-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod
- Thread starter Producer
- Start date
While no one here has seen all of the evidence, or even most of it, it appears the good doctor may have the makings of a strong defense.
Having said that, the battered woman's defense is quite risky. If she wins at trial, she wins big. If she loses, the punishment may well prove severe.
Since she has admitted shooting her husband, the she does not have the defense of claiming it was an accident. She has to convince the jury that it was pure self-defense, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.
I wish her, and her counsel, all the best. It is truly sad that it had to come to this.
Having said that, the battered woman's defense is quite risky. If she wins at trial, she wins big. If she loses, the punishment may well prove severe.
Since she has admitted shooting her husband, the she does not have the defense of claiming it was an accident. She has to convince the jury that it was pure self-defense, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.
I wish her, and her counsel, all the best. It is truly sad that it had to come to this.
Last edited:
Hey now, lets not stereotype us young ones out here!
![[crying]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/006.gif "Crying [crying]")
If she is proven to be justified in self defense she should get a lifetime ltc imo.
-Tom
It's been a long time since I've read so much crap. There's been statements made in here that I honestly can't believe I'm reading. To all the other mods - I'm done with this one. I won't be reading anymore of it.
reinbeau
NES Member
I know, Tom, and I'm sorry, I'm the one who doesn't like generalizations. There are many young people out there with good heads on their shoulders, thankfully!Hey now, lets not stereotype us young ones out here!
Sounds like you're one of them!
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Thank you! (and to others to who expressed the same)
You are JUMPING to a conclusion! Do you KNOW this as FACT? I certainly don't!
Thanks to those that understood what I wrote. I especially appreciate the acknowledgment from the women on NES, as it is very difficult as a male to understand women (no joke here).
To the story at hand:
- We don't know all the facts and probably never will. We can hope that the jury hears ALL the facts and Counselor Reddington is a good one to try to ensure this happens.
- Some assume that the son started a fight with his father over the injuries to his mother! What if all the son did was say something like "Dad, you shouldn't hit Mom!" and the father started after the son physically? See, this could have gone down any which way . . . we just don't know!
- Do we KNOW for a FACT that he never threatened to kill her/them if he was reported to the police, if she ran away, etc.? Big unknown at this point, unless you have some inside info that the rest of us lack.
- Many women don't report abuse to the police. They don't want their spouse arrested, they realize that if the abuser is arrested, he's likely to get even angrier and be more abusive once he's released (they all get released) and a 209A is only a couple of sheets of paper, it won't stop a knife, fist or bullet!
- A police report against her spouse could easily hurt her professional reputation as a doctor. The crap the media reports has a way of destroying people!
All that I'm pointing out above is that a small change in information makes this a very different picture . . . and since we don't have all the information, jumping to conclusions is a bad thing to do.
-------------
Now for some facts:
- Even the spouse/SO that calls the police in a domestic will turn on the police when they arrive and try to separate the parties. I've been there as a responding PO and seen it with my own eyes (scared the shit out of me . . . and the perp made a comment as to how "white" my face was when we got him out of the room he was holed up in)!
- The "doubting Thomases" here should read the Gloria Shaffer case (the one that led to the MA version of the "castle law"). RKG quoted the case cite here a short while ago. Here's some info on that case that was told to me by the arresting officer (my late chief and good friend). He told me that he felt very bad about having to arrest and prosecute her, but the law at the time left him no choice.
* She was getting a divorce and had thrown him out of the house.
* He broke in and had threatened to burn her and their children to death as they slept some night.
* She retreated to the cellar, grabbed a .22 rifle and warned him to leave the house, he continued down the stairs and she shot him dead.
* The court convicted her, claiming she could have run out of the house.
* Problem is since he threatened to burn them alive while they slept, she wouldn't have been safe anywhere from him coming after her.
What if the Doctor's case is similar to the above (Gloria Shaffer)?
To the story at hand:
- We don't know all the facts and probably never will. We can hope that the jury hears ALL the facts and Counselor Reddington is a good one to try to ensure this happens.
- Some assume that the son started a fight with his father over the injuries to his mother! What if all the son did was say something like "Dad, you shouldn't hit Mom!" and the father started after the son physically? See, this could have gone down any which way . . . we just don't know!
- Do we KNOW for a FACT that he never threatened to kill her/them if he was reported to the police, if she ran away, etc.? Big unknown at this point, unless you have some inside info that the rest of us lack.
- Many women don't report abuse to the police. They don't want their spouse arrested, they realize that if the abuser is arrested, he's likely to get even angrier and be more abusive once he's released (they all get released) and a 209A is only a couple of sheets of paper, it won't stop a knife, fist or bullet!
- A police report against her spouse could easily hurt her professional reputation as a doctor. The crap the media reports has a way of destroying people!
All that I'm pointing out above is that a small change in information makes this a very different picture . . . and since we don't have all the information, jumping to conclusions is a bad thing to do.
-------------
Now for some facts:
- Even the spouse/SO that calls the police in a domestic will turn on the police when they arrive and try to separate the parties. I've been there as a responding PO and seen it with my own eyes (scared the shit out of me . . . and the perp made a comment as to how "white" my face was when we got him out of the room he was holed up in)!
