So where do you stand on this one? Adultery, Murder, Custody
Murderer gets custody
Then we have this one...
Free Clara Harris
I've seen where many have advocated that as long as sex is between two consenting adults, even in cases of adultery, that society should not punish someone just for sex. Clara Harris punished her husband with a sentence of death.
I don't think upon reading about the man killed anyone would argue that he was a great guy but then adultery does require a partner and his was a divorced mother. As mentioned in the divorce he would be forced to divide up the property and custody of the children for the marriage not working out.
Clara had all the advantages that are supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening according to those who believe we are shaped by our environment. The family net-worth was over 3 million dollars and she would still have had at least half of that after a divorce. $1.6 million is by no means poverty. She is obviously well educated and well compensated as was her husband.
The husbands crime was apparently wanting a woman who looked a certain way. The wife agreed to "bimboize" for lack of a better word but the husband continued to stray. Rather than divorce him, she ran him over repeatedly and killed him.
The one columnist advocates more of this type of behavior. The fact that a man is unhappy in marriage and likely will suffer disproportionately in finances and custody isn't punishment enough for breaking the wedding vows. The columnist believes the death sentence is just.
Even that being said the woman still received custody of the children who she deprived of a father by murdering him.
The ifeminist columnist argues that this shows the already well known bias in family courts. A man can be kept from his children with a restraining order over alleged fear while a murdering mother cannot be kept from her children.
So how do you stand on this?
Should adultery be a punishable crime with men and women? If so who should be punished since it takes two to tango so to speak.
Should a mother or father who murders a spouse be able to get custody of their children?
Should anyone be advocating the murder of someone, male or female, who has not been convicted of a crime even when we don't like their private personal sexual behavior?
Nick
Quote:
Clara Harris, a Texas woman who was convicted of murdering her husband in March, was just granted joint custody of her twin five year-old boys. The ruling validates what fathers' and children's advocates have been saying for years--when it comes to children, many courts believe that mothers can do no wrong.
Clara Harris, a Texas woman who was convicted of murdering her husband in March, was just granted joint custody of her twin five year-old boys. The ruling validates what fathers' and children's advocates have been saying for years--when it comes to children, many courts believe that mothers can do no wrong.
Then we have this one...
Free Clara Harris
Quote:
I say: Free Clara Harris. We need more women like her. Live like her.
There is no accountability any more for the kind of wanton irresponsibility David "The Creep" Harris showed toward his wife and his children. There's no penalty any more for adultery, for abandonment of one's spouse and children. The state doesn't get involved ? except to divide up the property and sort out custody issues. No one is punished.
I say: Free Clara Harris. We need more women like her. Live like her.
There is no accountability any more for the kind of wanton irresponsibility David "The Creep" Harris showed toward his wife and his children. There's no penalty any more for adultery, for abandonment of one's spouse and children. The state doesn't get involved ? except to divide up the property and sort out custody issues. No one is punished.
I've seen where many have advocated that as long as sex is between two consenting adults, even in cases of adultery, that society should not punish someone just for sex. Clara Harris punished her husband with a sentence of death.
I don't think upon reading about the man killed anyone would argue that he was a great guy but then adultery does require a partner and his was a divorced mother. As mentioned in the divorce he would be forced to divide up the property and custody of the children for the marriage not working out.
Clara had all the advantages that are supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening according to those who believe we are shaped by our environment. The family net-worth was over 3 million dollars and she would still have had at least half of that after a divorce. $1.6 million is by no means poverty. She is obviously well educated and well compensated as was her husband.
The husbands crime was apparently wanting a woman who looked a certain way. The wife agreed to "bimboize" for lack of a better word but the husband continued to stray. Rather than divorce him, she ran him over repeatedly and killed him.
The one columnist advocates more of this type of behavior. The fact that a man is unhappy in marriage and likely will suffer disproportionately in finances and custody isn't punishment enough for breaking the wedding vows. The columnist believes the death sentence is just.
