat me. odds are way low, but i have equal

fear, regardlees if it is reasonable. and no, i do not think the stats even come close to saying your comparison is comparable.

solution?

i do not know.

and there you go.

i never had the answer from minute one. that i knew. i was not even in this thread to provide an answer. i was merely expressing the facts of the situation and why the issue is relevant in discussing.

i guess we should play it situation by situation and in court take into consideration, the facts. and apply in sentencing. maybe... i do not know. havent thought it thru.

i know i have heard of a lot of crimes that i hope they take into consideration what happened, in sentencing.

for example. a man in texas walked into a room with a grown man raping his 5 yr old child. he killed him. i hope at his trial, they take into consideration he walked into a room with a man raping his 5 yr old child.

[Squinch]

88. If a man had a contract to kill you and you knew it, and you came upon

him while his back was turned to you, would you have the right to kill him preemptively?

[Kurska]

91. Depends on the situation.

If he was actively looking for you yes, but if he was just on the street that would be murder.

Regardless, if he was unconscious it would never been justified.

[Squinch]

97. So you know this contract killer is going to kill you sooner or later, and you find him sleeping,

and because he is sleeping you decide to walk away and come back sometime when it seems like a fairer fight? And PS, he's twice your size, and armed, and you are not armed. (With whatever.)

[Kurska]

100. ....You don't fight them at all, you go to the police.

No one is allowed to murder an unconscious person.

[Squinch]

103. Going to the police doesn't really help. First, the teeth in the laws to protect

victims of abuse have been pulled by the supreme court. (As I said upthread, see, for example, Gonzales vs. Castle Rock which nullified the effectiveness of restraining orders.)

And when you get home from the police station, that contract killer (or husband) is still going to be waiting to kill you. The law can't do anything to a husband until he does kill you. I don't know about you, but I'm not waiting around for that.

[Kurska]

106. If you murder an unconscious person, you deserve to be sent to jail.

If someone commits a crime against you, you go to the police and report to crime. Under no circumstances it is every acceptable to find that person while they are asleep and then murder them. I understand how abuse is a terrible crime, but it does not give someone the right to unilaterally impose a death sentence on an unconscious person.

[Squinch]

112. And you and I have to disagree. I believe that, as you say, it depends on the situation.

If all your other options are exhausted, and you know that you can't overpower him, and you know he's going to kill you sooner or later, I don't think it's immoral.

[Kurska]

115. The point is you're presenting a perfect hypothetical.

How do you know for sure the woman was going to be murdered if she did try to walk away? How can you code into law that "murder is okay if you've exhausted all the other options". We're talking about legal matters, not necessarily ethics.

[Squinch]

118. We're deciding what we're talking about, so if we want to talk ethics, we certainly can.

In terms of legal matters, as I say, the Supreme Court has done a lot lately to reduce the protections for abused people. So I have little faith in the legal system in this situation. Which is why the ethical question becomes important. Legally, you're probably not going to get any help, and you are most likely going to go to jail, so for me, that's not the salient question. The question is, can you live with yourself if you are forced into it?

And knowing for certain? I think if there is a certain level of abuse, it becomes pretty clear that at some point you're not going to survive much more. I think it is possible to know when your spouse has gone over the edge in terms of his or her restraint from doing you irreparable damage. And statistically, by far the most dangerous time for women, the time when most women are killed, is when they try to walk away.

Yes, it is theoretical, as it necessarily has to be. But looking at legal cases of actual events, it is clear the law is going in the wrong direction. I keep quoting Castle Rock vs. Gonzales because I think it's absolutely unbelievable. It was different than what we are talking about but in that case a mother got a restraining order for herself and her three kids, but the father came and got the kids from school anyway, and the police wouldn't enforce the restraining order even though they knew where the guy was with the kids. The father ended up killing the three kids, and the Supreme Court ruled that the police department was within its rights not to enforce the restraining order because they decided the father's rights to see his kids held more weight than the restraining order.

