“The female residents of the village support the husband.”
long lasting treatment.
Pretty sure anything else I might say would violate community standards!
Well now that we see how criminals are treated in the Ukraine, is it any wonder VP Biden used his influence to get his son out of trouble?
Let me get this straight. The husband faces 8 years for causing great bodily harm but the suspect only faces 5 years for rape? What’s wrong with this picture?
@Michael1 The husband went Lorena Bobbit on the perpetrator and husband is in trouble for Cleaverizing that poop ball. He was defending his wife. Maybe I am old fashioned but I was raised to protect women because back in the 1950’s and 1960’s and ‘70’s men were raised to respect women.
Even here in the US that guy would be looking at serious time.
Revenge is not an act of self defense no matter how justified it is on it’s face.
No Revenge, there’s a point where it ceases to be defense and goes to assault
Interesting scenario! In the US, in most states, had he used deadly force it would likely be justified. But, after getting the attacker off his wife, taking out his pocket knife and doing frontal LopItOffofMe, it became an assault causing serious physical injury with a dangerous instrument. Under KY law, the rape would be a Class A felony with penalties up to life in prison without parole. The assault would be Assault 1st punishable by 10-20 years. I don’t understand how the rapist’s crime is less heinous than the husbands.
Here is one of the beautiful parts of our legal system. In some cases, juries refuse to convict someone of a crime for various reasons. One such circumstance is a sympathy verdict. When the jury believes that the defendant was justified in doing what the defendant did. We see this in most instances in battered women cases. When the wife kills the sleeping husband after she had been beaten. It is not self defense since he is asleep, but juries often don’t see it that way and acquit the defendant.
You are correct. There was a woman in Clovis, NM back in the 70’s who was no billed for a clear act of murder for that very reason.
She’d been battered for years,the husband came home one night drunk again and started wailing on her. The young son, elementary age, jumped in and started beating dad with if I remember right a hammer.
He knocks the kid out of the room and turns to the woman saying something to the effect of “wait till I get through with the little bastard and I’ll be back to finish with you”.
There was an 870 Remington in the closet that was plugged for waterfowl hunting.
She shot him seven times meaning she had to reload it at least twice.
DA dropped it knowing that he’d likely never get an indictment and that if he managed to he’d never get a conviction.
Got reelected as well.
I’m sure I’d go crazy if someone raped my wife or daughter.
Commonly lethal force is a last resort, if an attacker fails to stop use force (not lethal force, commonly gunpoint). In the seemingly rare event that even gunpoint and stern commands fail… Only at that point if no other less than lethal options are available, you may be forced to use the last resort.
OP I understand your meaning here but let me suggest proofreading and a rewrite for clarity.