>

I really don’t understand why these things aren’t done earlier. People are just rotting away in prison and then are used as vote bait to make someone look good and possibly get re-elected. I’m glad it happens but it is for the shittiest reasons…
I worked in Psych for a number of years and we once had a patient who shot and killed her husband. She had all charges dropped because her husband had been beating her for 20+ years. Interestingly enough, she was one of the nicest individuals that I've ever met. >

Probably super nice bc she knew what a total ass can do. So decided to be the opposite. >

Might be a defence mechanism. 
If you’re nice and accommodating you might feel like it’s less likely someone will hurt you. >

It's a classic trauma response.  We all know about "fight or flight", but there's also the "freeze" and "fawn" responses.  The "fawn" response is a common one with abuse victims, especially child abuse - they just do whatever they can to placate the abuser.  They say whatever they can to make it stop.  They try to be as pliable and submissive as possible to not be a target of the abuser's rage. >

I've worked in mental health for over a decade and never heard of this. It makes SO MUCH SENSE and wish this was talked about more. Thanks for sharing. >

highly recommend the books   
"The Body Keeps the Score"
but also "Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving"  
Because complex trauma is absolutely a thing that is recognized from the mental health community, but isn't yet in the DSM. It's trauma that is from sustained abuse as opposed to trauma from a single incident such as a car accident or a suicide. >

C-PTSD I believe is in the ICD, but not the DSM. >

Hi, you’re right. ICD-11 >

I saw a couple comments in here about self-defense, and I want to make a quick comment about it because a lot of people are surprised that women get convicted of a crime when they kill or hurt their abusers. Self-defense often isn't a usable defense for abused women. In most states, someone has to be actively attacking you when you kill them for it to be legally viable. So you have to be IN a fight. A lot of abused women won't fight back while they're being hurt because: 1) they can't or are not strong enough 2) they're too scared, and can't overcome the mental hurdles of killing someone AND furthermore killing someone they are afraid of.
So what do you do if you are in that scenario? You wait until he stops and is distracted, his back is turned, or when he's asleep, etc. When you know you can win. And that usually gets women convicted. We really need better laws to accommodate victims of abuse.
EDITING: because someone below compared it to "premeditated murder" as though abused women sit down with their little listical, a checklist of items they need to murder their mean husband like a weapon and plastic and bleach or something like that. I forgot people on this website lack brain cells. It's more like this: he's hitting you, and finally he stops, maybe turns around to punch a wall instead, so you reach for the nearest blunt object and hit him in the head. He r*apes you and finally passes out drunk, and once that happens you reach for the gun and shoot him. The point where he STOPS is the point where self defense is LOST in some places and that's the problem. It's not like these women are planning a gone girl scenario, they're scared for their lives. And in many cases, getting away from him may have even been the original goal (in fact in a lot of cases I would imagine it's this, it's not like we're talking trained about assassins who aim for the head.) Sure she could pick that moment to run, but most women who leave abusive relationships are murdered, literally, it's the most likely time she will die. "Just leave" isn't an option for most women in this situation, it's never as simple as that. Imagine saying that to someone covered in bruises too. "Well why don't you just break up with him" you say while she's sitting there with a black eye. And sometimes the situation IS that extreme that she feels like she has no choice. Instead of coming at her for being in a miserable situation, maybe YOU should figure out how to make sure she has safe choices. Maybe you should call your politicians and ask what laws they are working on to help stop domestic violence. Maybe you should volunteer or donate to a shelter. >

The fear then, and rationally so, is that how do you make a law that better accommodates that sort of situation that isn't routinely and egregiously abused to enable guilty people to get off.
Then of course you need to decide whether or not you care more about punishing the guilty, or protecting the innocent. I err toward the latter, but I've also never been in such a situation.
So I say then, well off the fucker, and stage the scene and situation so you can make it look like self defense. If the law's gonna fuck you, then fuck the law. >

You need laws to regulate the police.
If people could trust them the women would go to them for safety.
They don't because the police are major abusers and defend the abuser. >

Police may be abusers themselves, but that isn't historically why women don't go to them. You can argue they are defending abusers, but come on, that would imply they aren't also hypocrits. 
The bigger problem is that domestic violence cases are extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute. They are often largely he said, she said cases and no one wants to bother. 
Another huge problem is the fact that until recently, things like financial abuse, emotional abuse, anything other than physical abuse were not considered domestic violence in the eyes of the law. 
But this isn't just on the police, it's on the whole legal system being unwilling to step up to protect women because it's difficult. >


As described by the White House, Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas, now 80, was convicted in 1977 “of murder in the second degree while armed for killing her husband.
“Ms Ibn-Tamas, 33 at the time of the incident, was pregnant and testified that before and during her pregnancy her husband beat her, verbally abused her and threatened her. According to her testimony, her husband had physically assaulted her and threatened her in the moments before she shot him.
“During her trial, the court refused to allow expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome, a psychological condition and pattern of behavior that develops in victims of domestic violence.”
Ibn-Tamas was sentenced to one to five years in jail. Her appeal, the White House said, “marked one of the first significant steps toward judicial recognition of battered woman syndrome, and her case has been the subject of numerous academic studies”.

