Woman shot, killed estranged husband in driveway, police say

Status
Not open for further replies.
"It is pretty clear that the judicial system worked in this situation because the protection from abuse order was in place."
If she had to resort to defending herself, I'd say it failed dismally. It is unfortunately far too normal for victims to have protection orders 'selectively' enforced; the person named in the order usually is just emboldened by this, and the violence often increases in level to where the victim becomes fearful for their life. Many do nothing at that point, and end up dead. This one did do something.
 
I dont see how anyone could really have much of an opinion when roughly 99% of the story is missing.

Did she go outside and confront him with a gun instead of staying inside and calling the cops to enfore the restraining order while having a gun just in case he breaks the door down?

Did he even charge at her or was he just standing there asking her to give him back his figit spinners?

Did he ambush her when she came home and charge at her while saying "I'm going to kill you"?
 
"Is there more to the story?"

There is ALWAYS "more to the story". Whether we are ever privy to that is another matter.


"It is pretty clear that the judicial system worked in this situation because the protection from abuse order was in place."

"If she had to resort to defending herself, I'd say it failed dismally."

A "protection from abuse order" does not, in fact, provide any real protection from abuse. Looking up one legal site (this one from Pennsylvania), here's what they do:

https://www.palawhelp.org/resource/protection-from-abuse-7


  • order the abuse to stop;
  • evict the abuser from the house;
  • establish custody, partial custody, and visitation rights;
  • order the abuser to pay support, which can include health insurance coverage and rent or mortgage payments. (You must still file a separate support case with the domestic relations office within two weeks.);
  • order the abuser to stay away from you, your residence, your place of employment, or your school;
  • order the abuser to stop harassing you or your children;
  • order the abuser not to stalk you;
  • order the abuser to relinquish weapons, ammunition, and any firearms;
  • prohibit the abuser from acquiring or possessing any firearms for the duration of the PFA;
  • order the abuser to relinquish any fire arm license;
  • order the abuser to pay financial losses, including medical and moving expenses, which you suffered as a result of the abuse;
  • keep your address confidential, and order school districts, law enforcement agencies, and human services agencies not to disclose information about your whereabouts;
  • make other orders that will help stop the abuse.


TAKE NOTE: Nowhere in the things such an order can do is there any REAL "protection" involved. They're all a bunch of "orders"...and orders can be conveniently ignored. Unless, of course, the "make other orders that will help stop the abuse" actually involves positive action to stop or prevent the abuse instead of more "orders" not to do it.

What it DOES do is give a person SOME legal standing for the police to take a bit more action IF the person is actually caught violating the court order.

Unfortunately, if the violation is beating the bejeebers out of the "protected victim", it's a wee bit late.
 
macadore said:
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2018/07/woman_shot_killed_estranged_hu.html

It seems the woman was justified in shooting her husband. Am I missing something? Is there more to the story?
Click to expand...

How can we possibly know with the limited information we have?

In general the use of lethal force is justified only when a reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to prevent the imminent death or grave bodily injury of an innocent (for an overview of basic use of force law see this thread). The only information we have on that point is Ms. Dixon's reported statement that her estranged husband charged at her in an aggressive manner.

While that is certainly suggestive of legitimate self defense, it doesn't necessarily settle the matter. Also, it's not uncommon for someone who has just committed an act of violence against another, and who might claim self defense, to be nonetheless arrested while the matter is investigated. Sometimes the preliminary investigation supports a self defense claim, and the person is released. Sometimes the case goes to a grand jury which might decline to indict. Sometimes the person will be charges and go to trial.

Without more information we're just speculating. and not every claim of self defense ultimately holds water.

I'll leave this thread open for a bit to see if any additional information comes out.
 
This article just does not have any useful information in it as to just why she was charged. Probably a lot more to the story.
 
While we wait for more information, I like to comment that legal and psychological folks have argued about two things:

1. Given a history of abuse, can an action taking without a clear attack at the time be justified as some kind of pre-emptive or preventive action and seen as self-defense. The answer to that is strongly a NO.
2. Can a history of abuse be claimed to have produced spousal or battered wife syndrome for an argument of some kind of mental illness, diminished capacity as to excuse or mitigate the actions. That is very shaky in the mainstream psychiatric/psychology literature and in the scholarly legal literature. It is brought up at times, however.

We should wait for more information before speculation on these topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top