I am surprise this has not been mentioned. There was a shooting in Riverside out in Memorial park last night. It reads like the woman is alive.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-06-29/story/memorial-park-shooting-victim-duval-principal-ex-then-kills-self
"Court records show they...divorced in 2009, but were still dealing with ongoing related legal matters"
Apparently the husband had a whole different take on how they were dealing with those matters. Domestic violence is so freakin' scary.
I hope she makes a full recovery.
This is a woman I talk to almost every week. She is so strong and a good leader. I hope she is now able to find some peace.
I live nearby and I heard the shooting but I thought it was just early July 4th fireworks.
None of the neighbors I've talked to seems worried because it was a freak domestic dispute, not a mugging gone wrong or a gang conflict.
Here we go again. Another domestic shooting. These domestic shootings allow one to ponder their fundamental causes. Of course, the fellow’s character and possible shaky mental condition might have been a primary cause. We can imagine how a mature, intelligent, and stable individual could never do this kind of thing. I certainly don’t know the details but apparently he could not muster the ability to accept the actions, decisions, and enforcements of his ex-wife, the attorneys, and the judges involved.
The occasional domestic murder / suicides, and in some cases the murders of attorneys, judges, and others who happen to be in the environment at the wrong time, is perhaps occasionally a consequence of the shooter’s conviction that gross unfairness is at play. If pushed to a corner, a man can become like an animal, desperate to live, and therefore forced to fight or kill, because he believes that the actions or decisions forced upon him are affecting his very life, whether it is true or not.
Just as the cornered animal will kill or attempt to kill because the animal perceives it is a matter of life or death, so will the individual who perceives others are unfairly threatening too much of whatever life he has left.
Of course it is true that often the shooter actually deserves whatever decisions have been applied to him or his assets. In the end, it is his perception of fairness or unfairness which can possibly push him over the line to do the terrible things we see too often in the news.
In any case, these domestic shootings and killings should be a subtle message or warning to spouses or ex-spouses, to the attorneys, to the judges, and perhaps to the law enforcement individuals, that caution should be applied when making decisions affecting what are very important conditions in other’s lives. Extreme effort should be made to affect others with fairness and justice. Failure to do so will sometimes force those who feel that they are being unfairly treated to enforce the only method of justice they believe left for them to use, with consequences all too often like the tragedy we’ve recently witnessed.
Ron, I'm not sure I understand your point. Fairness and justice should be applied in all situations because that's the right thing to do, not because one party might choose to shoot somebody. I don't know the facts either, I only know that no matter what happened to this man I can see NO excuse for him to harm his ex-spouse.
Solution: don't get married.
I had a friend who was a criminal defense attorney for a number of years and never had a problem. When he switched over to divorce work, he had to get an unlisted phone number and began carrying a gun.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 01, 2012, 03:48:36 PM
I had a friend who was a criminal defense attorney for a number of years and never had a problem. When he switched over to divorce work, he had to get an unlisted phone number and began carrying a gun.
+1.
I've worked in both criminal law settings and domestic relation settings. By and large (I'm talking 80-100% of the time), the "dangerous" work wasn't in criminal defense, but in divorce/alimony/child support/time sharing issues.
Quote from: hooplady on July 01, 2012, 12:30:17 PM
Ron, I'm not sure I understand your point. Fairness and justice should be applied in all situations because that's the right thing to do, not because one party might choose to shoot somebody. I don't know the facts either, I only know that no matter what happened to this man I can see NO excuse for him to harm his ex-spouse.
Hooplady, of course I’m not offering excuses, or suggesting that anyone harm their ex-wife, or that anyone shoot anyone for any reason. I’m offering thoughts which, if pondered by certain others, might “prevent†more shootings of ex-wives, attorneys, judges, and innocent bystanders. My advice to anyone wielding permanent or temporary power or control over any man, by way of making decisions about his life, decisions in law offices, decisions in the courts, decisions on the streets by law enforcement; that they use caution doing so, that they use every method available to insure that this man perceives that he too is given fairness and justice, that fairness and justice has indeed been performed, else he might take it upon himself to obtain his perception of it by his own hand.
Excessive abuse and unfair force upon any man, if not moderated by the pressure of fairness and justice by those having temporary power over him, might find themselves on the receiving end of violence as this man desperately tries to live, to be free, to come out of the corner into which he has been forced by those wielding the temporary power over him.
The same dynamics can exist in a country, when the people cannot tolerate any longer the abuse and unfairness by a regime or dictator. As the lives of a people are squashed into poverty and suffering, as can be the case with a man living in Riverside engaging a domestic problem, they too, the people of a nation will demand justice from the point of gun. Killing will be the order of the day. It’s called a revolution. In all cases, it is a demand for fairness and justice, sometimes in desperation, by those who perceive they have been given none, whether from a dictator, or from the ex-spouse, the attorneys, or the courts.