Given this, she should have gotten her pardon a lot sooner. Like, when the syndrome was recognized. And it should be the same for all people who, before her, committed the irreparable because of that syndrome. >

All because the legal system doesn’t want to admit its massive shortcomings and outright faults.
Or it gets abused by those who want to weaponize it for cheap political points for their stupid base. >

And if you have ”the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them” then Desantis and his ilk will label you as “woke.”
Because daring to consider the US as having flaws is - bad. >

Al Franken said it best:

“We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow.” >

Thus the jump they make straight to "Love it or leave it." >

You mean he is not pardoning his criminal friends or using pardons as perks for loyalty? The nerve >

The irony is that republicans will REALLY hate this pardon because as men who like to control (abuse) women, they're very much against consequences for their own actions. >

Looking around for all the people that really hate this pardon. Not really seeing many. >

Go to the fox news comment section to see all the hate for yourself. 
Biden pardons woman convicted of murder, 5 others on drug, alcohol-related offenses >

I've seen the article.
The TLDR: the 6 pardons are mostly or entirely symbolic of the stance Biden wants to take and the example he wants to set. The main person named is 80 years old and well past thr point where the pardon will actually help her, however it is an acknowledgement of previous miscarriage of justice (the defendant was not allowed to use "battered woman defense" at a time when the concept was finally starting to be recognized).
A couple will matter, but most are just to set a tone for justice under his administration. >

This is a good move for him. It’s better to make multiple symbolic pardons than risk pardoning one of the many much younger wrongfully convicted persons who could still (however small the likelihood) commit a crime or say something on the internet before the election and hurt Biden’s judgement before the election >

Self defense isn't a crime >

The crime was being a woman who stood up for herself.  It's clearly still a crime everywhere in the world. >

head coverings come to mind. because hair is sexy and men, poor stupid dumb men can't be asked to control themselves in the presence of such an erotic display.. which is obviously the woman's fault.
that was bad enough in my head. it's terrible written out. >

And most people only sympathize with her because she's 80. There are many women in prison for killing their rapists and abusers and no one gives a shit >


Charles Byrnes Jackson, 77 and from Swansea, South Carolina, was convicted when 18 of possession and sale of distilled spirits without tax stamps.

Just a good ole boy, never meaning no harm 😂 >

My dyslexic brain: 
Biden pardons Ohio woman who killed 80 >

After the 79th abusive husband, you'd think someone would figure out marriage isn't the right choice for them. >

Now he needs to pardon that young woman that killed her rapist/trafficker and is in prison for it. Can’t remember her name but she recently got rearrested for escaping custody which I also think is horse shit. >

I might note that no NRA, no gun culture came to her defense. Ladies, gun culture wants you armed to swell their numbers and their overlord's revenues but when it comes to DGU don't kid yourselves, it's still a man's world, always has been. >

But doesn't pardon the woman who killed her trafficker? >

If you mean Cyntoia Brown, she is free now and I even bought her book from the Dollar Tree too. >

Donald desperately trying to keep Melania from seeing this. >

As an abused person, we are nice to avoid getting abused, but then when we react, we are punished. Catch 22. >

Can’t wait to hear from the right about how we let
Murderers go free while still championing Kyle Rittenhouse. >

For anyone who was surprised by the headline but didn't read the article: 

Ibn-Tamas was sentenced to one to five years in jail.

She's been free for a long time, but she is no longer a convicted murderer.
The sentence seems strange to me - it's very short, like they're admitting he had it coming but punished her anyway.  That doesn't really make sense.  If she was defending herself she shouldn't have been convicted, and if she wasn't defending herself she would have received a longer sentence.  But good that she didn't have to spend her life in prison, and good that she's finally pardoned. >

Republicans: "BIDEN DECLARES WAR ON HUSBANDS" >

This is the headline Fox News has on their homepage right now. Not at all misleading. >

Now, do the rest of them. >

FOX's totally not misleading headline. >

Holy shit that's horrible editorial work. >

This woman has had to deal with the effects of being abused for decades, spending years in prison with the effects of this abuse, then has lived until the age of 80, still dealing with the past and NOW a criminal record (which almost certainly hindered her ability to get work) knowing she ended the life of someone she loved (sorry, but she did/does). That last part alone is enough to fuck anyone up mentally. The fact that SHE’S still alive is a fucking wonder. Without wanting to be a downer, I know what I’d have done in her position. She’s a stronger person than I, for sure. >

“Biden weak on crime, releases convicted murderer” Fox News probably >

Wait, that was a federal crime? How does that work? >

They lived in Washington, DC. >

Ah, I was confused by Ohio woman too. Why mention that detail in the title? Also it would help if it said "killed in DC" >

She lives in Ohio now (she's been out of jail for a long time, this is just clearing her record), and writers think it's awkward to just say "Biden pardons woman" so throwing a state in there has become the standard easy way to fluff it up a bit. >

GOP:
.....
....
Hunter Biden's laptop!!! >

This wasn't even a pardon, this just expunged her record. She did her jail time and finished it decades ago. >

Fascinating backstory in the article. The headline doesn't do it justice. She's a hero for all women. >

The vast difference between the pardons of Biden and our previous president speaks volumes about their character and morals >

What? He didn't pardon a criminal crony like Trump? /s >

And for Mumia?  
​
Crickets.