This is from MediaTakeOut, so take it with a grain of salt...However, this would help explain why dude seemed to 'snap'. Or maybe I'd like to think drugs or something had to be involved to make someone become so violent. True or not, he still needs punishment, therapy etc.


[Edited 3/6/09 18:08pm]

Media Takeout has proven to be a cesspool of lies and tabloidish sensationalism.

laurarichardson said:

Did I say all that?! I think not.

And what's with the herd mentality? We are only allowed to see this one way?
Persecute the man?
Excuse if I don't enjoy the sport.
I'll say it again. Chris is wrong. All that was uncalled for.
What I was pointing out that the emphasis is on men hitting women and the need to repeatedly remind the guillotine crew, that women are also violent, then the retort becomes but he has to walk away whatever she does because he's a man.
And because more women than men are victims of REPORTED domestic violence women and gay men are considered weaker than 'men.' BS


I don't defend Chris' actions but then the same people condemning his actions are advocating violence against Chris, namely rape, as if that is part of his sentence, (and what you'll feel cheated if he isn't?)
What religion do people believe in that they would consider such brutality a bonus of vengeance?

I find that twisted, sick and perverse.

So don't expect me to ever cheer the thought of anyone being raped.

Cinnie said:

Might as well be...

Again with "the relative".

They name someone for every piece of news except the pair being back together.



What does that mean?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

"all the time"? Quite a bit of exaggeration going on there. In any case a failure to convict is determined after a trial is complete, right? You and most everybody else on this thread are gussied-up over rumor and innuendo. The trial hasn't even started. My approach is based on knowing the actual facts instead of making things up.

PFunkjazz said:

No, you don't get to lump in two R&B singers in with rap just because an assault was committed

Cinnie said:

Say word.

Cinnie said:

Ok substitute "rappers" for "shitty r&b singers". Now they're synonomous.
[Edited 3/7/09 13:35pm]

I wood not fancy being that prety boyz asshole in the distant fewture

bettybop said:

Cinnie said:

Exactly.

luv4u said:

They're clearly not cognizant enough to understand why they shouldn't

Cinnie said:

That's why that kid right thuur, that's our org Boo

SUPRMAN said:

-----
"What I was pointing out that the emphasis is on men hitting women and the need to repeatedly remind the guillotine crew, that women are also violent, then the retort becomes but he has to walk away whatever she does because he's a man."

Under present day domestic violence laws woman have been arrested for domestic
violence. It is not okay for anyone to hit someone. It is all called battery.

In addtion, I don't think anyone is on a heard mentality. What ever happened to a man acting like a man. You don't hit the weaker sex because it is not possible for a woman to physicaly hurt a man with her hands. Men are stronger and should never hit a woman. A lot of us are just old school a man use to be known as a "punk" for hitting a woman. I don't think Chris should be raped but he deserves to do some time for what he did. You do not put a woman in a headlock and punch her in the face off the top of your head.

This dude did not just fly off the handle I am taking a guess he has done this before and will do not again if not punished.

RosesRred said:

Now there are rumors of them getting married. He can beat her ass all around the world like a pinata, it will make no difference in my life. She will learn her lesson eventually. Officially done with these two retards.

laurarichardson said:

That is patently false. Generally men are stronger but that is obviously not the case in every relationship.
Yes, he deserves time and he didn't do all that off the top of his head, it built up to that, but the point remains. AND she's in an $11,000 dress?!!
They were both too heated. If they'd already broken up, I don't see why either of them were tripping if they weren't a couple. Maybe they both care too much and neither wants to admit it.
I think he will do it whether he's punished or not. Without therapy and learning coping mechanisms (when women wanna talk all that smack like they a man but can't be beat down like a man [although it would be ok if they were a man] because no woman anywhere is stronger than the weakest man, so women can hit men but men can't report if for being ridiculed as being unable to handle a woman) he'll be abusive in another relationship and easier to goad.

laurarichardson said:

That statement is NOT factual. All women should not be stereotyped in such a way. Not all women are "weak" like U describe. Some of us wisely have and know how to use physical power and strategic thinking, and thus know how to defend ourselves with our hands/fists if ever attacked by a man's hands/fists (and I'm not referring to just body-builders or martial arts experts).

