What do you mean?
Kill Or Be Killed.
- Thread starter Angela 0077
- Start date
What do you mean?
I mean the 'sounds', like the ones in the clip we're discussing in this thread or the jingles and background 'music' in certain "news" programmes -clearly designed to provoke certain feelings in the viewer. When did the news become entertainment that requires a musical score???
Sometimes they even over-do it in live-action TV shows (CSI:Miami is a good example) to the extent of drowning out the dialogue or making the viewer turn down the volume so much that it becomes impossible to hear the dialogue when that comes back on.
That's kinda what I was thinking. If one day out of the blue he tried to kill her and she stabbed him with a kitchen knife she was using to cut chicken at the time, that's different. But if someone's mate etc. is abusive, and you have the freedom and time to walk away, and don't... and decide to plan a murder... and you have the mental cognizance to do so... it's a whole other thing. (I know of what I speak- but I haven't killed anyone).
I only watched half of the clip but what I saw was enough to convince me that what she did was probably the only option she thought she had. His fatal mistake was in threatening her kids and making her believe that he really would kill one or more of them. Until then, she seemed to accept her fate but once her children were in mortal jeapardy, she acted.
I've been in a situation close enough to hers to understand what she did and why she felt like she had to. Maybe it wasn't right but to my mind it wasn't any more wrong than shooting a rabid animal.
Jan
I've been in a situation close enough to hers to understand what she did and why she felt like she had to. Maybe it wasn't right but to my mind it wasn't any more wrong than shooting a rabid animal.
Jan
Angela 0077
Captain
There is a second part to this story it was on today tonight.
This time it was the husbands familys turn to tell what they thought of her.
I dont have time today but tomorrow l will try and find the clip.
This time it was the husbands familys turn to tell what they thought of her.
I dont have time today but tomorrow l will try and find the clip.
All news stories have to be presumed to be slanted to portray whatever the producers want to convey. You seem to have something in particular in mind, though. May I ask what your thoughts are? And did you watch the clip after all?
Jan
I have not yet. I have, however, watched too much commercial funded news to believe that reporting on such channels is 'fair and balanced'.
Why was the report broken in to two pieces in the first place ? Someone watching on one night only will only get one piece of the story.
A phrase I have no doubt you are familiar with: Understanding is a three edged sword - your side, their side and the truth.
Naturally. And as far as I can tell, ACA is a 'news magazine', isn't it? Those don't generally even try to pretend to be balanced but they do often look at more viewpoints than are generally presented on regular news programs.
Could be any number of reasons but I think it would have been difficult to pull off presenting both sides at once from an editorial standpoint. I don't see that it's the media's job to ensure that a viewer gets all points of view, it's up to the viewer to seek those out.
Yeah, I may have heard that once or twice.
But the thing is, the truth can generally be discerned if one examines the different sides as well as the facts. And speaking of which, I'll admit that while I have an opinion, it's not a really informed one, since I didn't watch the entire clip, won't be watching the second segment and don't plan to look for more information on the case because it hits a bit too close to home for me.
Which adds still a third (positively Minbari) filter to the sides presented by ACA. There's no way I can see something like that through anything but the filter of my own personal experience. Nor can anybody, I don't think. Some filters will be more obvious than others and everybody's will be different.
Jan
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Murder is now legal in the State of Australia...er...country.
I disagree. It is the job of a journalist to investigate and present the facts, not their own opinion. And it's certainly not the job of a journalist to create sympathy for one side of an argument.
I agree. You come at this from your perspective, I come at this from the perspective of someone who believes that male lives, health, rights and happiness are devalued in today's society and, more importantly than that, someone who strongly disagrees with the death penalty and the use of violence as punishment. Since this woman was not acting in immediate self defence, she is undeniably guilty of murder and her accomplices are just as guilty.
I do not defend her husband in any way. There are failures in the support networks that could have prevented this, for sure. However, I cannot defend or tolerate the taking of life in this manner.
That's certainly a valid point of view but I'm afraid that as long as news is a commercial enterprise--which it pretty much always is unless it's government-run--it's not realistic to expect any kind of neutrality.
By the same token, I think that it is valid for journalists to examine the emotional core of a news story.
Which I don't disagree with entirely (it's a bit broad) but I also believe that the only way to fight that is to refuse to participate at all in those tactics rather than turn them in the other direction.
Here's where I have to disagree. Again, from my limited exposure to the story (and personal filter, of course), there was little or nothing that the regular channels of protection were likely to be albe to do to protect her *and* her children. I'm sorry, but a restraining order (or whatever the Australian equivalent is) is *no* protection whatsoever. It's a piece of paper, nothing more, and being served would likely have enraged him and prompted retaliation. Regardless of whether you think it was just or not, vigilante action or anything else, it seems likely that she *believed* that the only option she had to protect her children was to eliminate him herself. Remember, she was subjected to abuse for 20-ish *years* but didn't do anything until he threatened the children and made it clear to her that he was willing and able to carry out his threat.
The clip I saw made it clear that the husband's pattern of domination kept escalating until she needed his permission to do almost everything or she'd be beaten. Given that pattern, how could she have believed that he was only bluffing about killing her children?
Even if what she believed was untrue and all she needed to do was walk out and there'd never have been retaliation from the husband (something we obviously will never know), what she believed and why she believed it is a valid piece of evidence in the case because of how she likely was indoctrinated during the years of her marriage.
If what I believe about the husband is true, I'm perfectly fine with it on the theory that he was no better than a rabid animal and needed to be put down.
Jan
^As I said, I cannot tolerate the death penalty or violence as a means of punishment under any circumstances. Allowing this woman to walk away is no different to sentencing him to death for the crimes he committed against her.
The fact that his assaults on her did not lead to an extended prison sentence is a failure of the justice system to protect her.
The fact that his assaults on her did not lead to an extended prison sentence is a failure of the justice system to protect her.
This is our main point of difference. I don't see it as a means of punishment, I see it as a means of prevention regardless of whether she or her children were being threatened at that very moment.
Completely agreed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Jan
I think that if battered wife syndrome was proved then the woman was probably guilty of manslaughter at the most. I think that the jury would have to be convinced that most reasonable people would end up taking the course of action she took if they were subjected to the same level of abuse.
This isn't the first time a killer has walked free in Australia because they were abused by the person they killed. Back in the 1970s the brother of a Miss Australia shot his father dead. He, his sisters and his mother were physically abused for years (if I remember correctly the girls were sexually abused as well). The brother was convicted of manslaughter despite the killing being premeditated. I think he was given a five year good behaviour bond.
This isn't the first time a killer has walked free in Australia because they were abused by the person they killed. Back in the 1970s the brother of a Miss Australia shot his father dead. He, his sisters and his mother were physically abused for years (if I remember correctly the girls were sexually abused as well). The brother was convicted of manslaughter despite the killing being premeditated. I think he was given a five year good behaviour bond.