Even that being said the woman still received custody of the children who she deprived of a father by murdering him.
The ifeminist columnist argues that this shows the already well known bias in family courts. A man can be kept from his children with a restraining order over alleged fear while a murdering mother cannot be kept from her children.
So how do you stand on this?
Should adultery be a punishable crime with men and women? If so who should be punished since it takes two to tango so to speak.
Should a mother or father who murders a spouse be able to get custody of their children?
Should anyone be advocating the murder of someone, male or female, who has not been convicted of a crime even when we don't like their private personal sexual behavior?
Nick
Comments
hmmm, yeah its a bad legal desicion . . . . unless of course the guy really really really had it coming to him
I could understand this whole doubting the source thing if I were an incredibly rich man and controlled the only printing press in say four counties.
However last time I checked there was this thing called the Internet and these things on them called search engines. Just search for Clara Harris.
However honestly can you think of any case where the father would be able to get joint custody of the children after killing their mother?
Meanwhile we still have the questions which no one has really addressed and on which I am sure your opinion is already firmly formed regardless of this case or the news source.
Nick
Should adultery be a punishable crime with men and women? If so who should be punished since it takes two to tango so to speak.
Should a mother or father who murders a spouse be able to get custody of their children?
Should anyone be advocating the murder of someone, male or female, who has not been convicted of a crime even when we don't like their private personal sexual behavior?
Yes, this is ridiculous. Yes, it is an outrage. The woman should have been put behind bars for life for this. No way in hell should she have been given custody. It's insane.
Someone needs to put a bullet through this guy's forehead before he talks some more scorned broads into wiping their husbands out.
Adultery happens. ****ing deal with it. You want to kill the person, you should rot in a jail cell until you die.
Free Clara Harris. I'd free her all right. Free her from the burdens of life with a baseball bat to the skull.
Originally posted by pfflam
hmmm, yeah its a bad legal desicion . . . . unless of course the guy really really really had it coming to him
I'd say that if he got taken to the cleaners in divorce court. I'd say crushing him under the wheels of your car repeatedly goes just a tad over the line.
Originally posted by murbot
I'd free her all right. Free her from the burdens of life with a baseball bat to the skull.
I don't know why people hold back on these forums. Come on, tell us how you really feel.
Originally posted by BR
It's easier for certain pussies to pussy out and dodge the issue than answer your questions.
Yes, this is ridiculous. Yes, it is an outrage. The woman should have been put behind bars for life for this. No way in hell should she have been given custody. It's insane.
Is this indicative of a "crusade" against men where women can "do no wrong?" That's the point where many of us diverge with Trumptman.....and you perhaps.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Is this indicative of a "crusade" against men where women can "do no wrong?" That's the point where many of us diverge with Trumptman.....and you perhaps.
No what he is saying is you have posted twice and never addressed the questions even once.
The initial post contained two links with opposing views. You focused on one and ignored the one that supported the female view and even advocated that the woman was right in killing the man for what he did to her. (Cheat)
Giving two links, one supporting the man and the other supporting the woman is a "crusade against men" to you because you can't stop spinning your politics long enough to address the simple, gender neutral, questions put to you that don't even have to relate to these particular links. It is more likely that the famous "tolerance" that you constantly slam others about not showing has some clear limits in your own case as well. They either force you to condemn a man for consentual sex or condemn a woman for killing him when she could have just divorced him.
Question the source, question the poster, spin, spin, spin. Just answer the friggin questions for goodness sake.
Should adultery be a punishable crime with men and women? If so who should be punished since it takes two to tango so to speak.
Should a mother or father who murders a spouse be able to get custody of their children?
Should anyone be advocating the murder of someone, male or female, who has not been convicted of a crime even when we don't like their private personal sexual behavior?
Nick
It's hard to make an opinion with extremist views of both sides. I will have prefered to have a neutral journalist point of vue.