That's where the law is going. Which means the law is not going to help anyone in an abusive situation, and is not the arbiter of ethics in those cases.

[DragonBorn]

123. Where the hell do you people live and whats wrong with your police

or do any of you have actual experience with a domestic violence case?

I do. Man hit woman, woman called cops. Cops came an arrested man. Man slapped with a temporary restraining order (1 year) and man is barred from the household.

How does the law not protect the women in that situation? Seriously can someone give me a mainstream example of women getting abused calling the cops and the cops going "Oh well tough cookies" and not a single example from some podunk town with a good ol boy problem.

DV cases are MUST arrest situations, cops are given no leeway in this situation. The only problem is when women do not wish to prosecute and be a witness at the trial. Then the prosecution goes to crap because their is no evidence with the exception of a police report and no complaining witness. If a man hits you call the police and leave. There is always a chance to call the police unless he literally has you chained up in the basement at which point killing him would be justified if you are a literal prisoner in your house.

Call the cops when you go to work, when he goes to work, when he's asleep anything but murder him in his sleep.

[seabeyond]

125. woman holds piece of paper saying stay away man. man walks up to her in parking lot, at work, in

the grocery store, breaks into home and kills her

all the while that paper is in her hand.

[raccoon]

142. THANK YOU. The person you responded to doesn't seem to realize that a restraining order is just

a piece of paper, and that barring him from the household is no assurance that he won't show up there.

[seabeyond]

127. just a start...

A mother-of-two who was denied a restraining order against her estranged husband was shot dead by the 33-year-old on the same day the divorcing couple were scheduled to appear in court.
Ingrid Agbebaku, 32, obtained a temporary restraining order against Eugene Agbebaku after he became ‘dangerously unstable’ following his February arrest for soliciting a female detective for sex, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
But, last month, that order was dissolved after a judge said Ingrid did not have enough evidence to prove it was necessary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156458/Woman-denied-restraining-order-shot-dead-estranged-husband-murder-suicide.html

The California woman police say was shot dead by her estranged husband last week was reportedly denied an emergency restraining order just six days before her murder.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-killed-husband-murder-suicide-asked-restraining-order-6-days-death-report-article-1.1065156#ixzz2ngoZzMT2

Authorities say a woman who was denied a restraining order against her estranged husband has died nine days after he shot her.

Police said 62-year-old Laurrissa Armstrong died Saturday at a Greensboro hospital. She was shot several times in front of her apartment on Aug. 29 as she got ready to go to her job as a teacher in High Point.

http://friendtofriend.me/greensboro-woman-killed-after-being-denied-a-restraining-order/

The murder-suicide of an estranged Petaluma couple outside her divorce attorney's office happened less than a week after the woman sought - and was denied - an emergency restraining order against her estranged husband, authorities said Thursday.

Kevin and Kim Conover had come to the attention of Petaluma police five times over the past year, with officers investigating complaints of domestic abuse or, in one case, an allegation that he had pushed one of her daughters from a previous relationship.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Slain-Petaluma-wife-was-denied-restraining-order-3495888.php

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Tacoma-woman-denied-protection-order-murdered-114522709.html

Friends of a woman stabbed to death over the weekend say the system failed after her request for a protection order against her ex-boyfriend was denied. Now, that man is charged with her murder.

Georgia Gunzer, 33, was stabbed to death late Friday night in her apartment. She wasn't alone. There were five girls, age 10, there for a slumber party. The girls found Gunzer's body Saturday morning.

The woman chased through a Fort Thomas office parking lot before she was shot four times Tuesday morning by her estranged husband had a protective order dismissed against him just four months ago.

Police said Alisha Waters Mathis, 31, was tracked down and shot by Dennis Mathis on Tuesday on her way to work at Personal Touch Home Health Care, located at 20 North Grand Ave. She remains hospitalized.

