ForumGarden

Diuretic wrote: Adam, it's starting to be known. You have to see these things in perspective. It wasn't that long ago that when a woman reported a rape to the police (yes I know men are raped but that's not my point for the moment) she was interrogated by detectives and attempts were made to break her story down before any further action was taken. That's not the done thing now (well it's not to the best of my knowledge in jurisdictions known to me) but it took a long while for it to be changed. So it will be with domestic violence where the woman is the perpetrator. It's now okay to admit that gay and lesbian couples are quite capable of beating the crap out of each other as well.


Oh, I agree. And when the public heard stories of rape, often the reaction would be, "She must have done something", "She must have been dressed provocative", "She must have been a tease", "She probably asked for it or wanted it". Men get the same treatment in regard to spousal abuse. Maybe that will change soon. Don't get me wrong, I've done it too. I had my share of chuckles at the Bobbitt guy. It's just interesting how we react to certain things with built in bias and preconcieved notions.

Adam Zapple wrote: It is quite interesting how we, as a society, immediately look for explainable motives when a woman kills her husband. We are quick to believe "it must have been" a result of abuse on his part. However, if a husband kills his wife we all take the "string him up" position. I happen to know, as a result of my line of work, that spousal abuse of husbands is far more common than most people realize. But since the man is supposed to be the stronger of the sexes, we tend to laugh it off or minimize the abuse or even make excuses for it - "he had it coming", "he must have done something to deserve it".

This man was cooked alive and spent a week in unimaginable agony. It's possible he was sadistically abusive. It's also possible that he married an abusive spouse. We just don't know. No offense to anyone, but I find it just a little disturbing that anyone would chuckle at the specter of anyone being boiled alive. I suspect if this story was about a man who did this to his wife this thread would be full of angry emoticons with plenty of expletives directed toward the man who would do such a thing. I just wonder why we are so light-hearted about abuse of husbands. It really does happen-more often than you think. No wonder most men don't report it, they know they would become laughing stocks.


Im not quit sure seeking insight and making a few jokes about the nature of the crime can be corelated with having no sympathy for the victim or the people effected by such wickedness.

Little exagerant here if you ask me.

Obviously by the nature of the crime, ones first thought would be revenge for something, as statistics show, more males commit violent acts than that of females for the sake of elaboration.

Because we jump to the conclusion that such an act "had to be revenge of some sort", means in no way that the crime is justifiable to that of any morale philosophy. People generally seek the most reasonable logic pertaining to any given situation, its just their nature. Unless of course insanity, to whom opposed, is a virtue.

Posted by K Snyder:

Im not quit sure seeking insight and making a few jokes about the nature of the crime can be corelated with having no sympathy for the victim or the people effected by such wickedness.

Little exagerant here if you ask me.




I think you are missing my point.



Posted by K Snyder:

Obviously by the nature of the crime, ones first thought would be revenge for something, as statistics show, more males commit violent acts than that of females for the sake of elaboration.


Sure. And when we come upon a group of black males we cross to the other side of the street because statistics show that most violent acts are committed by black males. So is that a reasonable reaction or an irrational reaction. Mathematical odds are that they are up to no good, right?



Posted by K Snyder:

Because we jump to the conclusion that such an act "had to be revenge of some sort", means in no way that the crime is justifiable to that of any morale philosophy.


But isn't "had to be revenge of some sort" a justification of sorts even if not an absolute justification? It implies one was previously wronged therefore providing an avenue to justify the response.



Posted by K. Snyder:

People generally seek the most reasonable logic pertaining to any given situation, its just their nature.


Most reasonable logic based on what? Prejudices and preconcieved notions. Hey, I agree with you, I just find that aspect about us interesting.

Boy that is some kinda of revenge... OUCH...!! poor guy never saw it coming.. I hope they catch her, it is murder plain and simple.

Adam Zapple wrote:



I think you are missing my point.




maybe so..

Adam Zapple wrote:

Sure. And when we come upon a group of black males we cross to the other side of the street because statistics show that most violent acts are committed by black males. So is that a reasonable reaction or an irrational reaction. Mathematical odds are that they are up to no good, right?




I dont cross any street....I think what we have here is a difference of perception.

