Woman hires hitman to murder husband; Supreme Court of Canada lets her walk

[Bokanovsky]

How the hell does a person walk free from court after trying to kill someone, admitting to it, and being convicted of it without having a reasonable defense other than that the accused has "been through a lot"??

Can any of you imagine the same outcome if the roles were reversed? Imagine a guy admitting to hiring a hitman to murder his wife but claiming that he was under duress. Now imagine the court saying something along the lines of "you may be guilty as hell, but the defense of duress was kind of unclear, and it was hard for your lawyer to argue the case, and in any event, even though we know you are full of sh*t, you've been through a lot, so you go home now."

Such an outcome is simply unfathomable. And if something like that ever did happen, there would be no end to controversy. Life would grind to a halt with feminists rioting in the streets, burning bras and calling for an end to patriarchy...nurses and teachers going on strike, celebrities twitting their outrage, some American woman (likely from California) petitioning the White House to nuke Canada and collecting 100,000,000 signatures...the Internet crashing as millions of white knights and manginas simultaneously log on to facebook to "show support" for the wymyns and express moral condemnation...you get the idea. Yet, a woman gets away with attempted murder, and there is barely a peep.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Bokanovsky, just to add to that thought, I'm sure everyone here at SS will be happy to know that Mrs. Ryan now has a clean criminal record and has gone back to teaching

Just wait for Boilermaker to argue that it's perfectly fine and that we shouldn't be prejudiced against this poor woman, who may in fact be a wonderful teacher

 

[Boilermaker]

Bradd it was a great read and very informative.

The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding have taken an enormous toll on her. The law of duress was unclear which made resort to the defence at trial unusually difficult. Furthermore, the Crown changed its position about the applicable law between the trial and appeal process, raising a serious risk that the consequences of decisions made during the conduct of R’s defence cannot be undone in the context of a new trial.

I didn't exactly extract what you concluded from this last bit, but still I see that she did commit a crime.


Bokanovsky; it's perfectly fine and that we shouldn't be prejudiced against this poor woman, who may in fact be a wonderful teacher.

Why not? She might!

 

[AAAgent]

@ Danger

AAAgent
I don't mind debating but don't lead me around in circles with sh1t that's not even on point.

What did i say? go back in your troll house if you're going to do selective reading and copying/paste.

Danger
Although now you have expanded the topic again by somehow bringing marriage into the picture? I don't understand why, as that is not relevant to the discussion. Nevertheless, I shut you down on that issue since it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion.

You're the one who brought up family and i only responded in regards to raising a family or going through with marriage as the OP also mentioned how it's difficult in these times due to do so because legal consequences that await men if the marriage falls apart.. But yes, you will try to once again twist my words. Oh yes, i expanded the topic. The blame is all on me. I was the one who started a topic on feminism. Get real Danger and grow up.

Let's see, here is where you FIRST introduced family into the discussion:

Danger
And those men with something to lose have every right to be angry. The mere fact you refer to is as 'catered' shows your lack of understanding on the problems at hand for a man who wants to keep and retain a family without being punished simply because the wife becomes unhaaaaappy.

You are exactly the type of person who will keep talking even when YOU ARE WRONG because you think talking emphasizing that you are right or hides your stupidity.

Negative rep me all you want but crying and whining and not being able to shut up when you have nothing productive to say isn't going to get you far in life.

You even try to redeem yourself by saying now we agree with each other? You're the idiot that couldn't read in the first place and tried to contradict something i didn't say. Great, i didn't use any links. I also wasn't citing any facts and you agreed on my points in the very end. Why do i need to cite links when all your doing now is trying to attack my statements i have never made? I believe quoting myself and your stupidity should do just fine.

Anyways, you cited 1 link. Whoopdee do. That one link that had nothing to do with what i was talking about and also trying to accuse me of some thing I again never said, that sure added tons of value..