- The "doubting Thomases" here should read the Gloria Shaffer case (the one that led to the MA version of the "castle law"). RKG quoted the case cite here a short while ago. Here's some info on that case that was told to me by the arresting officer (my late chief and good friend). He told me that he felt very bad about having to arrest and prosecute her, but the law at the time left him no choice.
* She was getting a divorce and had thrown him out of the house.
* He broke in and had threatened to burn her and their children to death as they slept some night.
* She retreated to the cellar, grabbed a .22 rifle and warned him to leave the house, he continued down the stairs and she shot him dead.
* The court convicted her, claiming she could have run out of the house.
* Problem is since he threatened to burn them alive while they slept, she wouldn't have been safe anywhere from him coming after her.
What if the Doctor's case is similar to the above (Gloria Shaffer)?
Last edited:
No, I do not know anything I wrote as fact. But neither does anyone else out here and they are allowed to form an opinion without persecution from the rest.
I'm just not going to quickly jump to this woman's defense because she has a few bruises on her face and a legally owned firearm. I'm not as young as some might think and I grew up in some of the lesser desired areas of Boston. I know women that will greet you with a hug and a smile and thrust a knife through your gut at the same time.
So pardon me for not jumping to the good doctor's defense. It's a shame that so many out here jump to her defense not knowing any more than I do and without knowing all the facts. I, like you, have offered different scenarios where the doctor may not be innocent and I've taken my lumps for it. I have no issue with that.
You tell me it's dangerous to jump to any conclusions without the facts but isn't that what most of the rest out here have done....especially the women? Yes they or some speak from personal experience but they weren't there during this event and I apologize if this stirs up bad memories for them.
I offered my honest opinion no matter how crude and disgusting some may think. I've witnessed domestic abuse and I've seen the bruises on a woman who was at death's door because of the beatings. Not that it should come to that before one defends herself but the doctor's bruises, IN MY OPINION, where from being slapped around not from someone trying to kill her.
Regardless of what I or any of you think it will not be up to us to decide her fate.
And I don't think it's ok to shoot and kill someone prevent a perceived future threat. Although this state is so screwed up I suppose someone could get away with it.
I'll stop posting here too.....
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
Neptune Cat
NES Member
Obviously he means; good for her for shooting her husband, if it was warrented.
Anything other meaning that could be taken from that sentence would be absurd. I think we are all on the same team concerning justice being delivered. We just don't agree on some of the finer points. Because we don't know the facts we all make assumptions, and these assumptions are based on our own experiances. This means our assumptions can be very wrong since none of us were part of this particular experience.
SKS, you are playing devils advocate on this one and that is not a bad thing. That should make people think about the other possibilities (how many of us where to quick to condemn the Duke lacross players?). Things are not always as they seem. I would bet against you SKS, but I've lost my share of bets in the past.
I disagree. If anyone threatened another in my family or someone I love. And If I thought that if said threat was acted upon, it would be to late to counter. And if I believed the threat could truly be carried out. Under some circumstance I may eliminate that threat, knowing my life will be changed forever. I'ts better than the guilt I would feel if I let something happen to a good person.
TY43215
NES Member
Do a google search for 'doctor shoots husband and this comes up as the number two item:
Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod - Page 10 - Northeastshooters.com
Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod General Discussion.
www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=241107 - 28k - Apr 10, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
That google spyder is quick !
Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod - Page 10 - Northeastshooters.com
Doctor Shoots Husband on Cape Cod General Discussion.
www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=241107 - 28k - Apr 10, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
That google spyder is quick !
edin508
NES Member
Why would you stop posting ? You are making good points.
I think it is quite interesting that everyone is taking her side without knowing the whole story, it seems to be automatic.
We don't know much of anything about this case but what the media has decided to tell us. But then again the media only tells us the truth so we should believe what they are telling us and all of this is true and accurate.
There is allot we don't know about this but it seems everyone has already made up their mind that she is an angel. Maybe she is the manipulative one? And yes that happens too, too many early conclusions here for so little info.
*disclaimer*
I also think if you hit a women you are a piece of scum sucking crap that should be brought out back, beaten, and left for the vultures. But we DON"T know what happened here.
edin508
NES Member
Cops show up and she has a gun. SHE SAID she shot her husband. She is NOT innocent here, she admitted her guilt. SHE KILLED SOMEONE !!!
Now that she killed someone and admitted it, wouldn't it be her problem to prove the rest of her story. That is was self defence !!!
The cops were not there either, they don't know what happened previous to them showing up. All they know is that there is a dead guy in there and someone is admitting to shooting him. They have NEVER showed up at this residence for a domestic before so they don't have any history to clue them in that this is truly a self defence case.
I have been on the end of a lying bitch before. Its not fun getting restraining orders at 3 am. That would be me talking to the cops to keep my ex the hell away from my kids and myself.
Sorry but you people seem to forget the crazy bitch scenario.
Isn't there another crazy women story on the news now, yes there is. NASA is looking for some new employees. Don't underestimate people.