Rihanna is just an unfortunate example of a woman who doesn't know physical self-defense and was reportedly overwhelmed by fear. That does not mean all women are unable to cause immediate pain or restraint with their hands and overpower a man when being attacked (even if the man is larger). If Rihanna knew what to do physically after being punched by Brown and didn't become afraid, the situation would be entirely different.

I know small/medium, non-trained (no weight-lifting or martial art experience) women who would not have been as badly injured (if at all) in this case, and would have used their hands to put Chris in the hospital with serious injuries if they could not escape the moving car and he had physically attacked them like he did Rihanna. .

'Love Doesn't Hurt,' Oprah Tells Rihanna



(March 8) - Oprah Winfrey strongly cautioned Rihanna from hastily reconciling with her accused attacker Chris Brown, saying during her show on Friday that "love doesn't hurt" and charging that "if a man hits you once, he will hit you again."
"You need somebody to tell you the truth in this moment. And the truth is guys, both Chris Brown and Rihanna, if I were your friend, I would call you up and I would say 'Give it some time, get yourself some counseling, take care of yourself, heal yourself first'," she said during the live broadcast.
"And also, 'Love doesn't hurt'. I've been saying this to women for years - love doesn't hurt. And if a man hits you once, he will hit you again. He will hit you again. I don't care what his plea is, he will hit you again.'"
Brown briefly appeared in court Thursday, hours after he was charged with two felonies stemming from what a police detective describes as a brutal argument between the singer and Rihanna in a car in an upscale Los Angeles neighborhood last month. He did not enter a plea, and his arraignment was postponed until April 6. Until then, the 19-year-old R&B singer remains free on $50,000 bail.
A search warrant affidavit filed by a Los Angeles police detective described a brutal fight in which Brown allegedly punched, bit and choked Rihanna until she nearly lost consciousness.

StarCat said:

can you give us all a heads up what this link is, in case it's not suitable for work?

laurarichardson said:


"A lot of us are just old school a man use to be known as a "punk" for hitting a woman". In my home & family they still are.

We've spoken and given our opinions about this since this story broke. In some instances, I've held back but allow me to say this: More often than not many men are very good at flipping the question, making excuses, or when in doubt blame momma, girlfriend, sister, wife, or anything with a skirt for their behavior. There is always a but.... amazing! This is reason why rape and violence against women is common place around the world and not taken seriously, a vast majority of men either down play it's existences. Untill maybe it's happens to a female in their family and surprisingly you can't depend on them to rise to the occasion then the perfect example, Ms. Fenty's father.


The play ground-rule: If someone hits you, you're to hit them back. doesn't apply in a court of law. When you are attacked or hit you're suppose to make a valid attempt to remove yourself from the situation. Irrespective of gender you need to leave people alone who're controlling, constantly anger, throw tantrums at a moments notice, possessive, extremely jealous, and/or raises a hand at you, the first time. If need be call the police.....

The advice my husband gave our 20 year old daughter: Listen very carefully to men and male friends and thoughts on the subject of men hitting women. If any of them make excuses or why maybe she brought it upon herself, leave them alone cuz your dealing with a) potential abuser b) a punk. In any instance whether you've known them since childhood or for 20 minutes, drop them.
[Edited 3/8/09 16:38pm]

TD3 said:

I don't think rape and violence exist because men feel they can get away with it. What man in the U.S. thinks they can get away with it? But like racism, sexism is taught both at home and culturally/socially modeled in life and media.

Blaming others for individual decisions and actions is very American. We are taught through examples such as the various bailouts that we don't have to suffer the consequences of our decisions.
Our national debt allows us to avoid suffering the consequences of making fiscally sound decisions, living within our means.
We want to bailout people who overextended themselves in the housing market.
So these men who blame women for their behavior are just doing what we do aren't they?

Small point, but because most domestic abuse takes place in residential settings, I'll mention that you are not required to retreat in your home.

I'd like to see how the law has dealt with that in domestic violence situations but not willing to do the research, right now.

Well curiosity got the best of me, and how long could it take anyway? I have a superficial answer though.
[Edited 3/8/09 17:22pm]

KATHLEEN WEIAND,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
No. 91,925
[March 11, 1999]

PARIENTE, J.

