Archive for the ‘Violence’ Category
Taking No-Fault Divorce a Bit Too Far
In November 1995, David and Christine Alexander decided to get a divorce and David helped Christine move her things out of the couple’s home in Canada. In the middle of the moving process, Christine Alexander pulled out a handgun and shot her husband point blank in the face once and then repeatedly bashed him on the head. David Alexander survived.
Christine says she’s not sure why she tried to kill her husband, but it definitely wasn’t for self-defense. She was convicted of attempted murder in 1997 and paroled in 1999. Since her husband was fortunate enough to survive, she is now suing him in divorce court to obtain part ownership of the former couple’s house as well as temporary financial support.
And she’ll probably get it. Canada has a strict “no fault” divorce law that precludes any testimony about a married couple’s prior behavior, possibly including details about a murder attempt. According to family lawyer Philip Epstein, “Her conduct isn’t admissible under the Divorce Act. Technically speaking, the fact that she shot him in the face doesn’t bar her from a support case.”
If she wins such support, it would likely be the first time in Canadian history that a victim of a murder attempt was forced to compensate his attacker. That’s taking the principle behind no fault divorce a bit too far.
Source:
Victim is sued for support. Martin Patriquin, The Toronto Star, January 23, 2001.
Violence Policy Center Pushes Deadly Myths
Should women buy guns for self-defense? According to a Violence Policy Center study, the claim that women can protect themselves with guns is a myth. Unfortunately the statistical analysis they use to make this case is absurd and an excellent example of how poorly designed statistical analyses are used to deceive.
The actual statistics cited by the VPC are accurate enough. In 1998 only twelve women shot and killed an attacker in a justifiable act of self defense. In the same year, about 1,100 women were murdered by attackers who used handguns. Since a woman is more than 100 times as likely to be killed with a handgun than use a handgun to kill an attacker, the VPC argues that the notion that handguns are a viable option for self-defense is ridiculous.
The problem with this claim is it assumes the only time a woman successfully uses a handgun to defend herself is when she shoots and kills a would-be attacker. What about the woman who shoots her attacker, thereby disabling him, but he survives? Not an act of self-defense according to the VPC. What about the woman who pulls a gun on her attacker causing the attacker to flee without the woman firing a shot? Not an act of self-defense according to the VPC.
We know from analysis of handgun use by police and private individuals that when a person uses a gun in self-defense, rarely does that use result in the individual actually firing the gun, and rarer still does the use of a gun in self-defense result in the death of the attacker. The mere presence of a gun is often more than enough to convince an attacker to flee the scene rather than risk serious injury or death.
By focusing equating successful self defense with the death of a perpetrator, the VPC tries to mislead women by drastically diminishing their likely usefulness in defending against an attacker. The VPC should be ashamed of itself for giving out such distorted information and perpetuating its own deadly myth.
Source:
A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. The Violence Policy Center, January 2001.
Tags: Violence Policy Center