Who Gets to Kill in Self-Defense?
September 8, 2024 8:42 AM Subscribe
Who Gets to Kill in Self-Defense? (NYT, Sept 4, 2024, ungated gift link)
"We make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax. We do so because throughout the history of our legal system, we have been inclined — in many cases, overly inclined — to make exceptions for men’s violence while giving very little thought to what might drive women to the same act."
"The couple’s four children were all teens or preteens by the time Mr. Ayobi died, and three of them spoke to me, independently, about how terrified they were of their father and how utterly sure they were that by killing their father, their mother had saved their lives."
"Among the most haunting statements from many women I’ve spoken with was that they were sorry to be going to prison but that at least in prison the violence against them would stop."
"The couple’s four children were all teens or preteens by the time Mr. Ayobi died, and three of them spoke to me, independently, about how terrified they were of their father and how utterly sure they were that by killing their father, their mother had saved their lives."
"Among the most haunting statements from many women I’ve spoken with was that they were sorry to be going to prison but that at least in prison the violence against them would stop."
Fascinated to hear that Canada allows for planned killing to escape abuse! I would love to hear more about that legislative process and what norms exist there that don’t here such that the change was possible.
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on September 8 [8 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:52 AM on September 8 [8 favorites]
I hate how the NYT has to throw in tech fanciness (black screen periodically in this one was irritating) to show off. It made it hard to read in places.
The proctoring experience sounds heartbreaking. The women who wanted to talk were losing 8 cents of pay (good god) for this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 AM on September 8 [8 favorites]
The proctoring experience sounds heartbreaking. The women who wanted to talk were losing 8 cents of pay (good god) for this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:53 AM on September 8 [8 favorites]
I would love to hear more about that legislative process and what norms exist there that don’t here such that the change was possible.
As the article notes, the 2013 law was mostly a codification of the precedent set in R v Lavallee, where the circumstances were:
In the early morning hours of 31 August 1986, during a particularly serious fight Rust threatened to harm her, saying "either you kill me or I'll get you" per her statement to the police.[5] During the altercation Rust slapped her, pushed her and hit her twice on the head. At some point during the altercation he handed Lavallee a gun, which she first fired through a window screen. Lavallee first contemplated shooting herself; however when Rust turned around to leave the room she shot him in the back of the head.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 12:23 PM on September 8 [5 favorites]
As the article notes, the 2013 law was mostly a codification of the precedent set in R v Lavallee, where the circumstances were:
In the early morning hours of 31 August 1986, during a particularly serious fight Rust threatened to harm her, saying "either you kill me or I'll get you" per her statement to the police.[5] During the altercation Rust slapped her, pushed her and hit her twice on the head. At some point during the altercation he handed Lavallee a gun, which she first fired through a window screen. Lavallee first contemplated shooting herself; however when Rust turned around to leave the room she shot him in the back of the head.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 12:23 PM on September 8 [5 favorites]
When I teach self-defense I have to mention that just because you have the right to defend yourself it doesn't mean you won't get arrested. If someone attacks you and you hit back right as the cops show up, you look like the attacker to them. Or if you use more force than the cops think was justified. Or if the attacker dies. If you're lucky (i.e. white, in many cases) you'll likely be fine. If not, though, it could be the beginning of a very long and expensive ordeal.
Students are still taught how to hurt and potentially kill an attacker. If it's your life potentially on the line, you have to do what you have to do.
posted by tommasz at 1:06 PM on September 8 [7 favorites]
Students are still taught how to hurt and potentially kill an attacker. If it's your life potentially on the line, you have to do what you have to do.
posted by tommasz at 1:06 PM on September 8 [7 favorites]
Also see Chrystul Kizer, who killed her 34-year-old abuser and trafficker when she was 17, and has now been sentenced to 11 years in prison. Four months prior, police had arrested her abuser for sexual assault, seized CSA material that featured Kizer and other children, and let him go on bail.
posted by Headfullofair at 2:22 PM on September 8 [14 favorites]
posted by Headfullofair at 2:22 PM on September 8 [14 favorites]
Yeah, the judge that sentenced Chrystul Kizer should rot in hell. Why is it in this day and age someone who is abused is prosecuted and some little strutting bastard like Rittenhouse is let off scotfree? Because white. Because there is no justice. Burn it all down.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:51 PM on September 8 [11 favorites]
posted by BlueHorse at 2:51 PM on September 8 [11 favorites]
Another Canadian case made into a TV movie (Life With Billy) was that of Jane Hurshman. Hurshman was interviewed about her abuse (which was really awful) and public sympathy was with her, but she never found peace and killed herself in 1992. I recall this story having an enormous impact. She was first found Not Guilty of murder, but the Crown got a Guilty plea to Manslaughter. The judge gave Hurshman six months, she only served two but even that seemed too much. The 2013 law came about because of too many cases like this.
posted by CCBC at 3:27 PM on September 8 [4 favorites]
posted by CCBC at 3:27 PM on September 8 [4 favorites]
No one gets to kill anyone for any reason.
posted by mattiv at 5:40 PM on September 8 [1 favorite]
posted by mattiv at 5:40 PM on September 8 [1 favorite]
"No one gets to kill anyone for any reason" is a good baseline rule, but what the law struggles to do is cope with instances of people breaking that rule. If the rule goes so far as to preclude killing someone who is actively trying to kill you, it then becomes a shield for the aggressor, and is honored only in punishment rather than prevention - essentially, the attacker possesses a privilege the deceased is denied. They get to decide whether or not the victim dies.