We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal certifying the following question to be of great public importance:

SHOULD THE RULE OF STATE V. BOBBITT , 415 SO. 2D 724 (FLA. 1982), BE CHANGED TO ALLOW THE CASTLE DOCTRINE INSTRUCTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT RELIES ON BATTERED-SPOUSE SYNDROME EVIDENCE (AS NOW AUTHORIZED BY STATE V. HICKSON , 630 SO. 2D 172 (FLA. 1994)[)] TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST AN AGGRESSOR WHO WAS A COHABITANT OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED?


Weiand v. State , No. 95-01121 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 22), on rehearing from 701 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We rephrase the question as follows:

SHOULD THE LAW IMPOSE A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM THE RESIDENCE BEFORE A DEFENDANT MAY JUSTIFIABLY RESORT TO DEADLY FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A CO-OCCUPANT, IF THAT FORCE IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM?


As rephrased, we answer the certified question in the negative and recede from our contrary holding in Bobbitt .

I. JURISDICTION
{edited for space considerations}

In this case, the Second District was bound by our precedent in Bobbitt to reject Weiand's argument concerning the jury instruction because a district court of appeal does not have the authority to overrule a decision of this Court. See Hoffman v. Jones , 280 So. 2d 431, 440 (Fla. 1973). Thus, certification of the question to this Court was the only available judicial means by which Bobbitt could be overruled. While a discussion in the Second District's opinion of the issues raised by the certified question would have been helpful to this Court, it was not a necessary predicate to our exercise of jurisdiction.

After briefing and oral argument, Weiand filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in this Court because she was granted executive clemency on December 23, 1998. As we have done in the past, we exercise our discretion to retain jurisdiction because we consider this issue to be of great public importance. See State v. Schopp , 653 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 1995); Holly v. Auld , 450 So. 2d 217, 218 n.1 (Fla. 1984).

II. FACTS

Kathleen Weiand was charged with first-degree murder for the 1994 shooting death of her husband Todd Weiand. Weiand shot her husband during a violent argument in the apartment where the two were living together with their seven-week-old daughter. At trial Weiand claimed self-defense and presented battered spouse syndrome evidence pursuant to Hickson in support of her claim. Weiand testified that her husband had beaten and choked her throughout the course of their three-year relationship and had threatened further violence if she left him.

Two experts, including Dr. Lenore Walker, a nationally recognized expert on battered women, testified that Weiand suffered from "battered woman's syndrome." Dr. Walker detailed Weiand's history of abuse by her husband and testified about the effect of the abusive relationship on Weiand. Based on her studies, her work with Weiand and Weiand's history of abuse, Dr. Walker concluded that when Weiand shot her husband she believed that he was going to seriously hurt or kill her.

Dr. Walker opined that there were several reasons why Weiand did not leave the apartment that night during the argument, despite apparent opportunities to do so: she felt that she was unable to leave because she had just given birth seven weeks earlier; she had been choked unconscious; she was paralyzed with terror; and experience had taught her that threats of leaving only made her husband more violent.

At the charge conference following the close of the evidence, defense counsel requested that the following standard jury instruction be given:


If the defendant was attacked in [his] [her] own home or on [his] [her] own premises, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the lawful right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if it was necessary to prevent either death or great bodily harm.


Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.), "Justifiable Use of Deadly Force," § 3.04(d), at 49 (brackets in original). In accordance with this Court's opinion in Bobbitt , the trial court refused the request to give this "defense of home" instruction. Instead, the trial court only gave the instruction applicable in all self-defense cases regarding the duty to retreat:


The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify her use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating she could have avoided the need to use that force.


See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.), "Justifiable Use of Deadly Force," § 3.04(d), at 48.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor used this standard instruction to the State's advantage by emphasizing Weiand's duty to retreat. The prosecutor stressed as "critical" that the killing could not be considered justifiable homicide unless Weiand had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, including fleeing her home:


She had to exhaust every reasonable means of escape prior to killing him. Did she do that? No. Did she use the phone that was two feet away? No. Did she go out the door where her baby was sitting next to? No. Did she get in the car that she had driven all over town drinking and boozing it up all day? No.