Adam Zapple wrote:

But isn't "had to be revenge of some sort" a justification of sorts even if not an absolute justification? It implies one was previously wronged therefore providing an avenue to justify the response.




no....not how i see it...i see it as a sort of a hypothetical question to ones self so that it makes it easier to empathize with the aggressor(i suppose killer in this case- although i personally believe (if she is in fact the guilty party) that she didnt mean for the victim to die-- but thats a whole another can of worms)



Adam Zapple wrote:

Most reasonable logic based on what? Prejudices and preconcieved notions. Hey, I agree with you, I just find that aspect about us interesting.


no....seeking the most logical explanation or action in any given situation...good or bad...you have to be able to empathize......doesnt mean you have to sympathize as well...i dont believe prejudice has anything to do with it.

K.Snyder wrote: i see it as a sort of a hypothetical question to ones self so that it makes it easier to empathize with the aggressor(i suppose killer in this case- although i personally believe (if she is in fact the guilty party) that she didnt mean for the victim to die-- but thats a whole another can of worms)




That's my point. I don't remember anyone trying to empathize with John Wayne Gacy or Scott Peterson. But plenty empathized with Lorraine Bobbitt and Andrea Yates.

Adam Zapple wrote: That's my point. I don't remember anyone trying to empathize with John Wayne Gacy or Scott Peterson. But plenty empathized with Lorraine Bobbitt and Andrea Yates.


Empathizing without your morale values deeming such behavior to be distasteful wouldnt be any different as far as im concerned.

But of course it will be my fault,wifes are inocent,men have no rights,ask anyone paying child support.

This is not completely accurate or fair.



As for the Bobbitt reference, he had it coming. He raped his wife. Why shouldn't she have cut it off.

I don't find anything funny about the boiling oil and until I know more about it, don't have much of an opinion either way. Not that I'm cavalier about it. Horrible things like this have gone on for millenia. I am reminded of Albert Fish who cooked a little girl back in the 1930s and ate her complete with carrots and onions. Humanity is horrible. As well as it is good. If the Oil Woman was beaten then she had a right to retaliate although I think a different method would have been preferable. If she had no reason to do such a thing then she should go to jail or possibly be killed.

RedGlitter wrote: If the Oil Woman was beaten then she had a right to retaliate although I think a different method would have been preferable.


What right is that, then?

I'm not sure. But let's say she was beaten by him and stabbed him or shot him. For some reason I could accept that easier than taking time to boil a vat of oil to dump on him. The first two seem quick enough that you could say it happened in a fit or rage or out of fear he would kill her. But the oil thing...it's like cutting his brakeline or hiring a hitman. It's more planned. That's how it seems to me anyway.

ETA: Sorry it's late and I misread your question. That right would be the right to self-defense. Sure she might be able to walk away or have the cops actually do something about him but possibly not. I have a good friend whose husband hit her one night and she shot him in the knee. He never laid a hand on her again.

Adam Zapple wrote: That's my point. I don't remember anyone trying to empathize with John Wayne Gacy or Scott Peterson. But plenty empathized with Lorraine Bobbitt and Andrea Yates.
I must admit that I had too much fun with the whole Bobbitt thing. She did what every woman on earth has probably wanted to do at one time or another.

RedGlitter wrote: I'm not sure. But let's say she was beaten by him and stabbed him or shot him. For some reason I could accept that easier than taking time to boil a vat of oil to dump on him.


This goes back to my point about more males commiting more violent acts than females...

I wholeheartedly believe she only meant to scar the victim so as to punish him of some sort, for obviously if insanity is not in question, for whatever it is that provoked her to do such a thing. She chose the hot oil, because she felt the "knife", or the "gun" alternative was too violent for her, in my opinion. Upon the victim perishing from the wounds inflicted on him, she packed her bags and...uh " hit the door, Jack". If he had recovered, she would have played the whole "accident" defense, and may have been able to get away with it...but the victim died....she panicked....and, as I have said....packed up like Thelma and Louise....

(All my take on the situation, and could possibly turn out to be completely untrue.)

K.Snyder wrote: This goes back to my point about more males commiting more violent acts than females...

I wholeheartedly believe she only meant to scar the victim so as to punish him of some sort, for obviously if insanity is not in question, for whatever it is that provoked her to do such a thing. She chose the hot oil, because she felt the "knife", or the "gun" alternative was too violent for her, in my opinion. Upon the victim perishing from the wounds inflicted on him, she packed her bags and...uh " hit the door, Jack". If he had recovered, she would have played the whole "accident" defense, and may have been able to get away with it...but the victim died....she panicked....and, as I have said....packed up like Thelma and Louise....