Just as one could advise the dictatorial or abusive regime to avoid violence and revolution by insuring fairness and justice to the people, so too, one can advise those involved in domestic disputes to avoid the killings we witness every few days by insuring fairness and justice to all involved, and not just to one party because his or her attorney is paid more, is more effective, or because one side might want to punish perceived wrongs committed, when there were none.
No Hooplady, the man does not use an excuse to kill anyone. But given the nature of man, and given the will to survive, to be free, and to receive and demand justice, he does have the option to kill somebody in order to escape the imprisonment and injustices imposed upon him by those having temporary power over him, just as an enslaved population has the option to shoot the abusive dictator in order that they might not suffer, in order that they might live in freedom. And as recent news stories have shown, sometimes the man put in a corner will choose the option to kill.
My words are only in the form of advice to those wielding temporary decision making power, so that they might use caution, so that their insensitivities to the dynamics in peoples lives, to the realities of force, of fairness, and of justice, will not promote more of the unfortunate desperate killings as performed by those men who perceive they have been given no justice.
Interesting thoughts Ron, Hooplady. My wife trained with Oklahoma law enforcement and Oklahoma State University as a victims advocate. One of her professors, Doctor Dan Johnson, was with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, OSBI, when on a domestic call he'll never live down. The man was abusive and had beaten his wife bloody when Johnson tackled him inside the home. Cuffed and read his rights he was heading out the door with the perp when the lady, sufficiently recovered to understand her husband was being jailed, buried a very pointed high-heel in officer Johnson's skull. Net result? A bunch of blood, stitches and TWO people in an Oklahoma jail. He would tell this story to impress on the student's how dangerous these situations could be.
One only has to watch the ID TV channel to know that most of the victims are women and most of the perps are men. As you said, it is within a mans nature to fight to the death if he feels there is no other way out. Women however, are often fully dependent on the husband for home, car, family, food etc. It doesn't have to be a 'Leave It To Beaver' family either. Many professionals right here on my block have wives that supplement the household income with a part-time or lower wage job. The woman is often exhausted, working 8 hours, being a full time wife, full time homemaker, full time cook, full time mom AND a full time employee. It becomes a psychological trap that many never escape, going from one bad relationship to the next. One of the worse things which is being studied is the ability of abusers to select mates with needy personalities.
But here in Jacksonville, we've seen what happens when a woman dares stand her ground... Injustice on injustice.
OCKLAWAHA
I heard it mentioned briefly on First Coast News.
Back to Ron, yes, property decisions can be painful. But the man's very life was not being threatened by the loss of stuff and money. I couldn't get to the link (computer slow) but was his life being threatened by his ex-wife? He tried to take 2 lives, and only just missed being the only one dead.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 03, 2012, 12:32:55 PM
I heard it mentioned briefly on First Coast News.
Back to Ron, yes, property decisions can be painful. But the man's very life was not being threatened by the loss of stuff and money. I couldn't get to the link (computer slow) but was his life being threatened by his ex-wife? He tried to take 2 lives, and only just missed being the only one dead.
Debbie……….. you are referring to the following statement from my first post:
“If pushed to a corner, a man can become like an animal, desperate to live, and therefore forced to fight or kill, because he believes that the actions or decisions forced upon him are affecting his very life, whether it is true or not.â€
Again, I don’t know the details, but my point is that it is possible that his life “was†being threatened by his ex-wife, and perhaps by the decisions made by an attorney or a judge. What makes up one’s life? A man’s life begins with his body first, then mind, and then, spreading out into the world, it can consist of many possessions, bank accounts, homes, autos, boats, lovers, memberships, friends, etc. Some individuals, by some mechanism or vulnerability, cannot feel complete, secure, or alive, without all of the many peripheral possessions, assets, etc., things which have over the years become part of their lives.
Therefore, one might suggest that if, by way of decisions made by others, he is stripped of all things which to him had become very important, he might believe that too much of his life is threatened, an intolerable amount, and desperately choose to fight back with violence or deadly force.
Of course there are cases where the man is an abuser, a mean person, a beast. These individuals must be persuaded or controlled by some means.
If we look upon some of these murder/suicide cases and conclude that the individuals who shoot ex’s and others are simply nuts or evil, we should think again. The frequent occurrence of these shootings is in some cases a result of the insensitivities, and the sometimes stupid decisions made by ex’s, attorneys, and judges as they attempt to force unfairness onto the man. In some cases, the man becomes a victim. If fairness and justice is too absent, in desperation, by his own hand, a man might seek his own version of it.
