Felon Kills in Self Defense But May Go to Prison Anyway

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    Inalienable right to life >> felony conviction.
     

  2. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,585
    7
    38
    Wrong thats someting the Feds tacked on later. Its still wrong.
     
  3. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Think about most convicted felons and think about whether or not they should be allowed guns.

    In their own home, I have no problem as many live in neighborhoods that simply aren't safe due to all the unconvicted felons running around.

    Carrying, I have a big problem, especially those who became convicted felons because they used guns to commit their crimes.


    :shoot:
     
  4. ber950

    ber950 Active Member

    3,585
    7
    38
    Then they should not be on the street. Don't buy the premise.
     
  5. wwomack

    wwomack New Member

    160
    0
    0
    Either someone is safe to be a member of our society or they are not. I'm just as scared of a dangerous person with an automobile, gasoline & matches, baseball bats, knives, and numerous other things as I am of a dangerous person with a gun. If these felons are such dangerous people what the hell are they doing out and free? Everything in life can be a weapon.

    I really dislike that these laws make no distinction between violent felons and non-violent felons.

    Hell, in Georgia, you can be convicted of a felony for making moonshine, writing a bad check, unlawfully promoting boxing, having a fake id, gambling, statutory rape (for someone close to your own age), walking too close to a school or busstop while armed, advocating overthrow of the government, harming a police dog (no exception for self defense), among others. Most of these items are completely victimless and nonviolent. The only one of these that should even be a crime is the bad check (which is essentially theft).

    I don't understand why we need so many laws. What was wrong with just simple common law offenses like Theft, Murder, and other crimes directly against other people.
     
  6. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I agree. Far too many felony statutes on the books. Some of them should be misdemeanors and some should be civil infractions. Felonies should be reserved for the worst acts and I think there should also be a distinction in the law from violent and non-violent felonies when we are talking about taking away someone's civil liberties. Unfortunately, what all too often happens is a situation occurs that gets the public in an uproar and the legislature acts to create a felony statute where some other form of punishment would suffice in order to appear tough on crime.
     
  7. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Well, I was talking about non-violent felonies. Hers definitely qualified as violent.

    Not to get off on a tangent, but there was a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that she was abused by her husband. If what I have seen on the television about this case is true and I had been on the jury, she wouldn't have done any time at all.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Really? Her on kids did not back her up on that. Perhaps you could share some of this evidence with us (other than her after-the-fact testimony, of course).

    Besides, she claimed she did not remember pulling the trigger while he was sleeping, not that she shot him in self defense.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    “All I knew was that the stupid gun had went off, and nobody would believe me and they would just take my girls away from me,†she said.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    The prosecution has said the Winklers were in financial trouble that that bank managers were closing in on a check-kiting scheme that Mary Winkler wanted to conceal from her husband.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Maybe they should have hired you for the defense, since the best the defense attorneys could do was one witness who testified that he saw her with a black eye in 2003. There was nothing tying that to the now deceased Mr. Winkler.

    There was NOTHING about this abuse until after the murder.

    Now, people can keep secrets, but I should think that if the weird and cruel things she alleged to keep herself from going to prison were true, somebody would know about it.
     
  12. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0

    Her family says she was abused over a period of years

    Other people claimed she acted like a different woman around him and staff at his church claimed he was "demanding and cruel"

    Alabama Bureau of Investigation Agent Stan Stabler said he recalled Mary Winkler saying the abuse had “chewed on her.â€

    And I am sure you can find study after study that show that abused women who are seperated from outside support systems accept being abused. Some of them do "snap" and kill their abuser.

    I think that is what happened in this case. You obviously don't. I probably will not change your mind. You probably will not change mine.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    All three stories repeat the accusation of Thomsen, who is the person that testified.

    As for her father now saying that he saw all this abuse. Did her "family" testify? If not, why not? I can think of some reasons.
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Not based on the law, I guess.
     
  15. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    Well since neither of us sat on the jury and have only the media reports to go by, let's look at it this way .... the jury had the opportunity to convict her of murder but chose manslaughter instead. So if they did not believe she was abused, why find her guilty of the lesser charge?

    I think the answer is obvious. The jury thought she had been abused, but also thought she should pay some sort of penalty for killing her husband, so they compromised.
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Your faith in juries is obviously more solid than is mine.
     
  17. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I think most juries come to a reasonable conclusion. Not always, but most of the time. And when a jury gets it wrong, there is always a judge to correct it. In this case, if the judge thought the jury was wrong, he still could have sentenced her to twenty years instead of the few months she actually served.

    So did both the jury and judge get this one wrong?
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,679
    1,700
    113
    Hard to say, since I was not there, but the jury was not faced with "a hell of a lot of evidence of abuse."

    Frankly, if I believed evidence of abuse, I would go with manslaughter over murder. But, even so, the penalty was far too light in this case. No, the jury has nothing to do with the penalty, unless it is a death penalty case.

    As a shining example of the jury in a death penalty case, we have the Whitney and Jordan Land trial, where one of the two holdouts on the jury said she was not going to vote to send another beautiful black man to his death.

    Still, I prefer juries to star chambers or trial by combat.