According to reports, Mathis, 32, chased his wife into the three-story brick office building, shooting her several times before turning the gun on himself. He died at the scene.

really... i can keep going. one after another after another.

[DragonBorn]

130. I don't want to seem callous

but that's four events over the course of 3 years in a country of 300 million. Look I'm not going to say it never happens that obviously false but it doesn't rise to a level where women are so lacking of any legal form of protection that their only recourse is to shoot a sleeping man as the professor advocates.

Like I've said before a restraining order is only a piece of paper if you really want to afford these women some level of protection where arresting the abuser won't work the only other options I can think of is having the woman leave the country or arming them.

At least one of those women in the article you linked would still be alive if she had a firearm on her person and the ability to use it. Now before anyone claims that I'm saying if a woman has a gun she'll never be hurt or killed; that's not what I'm saying. It just greatly increases her odds if a violent encounter takes place that she will be on the winning side of that encounter.

[seabeyond]

131. actually it is six. i just stopped copying and pasting. feel free to google death after restraining

order denied. i grabbed the top six. they continue on. how many do i have to copy and paste for you to even feign an interest? and this... is why i do not bother putting in much effort at all with these discussions. men.... SOME men will dismiss the very real factually, statistically based reality women face for whatever reason

ya.... callous. you may not want to seem callous. but, ya.

done.

[seabeyond]

129. last note before i walk... THIS is why i posted above. you immediately come down here and downplay

the fear these women have. a very legitimate fear. i told you i am not advocating what this Op is saying. but i am clarifying the risks and fear and facts against those dismissing the concerns. this is just what you did in this reply of yours.

that is not saying i agree with the OP. it is trying to get the damn facts, reality for so many women, in posters head so they can at least maybe comprehended the complex issue.

[DragonBorn]

132. They can have a legitimate fear

but it doesn't rise to the level of murdering an unarmed, sleeping man no matter what.

I not downplaying the fear these women have or their experiences but this professor seems to be feeding that fear in an unhealthy way. She's the Fox News for abused women. She should advocate for better laws, better access to emergency housing for women, but when you start advocating murdering a person who is sleeping you lose all legitimacy.

I know not that you do not agree with the OP and I assume its because you can see all the ways this can be abused and does not solve the underlying problem. That's what I'm arguing against, this faulty idea not battered women.

[seabeyond]

133. "I not downplaying the fear these women have" yes. you did on that post i replied to.

" it doesn't rise to the level of murdering an unarmed, sleeping man no matter what. "

fine. argue that. i am not going to argue with you

i will when you say.... where are you from. slap. call cops. arrest. restraining order. THAT is " downplaying the fear these women have or their experiences"

[Squinch]

139. Man slapped with temporary restraining order that man can violate at any time

and the police may or may not do anything about it. And if they choose not to, then legally they are not culpable. And if the choose to come to the house to enforce the restraining order, the man goes away, only to come back again when the police leave.

You guys don't really get it. If a man wants to kill "his woman" he most likely will.

And that's not a Podunk town. That's a Supreme Court decision.

[seabeyond]

61. IF you are referring to me, you would be wrong. again. i am pointing out what the OP is saying,

not a strawman being created by others. and i am pointing out the reality of what abused women experience and their justified fear, when others ignore or dismiss those very real fears.

that is not validating murdering the man in sleep.

or agreeing with the OP

[Kurska]

63. I don't call out posters, I remark on general trends I see.

I empathize strongly with anyone trapped in a abusive relationship, but murder is never the answer (murder is very different than justifiable homicide).

[seabeyond]

69. that could be your argument and i would say nothing. when someone dismisses what women

go thru or suggest they merely walk away, i will correct that incorrect argument. when someone misrepresents the OP and draws it away from topic at hand, i will correct it. the reason.... even though i do not agree with the conclusion, is there are some hard truths that people need to be aware of. to simply tell a woman to walk away, or get police protection is not going to do most women a hell of a lot of good.