I remember distinctly a newspaper article about thirty years ago, covering a killing/suicide in a divorce case in south Florida. In the room were the ex, a judge, her attorney, and his. This apparently was before the strict gun search existed. Upon receiving what he perceived to be an unfair decision as to what he must do, pay, or give up, he stated something like, “Okay, you all have taken all I have…. but I have more for you to take, and I will give it now to youâ€. At that time, he pulls out his gun, which I recall was a Colt .45, and shoots the ex, the judge, her attorney, and himself.
I don’t know the details, but some might suspect a touch of unfairness in that case. And if those involved … the ex, her attorney, and the judge were to be pulled from the grave and given a chance to be more considerate to the man’s life, I suspect that they would be. In the end, they perhaps took too much of this man’s “very lifeâ€, which might have included most of his money and assets, perhaps a business or two. A lack of fairness, a lack of justice, creates enemies, promotes violence, and sometimes murder/suicides.
Of course, I do not promote the shooting of anybody in a domestic dispute. I only wish to urge caution to anyone handing down decisions to a man who might determine that too much of his life is being crushed by these decisions. When things go too far, if a man sees too much of his life being stripped away, he might react as if his very life is being threatened. Caution is the word on these highly emotional domestic disputes, and fairness should be the cause, or, as the news shows us every few days, death at the hands of a man who perceives his life is done, might be the consequence.
And furthermore Debbie, forgive me….We humans……. well… most of us, having evolved further from our animal ancestors with the passage of each ten thousand years, are more inclined to react with less instinctually based emotion and with more rational thought when confronted with potential threats to our wellbeing. Lying dormant within each of us are the instinctual animal mechanisms seldom used because they are usually held at bay by our increasing ability to engage rational thinking.
Regarding the domestic case we’ve pondered on this thread, as a man is confronted with decisions which can only be considered by him to be irrational, i.e., more physical, he will be pressured to leave rational thinking behind too, and will, for survival, revert to the instinctual animal ways of confronting threats by becoming physical. This is why, in order to avoid these occasional shootings, if I was an attorney, an ex, or a judge, I would use care to contemplate the fairness being offered in many cases.
In order to keep everyone in the calming rational realm and avoid descent into the instinctual physical, with its sometimes tragic outcomes, I would even extend further consideration in favor of the man to insure that he perceives a reasonable level of fairness. One key factor is "his" perception of fairness. Unfortunatlly there are cases when no amount of "giving ground" will convey fairness.
Ron (Freelance Psychiatrist)
If a formerly rational man can revert to animal survival instincts when threatened with loss of wife or property , how does that compute to murder and then immediately abandoning those survival instincts by taking his own life?
Quote from: Ralph W on July 04, 2012, 02:53:53 PM
If a formerly rational man can revert to animal survival instincts when threatened with loss of wife or property , how does that compute to murder and then immediately abandoning those survival instincts by taking his own life?
Good point Ralph . _ _
I agree that he was at some point a rational man. But as his perceptions of unfariness in the case moved him from rational to the instinctual, after he accepted the plan to murder, and acted it out, he knew that his life was over. From that point onward, in spite of the instinctual pressure to survive, he knew survival was impossible. So, he did not necessarily abandon the survival instinct, he simply knew that his life was over, and ended it himself because he didn’t want to wait for anybody else to end it. Of course, perhaps from his perspective, his life ended even earlier by the measures set by his opponents in the domestic case.
Laura Psychiatric Clinic
http://abcnews.go.com/US/millionaires-apparent-courtroom-suicide-investigation/story?id=16679079
Quote
By ALYSSA NEWCOMB (@alyssanewcomb)
June 29, 2012
An Arizona millionaire who died minutes after he was convicted of arson appeared to have put something in his mouth while in the court room, sparking an investigation into whether the convicted arsonist had poisoned himself.
Michael Marin, 53, was convicted on Thursday of purposefully burning down his $2.55 million mansion in the tony Biltmore Estates neighborhood of Phoenix after he was unable to keep up with mortgage payments and a plan to raffle his house through a charity fundraiser failed. He faced up to 16 years in prison.
After the guilty verdict on one count of arson was read, a seemingly distraught Marin buried his face into his hands and appeared to place something in his mouth.
His face began to turn red. Minutes later, he took a sip of a liquid from a plastic sports bottle, turned to get a tissue, experienced convulsions and collapsed.
He was pronounced dead at the hospital, said Jeff Sprong, spokesperson for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which is investigating the death.
The upper crust in Riverside allow shootings? E-gad.
Does anyone know about this?
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Police-Woman-killed-boyfriend-wanted/-/475880/17647120/-/q4rr9dz/-/index.html