Self-defense is a difficult concept to come to grips with, sure. Pure pacifism, and the use of state violence to enforce same, puts us in the position of asking these women to just die, with the promise that we'll do something to their attacker. In my jurisdiction, that's true unless the attacker is going to kill them right then and there- which again gives the abuser the privilege of constructing his assault in such a way that she'll never get the chance.
posted by ProtagonistZero at 6:09 PM on September 8 [19 favorites]
Self-defense is a difficult concept to come to grips with, sure. Pure pacifism, and the use of state violence to enforce same, puts us in the position of asking these women to just die, with the promise that we'll do something to their attacker. In my jurisdiction, that's true unless the attacker is going to kill them right then and there- which again gives the abuser the privilege of constructing his assault in such a way that she'll never get the chance.
posted by ProtagonistZero at 6:09 PM on September 8 [19 favorites]
Pure pacifism, and the use of state violence to enforce same, puts us in the position of asking these women to just die, with the promise that we'll do something to their attacker. In my jurisdiction, that's true unless the attacker is going to kill them right then and there- which again gives the abuser the privilege of constructing his assault in such a way that she'll never get the chance.
And in some cases, not only are we asking these women to just die, we are asking them to potentially watch their children die, or for these women to die knowing that their children are next. Just look at the first case study - Ms. Ford - in this article. She got away, her husband tracked her down, got the kids from the babysitter, and threatened to kill them if she didn't come back.
The article didn't get into this, but another significant problem for women with children in this situation is even if they can find a way to divorce their husband without him killing her, then there's still a significant risk of the husband getting at least partial custody of the children. Which not only means the children are at risk without her their to protect them, but also, she can't just disappear - she has to still have contact with him, which means she's never safe.
Society fails these women in so many different ways. It's hard to prove domestic violence, it's hard for women to get away, to prove that the abuse exists so that they can get sole custody of the kids. After all, my understanding is it's generally not legal for one parent to just disappear with the kids. And then if they kill their abuser, they have no legal recourse.
posted by litera scripta manet at 5:36 AM on September 9 [12 favorites]
And in some cases, not only are we asking these women to just die, we are asking them to potentially watch their children die, or for these women to die knowing that their children are next. Just look at the first case study - Ms. Ford - in this article. She got away, her husband tracked her down, got the kids from the babysitter, and threatened to kill them if she didn't come back.
The article didn't get into this, but another significant problem for women with children in this situation is even if they can find a way to divorce their husband without him killing her, then there's still a significant risk of the husband getting at least partial custody of the children. Which not only means the children are at risk without her their to protect them, but also, she can't just disappear - she has to still have contact with him, which means she's never safe.
Society fails these women in so many different ways. It's hard to prove domestic violence, it's hard for women to get away, to prove that the abuse exists so that they can get sole custody of the kids. After all, my understanding is it's generally not legal for one parent to just disappear with the kids. And then if they kill their abuser, they have no legal recourse.
posted by litera scripta manet at 5:36 AM on September 9 [12 favorites]
Not only that, at least when I was getting divorced, in the US, I was told that child custody is actually harder for victims to get, because the court “best interests of the child” meant they were more likely to give custody to the person who said they had no problems with the other persons and would thus be more likely to facilitate visitation with the non custodial parent. So being a victim of abuse meant you were less likely to get full custody.
posted by corb at 7:46 AM on September 9 [12 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:46 AM on September 9 [12 favorites]
> mattiv: "No one gets to kill anyone for any reason."
This sentence can be read as a normative statement about morality (e.g.: what ought to be) or as a descriptive statement about the state of the world (e.g.: what actually is). The latter reading is, unfortunately, false.
posted by mhum at 3:15 PM on September 9 [4 favorites]
This sentence can be read as a normative statement about morality (e.g.: what ought to be) or as a descriptive statement about the state of the world (e.g.: what actually is). The latter reading is, unfortunately, false.
posted by mhum at 3:15 PM on September 9 [4 favorites]
A friend of mine has an abusive ex, and after spotting him being abusive... I forget if it was to any of his hordes of children or the girlfriend at the time or what, this was pandemic year, but she wanted to get full custody. Not only did she not get that, the judge harassed her, she started losing on her end, and she couldn't afford a lawyer. Finally they went back to the current 2-day-a-week-for-him custody arrangement, right back where they started, and that's as good as it gets.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:02 PM on September 9 [5 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:02 PM on September 9 [5 favorites]
« Older Bob Dylan’s 60 Greatest Songs: Chosen by Paul... | It's pronounced with a hard G Newer »
If you kill a person and you *are* someone the right-wing considers subhuman… you’re very screwed.
posted by chasing at 9:21 AM on September 8 [29 favorites]