Danger
So, do you want to keep talking about who is changing the subject? As far as adapting and handling the situation, we agree on that point. People need to work and handle their life accordingly, but for some reason you consider the sharing of links or knowledge to not be part of that. I consider it a very important part of it, because that is what will allow eventual change to occur.

Below are a few examples of multiple times where i mention addressing any problem be it feminism, marriage laws, etc. at its roots:

AAAgent
They deal with it. Man is probably one of the few species out there that has the ability to learn and adapt. On top of that, we're also one of the fastest adapting species out there. People that get laid regularly understand this. Sh1t happens, you deal with it or work around it and continue moving forward. It's the really lazy people that feel entitled to have things and when it's not their way, they complain how it's somehow rigged.

As to your comment about dealing with things or adapting being lazy, since when was fixing a problem the lazy way out? I guess nowadays whining is what real men do.

Life is not perfect, and there isn't a way to live happy forever. Problems will arise. You solve them and move on, otherwise they continue to haunt you. Adapt or become the change you want to see. Once again, as i said in my last post, if you're so adamant about whining on about feminism, why don't you lobby for new laws.

Every time, you try and argue how I don't mention solving the problem, when i clearly do emphasize it in every post. Not only that, you then bring in racism and use the term "blacks", which I clearly ignored as you used it in such a derogatory context.

Danger
To say "you deal with iit or you work around it" is the lazy way out. Would that have been a proper answer to racism? Is that something you would say to blacks? Why would you say it for sexism?

No, you are not kidding. You are being purposefully obtuse. Adapting and dealing are lazy because they are not real solutions, and you know it. The real solution is to change the system, but that is difficult when people such as yourself refuse to see that there is a problem to be fixed.

Exactly, you solve them and move on. But "dealing with it" or "adapting" is not a solution. The solution is to eliminate the misandry and definitely not allow women with dubious assertations of "PTSD due to being beaten" to get away with attempted murder.

----------------

So to summarize, in the beginning you accused me telling people to be lazy and not address the problem but when you clearly realized multiple times i mentioned to address the problem at the roots or adapt, you changed your stance to agreeing with me.

Next you mention how i digressed from the topic at hand and talked about marriage when you clearly brought up family. Family is clearly a symbol of marriage but you try and twist my words and play them in your own favor. I don't mind to be proven wrong as it's great to have intelligent debates and open up our minds to new ways of thinking....but YOUR mind is obtuse and only see that you are right. You brought up family/marriage first.

You also mention how i don't post links. You posted 1 link in your argument directed at me saying that i mentioned xyz person as one that can't get laid. None of my statements have mentioned anything of the sort. None of it was specific and was a generalization argument except for the one refuting your stupidity.

 

[AAAgent]

I'm actually not becoming frustrated, I was just bolding because of the amount of text and wanted to emphasize certain quotes. Your argument above once again doesn't address anything and i'm confused how you're brain works.

and how is what you quoted below "more" insults. I added nothing to that and it was all pulled from the past statements.

Don't mistake my being a reasonable person with "trying to redeem myself"

And shockingly, more insults from you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAAgent

Danger
So, do you want to keep talking about who is changing the subject? As far as adapting and handling the situation, we agree on that point. People need to work and handle their life accordingly, but for some reason you consider the sharing of links or knowledge to not be part of that. I consider it a very important part of it, because that is what will allow eventual change to occur.

Below are a few examples of multiple times where i mention addressing any problem be it feminism, marriage laws, etc. at its roots:

AAAgent
They deal with it. Man is probably one of the few species out there that has the ability to learn and adapt. On top of that, we're also one of the fastest adapting species out there. People that get laid regularly understand this. Sh1t happens, you deal with it or work around it and continue moving forward. It's the really lazy people that feel entitled to have things and when it's not their way, they complain how it's somehow rigged.

As to your comment about dealing with things or adapting being lazy, since when was fixing a problem the lazy way out? I guess nowadays whining is what real men do.