[petronius]

62. It's complicated, certainly. My basic position is that it's morally wrong to kill

or injure another person except in the case of defending yourself or another from serious harm, that it's wrong to kill if you have an escape. But in the case of an abusive home situation, 'escape' may not be so simple a concept as just opening the door and running outside, particularly when someone lacks resources or connections and is already operating under significant mental and emotional trauma. I can reasonably see situations where a person quite realistically believed that the only viable escape was to remove the threat.

How to operationalize that legally I have no idea. I wouldn't support a blanket license to kill if prior abuse could be shown, nor do I think it's completely just to exclude self-defense just because someone could have walked out the door. Courts and juries should have the opportunity to weigh all factors - resources available to the abused partner, prior abuse, threats, mental state of the abused person, and so on...

[cali]

67. fuck her. this really sickens me- and I did live in that dread

what a filthy suggestion.

[Eleanors38]

71. How many times have I heard the accusation: "Vigilanteeism!"

(in other groups, of course).

[Demo_Chris]

72. silly

[seabeyond]

73. silly? a very real and deathly issue for abused women and you reduce it to silly? again, no

surprise.

edit to add: this does not mean i agree with the conclusion of the OP

[Demo_Chris]

137. Yeah, it's silly. Actually ' silly' is an understatement, it's laughable and absurd...

You know why of course, so there is no point in discussing it.

[seabeyond]

138. i expect no less from a man telling another man to walk up to "hot" women and offer 50 for a bj.

or that we as a society should not feel ick, should not shame men, or hold any value judgment toward the men that buy soiled schoolgirl undies from a vending machine.

reducing this issue to silly when discussing the very real, factual fear an abused victim feels is unconscionable.

[Demo_Chris]

140. As expected, you are being intentionally confrontational in an effort to provoke an angry response..

I don't recall suggesting that men walk up to 'hot' strangers and solicit sex for money from them. I don't have a problem with prostitution, but that's just creepy and undoubtedly illegal. And no, I don't really care if Japanese businessmen want to buy so-called used underwear, even if the advertisement pretends to offer 'schoolgirl' undies. I don't really care what they do in Japan, and I care even less about people's fantasy sex toys.

But then, that nonsense was just your flimsy strawman efforts to provoke a fight. And interestingly, to provoke a fight over a position you don't even believe and have not yet bothered to defend.

Why would you want to do that?

I suspect the answer to THAT question is far more interesting than the insane and psychopathic behavior suggested in this book. My theory is that you are perpetually pissed off over finding yourself posting in defense of invented outrages, like Bill O'Reilly and his imaginary War on Christmas, only for you it's year round.

But that's just a theory.

In any case, I don't have a lot of time to devote to your issues right now, so perhaps we can take it back up in the next thread.

[seabeyond]

141. "Alpha the hell up. .... offer them a fifty for a blow job"

Alpha the hell up.

Forget cuddling and sensitivity, forget listening and being their best girlfriend ever, forget everything you learned as a boy about what women want, and for god's sake

don't listen to the advice of any females. If I were to guess you are probably a NICE guy who cares a great deal about other people. More, I suspect that to you women are special magical creatures deserving of respect and consideration and pursuit -- you probably believe that you aren't good enough for them. Hell, your post says as much.

Wipe that BS out of your mind right now. You're smart, which means you probably tried to figure all this stuff out logically, based on the information you have been given all your life, and when it doesn't work you assume the problem is you. It's not. The problem isn't YOU, it's with the information you have been given. As they say, garbage in garbage out.

Confidence with women, like anything in life, just takes a little practice. Fortunately there are quite a few women out there to practice on. So turn on your brain and apply it to the problem. Instead of trying to do what everyone says you are supposed to do,

instead do what WORKS -- in your case that would be the opposite of what hasn't worked thus far. Talk to every attractive woman you see. Say hello, ask them out to coffee, offer them a fifty for a blow job. Whatever. Go ahead and fuck up, it's okay -- there are a hundred million more of them so who the hell cares. Stop giving a damn what they think. Stop CARING so damn much, stop liking them and worshipping them. Fuck that, if they want to be treated well they can damn well earn it.