Otherwise, if i was the judge i will not have given the custody of the kids to that women. The only problems with your posts Trumptman, that you only show things where women sucks and men are the victims. Sexism work both way, and should be struggle both way.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Well i have seen two articles , no one was balanced, and both deserves to be thrown in a garbage.
It's hard to make an opinion with extremist views of both sides. I will have prefered to have a neutral journalist point of vue.
Otherwise, if i was the judge i will not have given the custody of the kids to that women. The only problems with your posts Trumptman, that you only show things where women sucks and men are the victims. Sexism work both way, and should be struggle both way.
Of course they're garbage. They're designed to make you believe something that isn't necessarily true or fair.
Try these:
One, two, and three.
trumptman, what do you think should happen to the kids? Have them go to a 70 year old, or live with a family that has children their age?
Originally posted by trumptman
No what he is saying is you have posted twice and never addressed the questions even once.
The initial post contained two links with opposing views. You focused on one and ignored the one that supported the female view and even advocated that the woman was right in killing the man for what he did to her. (Cheat)
Giving two links, one supporting the man and the other supporting the woman is a "crusade against men" to you because you can't stop spinning your politics long enough to address the simple, gender neutral, questions put to you that don't even have to relate to these particular links. It is more likely that the famous "tolerance" that you constantly slam others about not showing has some clear limits in your own case as well. They either force you to condemn a man for consentual sex or condemn a woman for killing him when she could have just divorced him.
Question the source, question the poster, spin, spin, spin. Just answer the friggin questions for goodness sake.
Nick
Spin???????????????????????????????????
I said two things.
1) That Powerdoc was right.
2) That most of here agree with everyone else that it was a bad decision. We diverge with you when you say it's indicative a larger pattern of "women can do no wrong."
You're the one doing the spinning, Nick O'Liely.
1) Accusing me of spinning (up is down)
2) Suggesting WorldNetDaily is Pro-Women when it's a mostly conservative publication. The author in question didn't give a shit about women's rights. He was more interested in some law against adultery (or something like that) which is definitely not pro-women.
3) Women Bad, Men Good. We get your freaking point. And your 10,000 threads devoted to the subject.
May I curse Glenn Sacks and Trumptman with eternal writers' block!
*dances*
Originally posted by bunge
Of course they're garbage. They're designed to make you believe something that isn't necessarily true or fair.
Try these:
One, two, and three.
trumptman, what do you think should happen to the kids? Have them go to a 70 year old, or live with a family that has children their age?
You are welcome to mention what you think is untrue in the links.
Also thanks for following my advice.
I could understand this whole doubting the source thing if I were an incredibly rich man and controlled the only printing press in say four counties.
However last time I checked there was this thing called the Internet and these things on them called search engines. Just search for Clara Harris.
I will answer your question, but I also request that you address mine. They questions I asked aren't necessarily tied to those links or even this particular incident. I would like to know you view.
The grandparents are indeed 70 but they are the parents of the father. I do think family members should have claim over nonfamily members. The mother thinks they would do better with the younger family with similarly aged children. This could be true but we don't grant custody just because we think someone might make a better parent than your blood relatives. Imagine the mess that could create.
I think that the grandparents should have been given full custody and if they choose to share it with the family, especially considering their advanced age it would be with their blessing. Instead the court gave them visitation. I think it better if the grandparents were in the driver's seat so to speak with regard to legal custody. By giving them only visitation, and they do represent the father's estate and interests, they have essentually given the dead father visitation and no legal custody (let alone physical) while giving the mother who killed him joint legal custody.
I know we can claim the father wasn't the greatest. He appears to have been a womanizing adulterer. However his parents did attempt to obtain joint custody and even had a prior order granting it. They did nothing wrong and still could not prevail over the mother who had committed murder.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are welcome to mention what you think is untrue in the links.
Maybe if you had the integrity to post decent links for once we wouldn't have to waste our time. No thanks.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Spin???????????????????????????????????
I said two things.