Life is not perfect, and there isn't a way to live happy forever. Problems will arise. You solve them and move on, otherwise they continue to haunt you. Adapt or become the change you want to see. Once again, as i said in my last post, if you're so adamant about whining on about feminism, why don't you lobby for new laws.

You just referred to previous comments where i mentioned addressing the problem at it's roots. I'm starting to realize you brain probably functions in a way where you can't be wrong because none of what you're saying in this argument even makes a valid point.



Your name fits the crime. You are Danger. You are the epitome of Dangerously stupid or in your own words, obtuse. Now that's an additional insult that you can quote me on.

:crackup: :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

I can see you are already on the ropes as more and more of your statements make less and less sense. Your further alluding to fictional statements and thoughts makes this clear!

:crackup: :crackup:

Then end is near, Danger and a Dangerous end.

I assume you will try to come back and quote very specific parts and read over answers to your very own questions as usual. Then you will probably convince yourself how you're right.

How many people have to refute your posts until you understand...seems like too many.

I will end this with another :crackup: because your stupidity is just too hilarious.

 

[Boilermaker]

I interpret this to say you have already prejudged the situation to be non-misandric.

No. I prejudged your response to be completely along the direction of your cause. Since the discussion has evolved and we all know much more than we had initially started, the dust has cleared. But that still doesn't prevent me from criticizing the knee-jerk reaction many of you have had here, without alluding to facts but referring to newspaper articles.

The presupposition here being that if a man is accused of domestic violence, he is guilty. And if he is guilty, then clearly she has been through a lot and should be let off on these charges.

Well, if you read what Bradd posted in the last portion of his reply, it's not that easy. The law had been changed between her first and second trial putting her into an irrevocable defense position. Of course, it goes without saying that you are not referring to that, or even noticing that important detail.

Now you are becoming frustrated and passive-aggressive Boiler, particularly with the "is it shaming" question. I expect better from you.

Not really. I have tons of respect for you and we are debating here. I wasn't frustrated at all. I am just tired of you using the "shaming" card instead of real replies like this post you made.

Are you aware of the term "herd" Boiler? The entire system is setup in a form of misandry.

Again, maybe. I don't know and I don't have a problem in admitting that I don't know. There's lots of speculation in these remarks.

I think you would benefit from reading a rather eye-opening post from [...]

I did read Rollo's post, and the youTube video he posted. But that brings me to my original point, if you specifically look for news articles along your own views, you will collect infinitely many anectodes over time. Being rational is one of the hardest traits for a human.

Here's a great read you may enjoy:
http://www.amazon.com/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070
And:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-...2&keywords=don't+believe+everything+you+think

I read both these books.

I could share tons of anecdotes, but I really think you are not interested in them. Tell me, how many anecdotes would I need to convince you that we are in a femcentric society that generally treats women as victims and men as perps?

It's not about me being interested in anything. We prefer stories to statistics and that is a very human reaction. I realize the emotional response when a woman walks free after admitting to plot to kill her husband is huge, and that makes my position very hard to defend, but I still argue that IF I look for the opposite argument, I can find tons of anectodes myself.

And yes, she was admitted in a court of law. So you consider that the cut-off point for a get-out-of-jail-free card? [...] Tell me, can you envision a similar situation in which the roles are reversed?

I am not a supreme court judge, and whether or not you, Boka, Bradd or I can imagine something isn't really relevant here. I can imagine anything I want but that doesn't qualify me to predict what would happen had the roles been reversed. I have the humility to admit I don't know the answer to that question. And I refuse to make a comment, because it will be largely biased and dependent on what I think and not what is.

Your first point about the India Rape Case is dubious, because you are basing it on the presupposition that Misogyny and Misandry cannot co-exist. Both can happen at the same time and I totally agree.