If you are having trouble finding the confidence to get started, that's easy to fix too. PRETEND. You think Brad Pitt is really as "cool" as he seems in the movies? You think Tom Cruise really does the impossible? Hell no. It's called acting. So the next time you're feeling nervous ACT like one of these guys. Ask yourself how James Bond would ask out this woman, and do that. Believe it or not, that's how you build successful habits. And for Cthuhlu's sake don't fall in love with the first chick that you win. You're a wolf, a predator, so keep hunting.

god forbid a woman deserves respect and consideration. the horror

if this is not directly from MRA, reddit, mens voice. copy and paste

so no, i did not make it up. here are your exact words.

i bring up the soiled underwear not cause you care or do not care, but because you demand people respect the man that buys girls soiled undies to fantasize rape. they are not fantasizing conversation, helping homework, but rape of children. and my issue with your post was demanding we not feel ick, shame them or hold a value judgement.

again, straight from mra, reddit, mens voice.

In any discussion involving sexual morality and tribal taboo...

I always try to distance myself personally from the activity under discussion before assigning value judgments, and instead approach it with the assumption that sex is not something icky, gross, or shameful; and that sexual activity of any sort is fine (if you enjoy it) so long as no one else is being harmed. When considering any sexual activity, once you have dispensed with the first the later becomes much easier to define.

Let's say, for example, that I enjoy slathering myself in Vick's Vapo rub and retreating to my basement to furiously masturbate over back issues of Horse and Hound magazine. As I am sure you are aware, this is a common fetish, but it will do for starters. If we stipulate that there is nothing wrong with masturbation and that the horses are both unaware and uncaring (the hounds are, of course, flattered), it's easy to see that no one is physically harmed by this activity. It is therefore not "sick" -- whatever your own religion based cultural values might suggest.

And this remains true even if we substitute our now ragged Horse and Hound magazine for this month's edition of Cat Fancy or Farm Life, or even a picture of a model in a sailor suit clutching a backpack. Even if we add other people to the mix, labels like sick or wrong are not for you to assign. If my partner enjoys dressing up like a schoolgirl, complete with vending machine panties, and calling me Uncle Tickle, that's really none of your business and it's certainly not your place to call it sick. The most you can say is that it's not a turn on for you.

the reason i brought up those two instances of dismissing women so cavalierly is because once again, in this thread you dismiss a very real, very huge issue with women, their safety, their very life to .... silly.

you can assume, and apply all kinds of reasons for what i do. the reality is, once again, i came across another of your post, that takes the fear of a woman that has been long abused and reduce her concern to silly.

[Demo_Chris]

146. Amazing! I don't know whether I should be flattered or creeped out...

It's amazing that you remember single lines from posts I made lord knows how many months ago.

[Blue_In_AK]

74. This is a slippery slope.

Just how much battering justifies homicide? A slap, a push, a punch in the ribs, a black eye?

[Squinch]

77. Yes it is. And if there were any hope that law enforcement would protect abused women, I

would think it was ridiculous, but recent court decisions have made so that there is little recourse within the law for abused women. So I am not sure what else I would do in that situation.

[Blue_In_AK]

81. I think taking the perp out in self-defense

is clearly justified, but waiting until he's asleep or passed out? That seems premeditated to me.

[seabeyond]

83. every really abused woman knows their abuser does not so easily let go of their prey. that is she

watches her chance of survival drops, drastically.

again.... not agreeing with conclusion, but pointing out real facts that abused women face.