(All my take on the situation, and could possibly turn out to be completely untrue.)


Ooooohhhh, she only meant to scar him. Well, that's so much better.

Have we gotten any new updates on this story? Has this women been found, and are the children ok?

Pinky wrote: if you're frightened that someone is going to seriously hurt you, your instincts are to hurt them first.


.... of RLF.

CheshireCat wrote: Has this women been found, and are the children ok?


Yes, don't know.

2:10 p.m. August 10, 2006



BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. – A woman accused of killing her husband by pouring hot cooking oil on him turned herself in to authorities Thursday after more than a week on the run.

Edna Mae Sanders, 45, faces a murder charge and was the focus of an intense search by authorities, including the FBI.



Police believe Sanders heated about two quarts of household cooking oil to a simmer, then poured it over Sherman Sanders' head, face, chest and arms while he slept July 28. Police say she then fled the couple's home in Diamondhead, in southern Mississippi, with her two children from a previous marriage.

Sherman Sanders, 53, suffered third-degree burns over more than half his body. The Navy veteran clung to life for a week before dying Aug. 4 in the burn center of an Alabama hospital.

Edna Sanders surrendered at the sheriff's department in Hancock County early Thursday, officials said. They said Sanders was being held in the county jail on $1 million bond, and that her children were in their father's custody.

Sanders' older brother, Lawrence Miller, told police she knocked on his door Wednesday night in Gonzales, La., carrying a suitcase and crying. He told investigators he persuaded her to turn herself in.

Police had not been able to find a motive, but investigators have said that Sherman Sanders, who had been married to Edna for about a year, recently considered getting a divorce.





I guess this is the latest. At least the kids are safe!

Pinky wrote: Yeah!!! Definately RLF!

The only time it happened to me, my instincts took over completely - I gave 'em a crack on the nose and then RLF..


Bargain! Two for the price of one! Well done.

RedGlitter wrote: I'm not sure. But let's say she was beaten by him and stabbed him or shot him. For some reason I could accept that easier than taking time to boil a vat of oil to dump on him. The first two seem quick enough that you could say it happened in a fit or rage or out of fear he would kill her. But the oil thing...it's like cutting his brakeline or hiring a hitman. It's more planned. That's how it seems to me anyway.


You have to take in account(and im not trying to justify the aggressors actions, rather speculating possible scenarios as to her motives) that she may have completely feared this person, and upon considering that the majority of civilized people dont walk around with knives and guns, waiting for their striker to attack, she could have very well known that being caught carrying a gun or knife by this man would have eventually ended in her demise, or that if she were to attempt to kill this man in an event of her being attacked would have ended with the same results. In closing, as i have said before, upon his vulnerable state of slumber, she deemed the hot boiling cooking oil over the face, neck, chest, and head was a more appropriate way of her dealing with what could have been a direct fear for her own life.

Or,

She could have downright murdered the man in cold blood.

wouldnt have been cold for long

K.Snyder wrote: You have to take in account(and im not trying to justify the aggressors actions, rather speculating possible scenarios as to her motives) that she may have completely feared this person, and upon considering that the majority of civilized people dont walk around with knives and guns, waiting for their striker to attack, she could have very well known that being caught carrying a gun or knife by this man would have eventually ended in her demise, or that if she were to attempt to kill this man in an event of her being attacked would have ended with the same results. In closing, as i have said before, upon his vulnerable state of slumber, she deemed the hot boiling cooking oil over the face, neck, chest, and head was a more appropriate way of her dealing with what could have been a direct fear for her own life.



Or,



She could have downright murdered the man in cold blood.



wouldnt have been cold for long


But he was sleeping. When she fled, she went to her brother. Why didn't she just leave while he was asleep and go to her brother's.

CheshireCat wrote: But he was sleeping. When she fled, she went to her brother. Why didn't she just leave while he was asleep and go to her brother's.


Thats a good point....

yet can also be depicted in the story "Sleeping with the enemy"....

Maybe she knew she couldnt hide....

(but again, we will all know more clearly once the evidence has been collected, as well as her testimony)