Danger, I didn't really quote any specific rape case and you are accusing me of skipping what happened to the guy? Here are some articles about how horrible it is in India ( not referring to a specific case here )

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/30/world/asia/misogyny-india/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/video/?iid=artic...fficials-ask-for-calm-in-india-rape-riots.cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/world/asia/india-rape-danger/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/india-rape-anger-menon/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

As you can see the rape problem in India has a long history and this gang-rape was the last straw. There are millions of rapes all over the country and their society is finally responding to it.

Now, why do you suppose the world is focused on the woman's ordeal and not the man who was with her?

Did it ever occur to you that the reason could may be it is women who get raped way more than men in India? That would be one example of critically thinking about the other side of the problem, which you say you are already doing.

By the way, the pay inequality is a myth,

Whole separate issue we can discuss. But it is telling that you are trying to undermine my claim of the existence of injustice against women in the world. It's really funny how you try to invalidate anything that supports misogyny.
Let's talk about pay inequality another time. It wasn't my main point anyway.

Because I see a lot more misandry today than I do misogyny. I know you still don't realize you are subject to the indoctrination, but a clear example is how you know so much about the female side of the India Rape Case, but not the ordeal of her male companion.

I know about the India Rape Case probably more than you do, because I am surrounded by Indian fellows in my research lab, and that's what they all talk about. I knew about the guy who got wounded, but you are clearly not aware of the general (and growing) problem of women hate in India.

[...] Or again to reverse the situation, what do you suppose would happen to a man who had the same claim after trying to kill his wife?

Again, what you or I suppose would happen if the roles were reversed is, I am sorry, but irrelevant. I am not a supreme court judge and we are criticizing a supreme court decision here. Would you criticize a Brain surgeon's decision in severing an artery? Would you feel qualified to comment on what would happen if he did or he didn't? People feel easily qualified in things they have an opinion.

Besides, per the link here....

"In an unusual move on Friday, Canada's top court ordered the Crown to drop her case. With all proceedings against her stayed, Doucet, as she is now known, cannot be retried for counselling to commit murder."

Newspaper article saying "unusual move". Nothing unusual about this. Happens every day.

i don't believe I am shaming you, if you believe I am then point it out.

I've heard plenty of personal remarks from you, like "passive-aggressive", "you are shaming", " you are deceived", " you are indoctrinated" , "you are insulting" that had no relation to the content we are discussing. Could it be that you are frustrated?

Generally when people stop having counter-points, without ceding a loss, then they have walked away. I am not sure what your definition of that is and I don't think you generally do that, but I see a lot here.

I have lots of counter-points. I just don't have the time to come back as often as would be required for a full-fledged discussion.

I don't look for what I want to believe, in fact I am constantly trying to see both sides of every story, whether on economics, guns, girls, etc,... But in doing so, one still has to apply critical thinking and determine the current status of things.

Respectfully, I disagree with this. You do look for what you want to believe.

Be careful here, I am not claiming a conspiracy which I think is what you have in your mind. I am merely claiming that we are surrounded by it and blinded to it.

Can you summarize what it is you are exactly claiming being fully specific but as concise as possible with some evidence? Let's hear your claim.

Tell me, 10 years ago did you think then as you do now about women? Were you not programmed to "treat women special"? Were you not trained to never hit a woman? Were you not trained to give up your seat for them? Why would you think it ended only there?

I don't think my personal opinion would mean much.

Sure you could, and many do such things. But it is only when look under the surface consistently that patterns start to emerge.

Humans are hard-wired to look for patterns, if you look for them; you will find them. More often than not, this system fails and you start to see patterns where they don't exist. It's a bug of our evolutionary upbringing.

I know you believe you are fighting for reason and common sense. But you really should start digging deeper instead of fighting everything. I am confident that you will reach the same conclusion.

If Tits or you came here and told me to shut up and told me to stop fighting. I would. I am the younger guy here, and I may indeed be very wrong. So let me leave that door open. I may not be seeing it now but maybe some time later I will remember these words.