[Blue_In_AK]

111. And where I see the danger is in defining what "really abused" is.

I was knocked around quite a bit by my ex, had the black eyes, bruised ribs - I still have the scar above my eyebrow where he hit me with the remote control that he threw at me from across the room - so on and so forth, ad infinitum for 20 years. It never would have occurred to me to kill him in his sleep despite all that, but maybe a woman who didn't have quite my patience would have under similar circumstances. Would she be justified? I don't know.

It's a difficult question.

[seabeyond]

119. I don't know. It's a difficult question.

this is where i sit. you are absolutely right. i do not know either.

[Squinch]

84. Yes, but I think the question is how do you define

imminent threat? If the woman is certain she can't overpower him unless he is asleep, is it possible that he can he be an imminent threat even if he is asleep?

I am assuming this to be a situation where the abuse has been going on for a long time. If a woman is leaving that kind of situation, it has to have gotten worse in order for her to have made the decision. So it is possible that she has faced a really dire threat from him once or more than once in the past. Now she has decided to get away, but he has threatened her for years that he'll kill her if she does.

As I have asked before in this thread, what if one of Ariel Castro's captives had stabbed him while he slept? Would that have been justifiable? I can't say that it wouldn't, and some women experience imprisonment and control that is not much less than that situation.

[Captain Stern]

79. At first glance, this appeared ridiculous to me.

But after reading the article I've decided that she makes some good points.

She's not arguing that abused women should be given carte blanche to bash their sleeping husbands' heads in.

It sounds like that she's saying that the fact that a woman was routinely abused by said husband should be a mitigating factor in her trial/sentencing.

[indepat]

85. As a husband, a father of two girls, a grandfather to two girls, and

a great-grandfather of four girls, my thought is Elizabeth Sheehy's thesis has much merit, that abusive partners who batter should realize if they get wasted by a battered partner, that partner might not face any legal or criminal jeopardy as a consequence thereof.

[seabeyond]

95. my man...

not that i am agreeing with conclusion, but yea that you realize there is an issue.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

116. Well if you kill them, you can't drop charges against them later, I guess.

Sort of solves that problem.

[sarisataka]

121. Killing a person

when they are not presenting an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm is typically considered murder.

That said, if a woman kills a man who has a history of being an abuser will be given sympathetic consideration of her situation should I be on the jury.

[DonCoquixote]

126. Of course we need to address

The fact that abused women do NOT get the help they need, much less from the courts.

However, the idea of killing your partner when asleep is one of those instances where it is easy to make what Kipling would call a "trap for fools", where someone will read it, and think it means "go ahead and kill him while he sleeps." While there may be many women who would do this with good reason, all it would take is one well publicized bit of one who lies, then all hell will break loose.

That being said, a woman has a right to defend herself, and if said man tries to attack, or even use force in a way to intimidate or control, then said fool opens the door to whatever is coming to him.

[PeteSelman]

128. It's tricky but I agree on its face.

A "burning bed" situation would never get a guilty vote from me on a jury.

Anyone saying "just leave" or the like has no idea what it's like to be in a relationship with a controlling, manipulative, abusive person. In many cases the only way out is someone dying. It might as well be the abuser.

[fujiyama]

135. Who needs laws?

This woman is obviously just trying to stir the pot.

Why not extend this to child rapists and molesters? Most of the us can agree that perhaps no other crime is as horrifying as that which hurts a child, especially sexually. We may as well just have open-hunting season on child predators. I'd be cool with that. We already have a list of where they live!

[etherealtruth]

136. Entitled?

There are certainly circumstances where it appears justified ... but, entitled to kill an other human being?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

143. morally entitled ... is an odd phrase.

[Ilsa]

152. I've actually heard an "upstanding" "Christian" bank president say

that it's okay to beat your wife if she annoys you. He was a real entitled piece of shit.

At what point of a beating should a woman not think her life is in danger? How many broken bones must she suffer through? How many excuses and lies must she tell her family, pushing them to withdraw from her life, leaving her feel even more helpless?

Should she wait until he's harmed, even murdered her children?