We need more FACTS. That is all, just facts not hearsay.
Last edited:
Garys
NES Member
Guilt is not the act, it's the intent behind the act. So, she admitted nothing. She is innocent of a crime until it's been proven that she committed one.
No, it would be the state's problem to prove that she killed illegally, not her job to prove that she didn't. Self defense is part of her case, as will be the character and actions of her husband.
They still have to prove that she acted illegally. Prior history will no doubt be part of the case, but her lawyer will probably ask someone "How many beatings does a woman have to take, how many hospital visits are required before she has a right to defend herself?".
Frankly, I think that this could be a watershed case for women's rights to self defense and legal gun ownership. The head shaking, solemn looks, and tsk tsking of the media aside, this is a perfect example of a woman using a firearm to protect herself.
Gary
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
GaryS has already rebutted most of your other points, so I'll just mention that a good friend of mine is dealing with a crazy bitch right now - argument, she stomps out, calls cops, claims he has a gun (pellet gun and paintball gun) and it threatening to kill her.
I know him, don't know her - he's a mild-mannered geek that I cannot see threatening ANYONE... so please don't throw that in my face.
All I said is that she hasn't been convicted by anyone except you and sksguns yet. Why don't you wait until the court case is done before burning her at the stake?
reinbeau
NES Member
Edin, I'm using your post to make a point, it isn't necessarily directed t you.
I think this quote sums up nicely what's going on here. One lying bitch and all women are lying bitches. That's the problem with women who use this type of thing to make trouble for men. Problem is that isn't always the case, and I don't believe it's the case here.
But those men burned or those who know one who has been will never, ever believe a woman again.
In Massachusetts, once the defense raises the defense of self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts.
The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts.
I agree Ann, it sucks that some losers ruin it for the women who do get hurt. That Duke Lacross case is yet another example. [sad2]
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Can you clarify this a little more. I don't pretend to me a lawyer, but I thought the prosecutor's case was already made - a homicide was committed and the onus is her to prove it was justified by jeopardy, dispartiy of force, prior bad acts, etc.
Thanks
I've been ruminating on this since this story broke. I agree with everyone who has pointed out that we do not know anywhere near all the facts, and as such should not rush to judgement in either direction.
However, there is one thing to think about: This woman represents everything that the lamestream media does NOT want people to know about gun owners and gun ownership. She's a female professional who used her firearm against an (alleged) assailant larger than herself - dialing 911 would have been futile, as would using keys/sharp stick/etc.
IOW, this is exactly the kind of shooting that the media will crawl over broken glass to AVOID reporting. It would not surprise me in the least if the media does everything it can to make it look like yet another gun owner driven mad by the overwhelming eeeevil firearm to turn their gun on an innocent family member.
Because, otherwise, they have to report that a female doctor (rather than some dumb white male redneck) used a firearm to save her life, where any other tool would have failed. Which would the media rather present: A smart, professional female who used the best tool for the job, or a Rambo-wannabe opening up on a crowd of innocents?
And that, as we know, just cannot be.
So, forgive me if I view any news reports on this case through a jaundiced eye...
However, there is one thing to think about: This woman represents everything that the lamestream media does NOT want people to know about gun owners and gun ownership. She's a female professional who used her firearm against an (alleged) assailant larger than herself - dialing 911 would have been futile, as would using keys/sharp stick/etc.
IOW, this is exactly the kind of shooting that the media will crawl over broken glass to AVOID reporting. It would not surprise me in the least if the media does everything it can to make it look like yet another gun owner driven mad by the overwhelming eeeevil firearm to turn their gun on an innocent family member.
Because, otherwise, they have to report that a female doctor (rather than some dumb white male redneck) used a firearm to save her life, where any other tool would have failed. Which would the media rather present: A smart, professional female who used the best tool for the job, or a Rambo-wannabe opening up on a crowd of innocents?
And that, as we know, just cannot be.
So, forgive me if I view any news reports on this case through a jaundiced eye...
No, it's innocent until proven guilty, you are assumed innocent of charges until the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt you are guilty. Thats how it works in this country. She doesn't have to PROVE anything, they have to prove she did something wrong. Of course her account of what happened will have a bearing on how strong the case is or isn't against her.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
She is guilty of homicide by her own addmission. All that's left is to prove it was justifiable - if I understand the laws correctly - which is why I was asking for an attorney's view.
Lynne - As I understand it, yes you can. You go by the same rules as you would for defending yourself. However, you have to make damn sure that person is an innocent victim and not a willing participant as defined by the law.
Some things that I think are iffy in this case is she appartantly shot to stop a fight. A "fight" is defined as mutual combat and there is no innocent party, per se.
Last edited:
I disagree. She defended herself by her own admission. She isn't guilty of any crime until proven so by a prosecutor. Homicide by itself isn't a crime, the intent behind it determines if it is a crime or not. And she doesn't have to prove it was justifiable, the prosecutor has to prove it wasn't justifiable. They have to prove the intent. There is a difference.
Last edited:
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Thanks for clarification, I didn't realize you were an attorney.