1) That Powerdoc was right.
2) That most of here agree with everyone else that it was a bad decision. We diverge with you when you say it's indicative a larger pattern of "women can do no wrong."
You're the one doing the spinning, Nick O'Liely.
1) Accusing me of spinning (up is down)
2) Suggesting WorldNetDaily is Pro-Women when it's a mostly conservative publication. The author in question didn't give a shit about women's rights. He was more interested in some law against adultery (or something like that) which is definitely not pro-women.
3) Women Bad, Men Good. We get your freaking point. And your 10,000 threads devoted to the subject.
May I curse Glenn Sacks and Trumptman with eternal writers' block!
*dances*
Wow you are doing a Bill impression aren't you. When you take that with this...
Is this indicative of a "crusade" against men where women can "do no wrong?" That's the point where many of us diverge with Trumptman.....and you perhaps.
All you need to do is scream, we know your point, we know your agenda, cut his mic!
Your spin is showing. I didn't say WorldNetDaily is pro woman. I said the article was pro-woman. The author said the woman was right for what she did since all courts do is grant a divorce, divide up the property and custody and do nothing to the man for ruining his marriage and her life. But in the Shawn Spin Zone, "Free Clara Harris" is code for
"women evil."
Likewise this quote is oh so subtle in who he supports.
If I were on that jury, I would find Clara Harris not guilty. After she was sprung, I'd give her a medal. She did the world a favor. She may have acted emotionally. She may be sorry for what she has done. But, frankly, she did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got.
And of course you don't answer the questions again...
spin away, spin away, Shawn the Spin-meister.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Maybe if you had the integrity to post decent links for once we wouldn't have to waste our time. No thanks.
Google works faster than even your one line dimissive statements.
Looks, sees Shawn is attacking the poster, and not answering the questions posted in the thread topic.....
Typical....
Nick
Should adultery be a punishable crime with men and women? If so who should be punished since it takes two to tango so to speak.
Should it be punishable? No.
If both are married, both committed adultery. If only one is married, only one committed adultery. I believe that's how it works. So in this case the man committed adultery while the secretary did not.
Should a mother or father who murders a spouse be able to get custody of their children?
Once you're out of jail, you've paid your debt. So, ultimately a child could go back to the murderer. More importantly, judges should decide. They have the evidence and should weigh the options. Since they can pay their debt to society, we can't completely rule out custody going back to a murderer. So a judge should weigh the options in any given case.
I think it's pretty obvious that in this particular instance 'joint custody' is not the same as sole custody. I don't think a court would give a woman in jail sole custody of a child because she would have no means of caring for the child.
Should anyone be advocating the murder of someone, male or female, who has not been convicted of a crime even when we don't like their private personal sexual behavior?
No.
Originally posted by bunge
One of my three links was clear, that the original custody case was flawed. It doesn't go into details, so the only info I have is that the original decision to give the kids to the grandparents was flawed. We have no evidence that this is not the case.
No I saw that one. Since it involves custody the flaws likely involved procedural matters and not matters regarding the parties and their ability to parent.
Should it be punishable? No.
If both are married, both committed adultery. If only one is married, only one committed adultery. I believe that's how it works. So in this case the man committed adultery while the secretary did not.
Clear cut, thank you.
Once you're out of jail, you've paid your debt. So, ultimately a child could go back to the murderer. More importantly, judges should decide. They have the evidence and should weigh the options. Since they can pay their debt to society, we can't completely rule out custody going back to a murderer. So a judge should weigh the options in any given case.
I think you are being a bit slippery here. Obviously she was granted joint custody while currently in jail. I don't think it will really matter who has custody when she gets out since she has a minimum 20 year sentence from what I understand.
Could you address this matter in the context of today instead of 20 years from now please.
Nick
So where do you stand on this one? Adultery, Murder, Custody
I take the place of Jimmy the Tulip: Adultery is a Sin, Murder is a Job, and custody is a consequence.