The jury found Weiand guilty of second-degree murder and the trial court sentenced her to eighteen years' imprisonment. The Second District affirmed her conviction and sentence, see Weiand , 701 So. 2d at 565, but on rehearing certified the question of whether this Court should recede from Bobbitt .

III. THE PRIVILEGE OF

NONRETREAT FROM THE

RESIDENCE

Under Florida statutory and common law, a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat. (1995); Wilson v. State , 30 Fla. 234, 255, 11 So. 556, 561 (1892); DeLuge v. State , 710 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) §3.04(d), at 46. Even under those circumstances, however, a person may not resort to deadly force without first using every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger, including retreat. SeeBobbitt , 415 So. 2d at 725; Hedges v. State , 172 So. 2d 824, 827 (Fla. 1965). The duty to retreat emanates from common law, rather than from our statutes. See Hedges , 172 So. 2d at 827.

There is an exception to this common law duty to retreat "to the wall," which applies when an individual claims self-defense in his or her own residence. See id. at 827; Pell v. State , 97 Fla. 650, 665, 122 So. 110, 116 (1929); Danford v. State , 53 Fla. 4, 13, 43 So. 593, 597 (1907). An individual is not required to retreat from the residence before resorting to deadly force in self-defense, so long as the deadly force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. See Hedges , 172 So. 2d at 827; Pell , 97 Fla. at 665, 122 So. at 116; Danford , 53 Fla. at 13, 43 So. at 597.

The privilege of nonretreat from the home, part of the "castle doctrine," has early common law origins. SeeBobbitt , 415 So. 2d at 725; Hedges , 172 So. 2d at 827; Pell , 97 Fla. at 665, 122 So. 2d at 116; Danford , 53 Fla. at 13, 43 So. at 597; New York v. Tomlins , 107 N.E. 496, 497-98 (N.Y. 1914). In Tomlins , the defendant claimed self-defense when attacked in his home by his son. 107 N.E. at 496. In reversing the defendant's conviction because the duty to retreat instruction was given, Justice Cardozo explained the historical basis of the privilege of nonretreat from the home:


It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home. More than 200 years ago it was said by Lord Chief Justice Hale: In case a man "is assailed in his own house, he need not flee as far as he can, as in other cases of se defendendo,[ ] for he hath the protection of his house to excuse him from flying, as that would be to give up the protection of his house to his adversary by flight." Flight is for sanctuary and shelter, and shelter, if not sanctuary, is in the home. . . . The rule is the same whether the attack proceeds from some other occupant or from an intruder .


Id. at 497-98 (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted).

In Hedges , this Court applied the privilege of nonretreat from the residence where the attacker was not an intruder but an invitee with the defendant's permission to be on the premises. In that case, the defendant and the victim had maintained a long-term intimate relationship, and on the morning of the shooting the victim was an invitee, lawfully in the defendant's home. See Hedges v. State , 165 So. 2d 213, 214-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), quashed , 172 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1965). In instructing the jury on the law of self-defense, the trial court informed the jury that the defendant was required to use "all reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger and avert the necessity of taking human life." Hedges , 172 So. 2d at 826. The trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant was under no duty to retreat from her residence. See id. at 827.

In reversing the conviction of manslaughter, our Court held:


The instruction correctly stated the law as far as it went but again it was not complete . The quoted language placed upon the accused the duty to use all reasonable means consistent with her own safety to avoid the danger and avert the necessity of taking human life. To the lay mind this well could be construed to mean the duty to run or to get out of the way. There is no such duty when one is assaulted in his own home, despite the common law duty to "retreat to the wall" when one is attacked elsewhere. Pell v. State, 97 Fla. 650, 122 So. 110 [(1929)]. While Pell involved a trespasser, it clearly states the rule to be that when one is violently assaulted in his own house or immediately surrounding premises, he is not obliged to retreat but may stand his ground and use such force as prudence and caution would dictate as necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm . When in his home he has "retreated to the wall." Pell further decides that such an instruction should be an element of the charge on self- defense where the evidence supports it. Other courts have held that a man is under no duty to retreat when attacked in his own home. His home is his ultimate sanctuary.


Id. at 826-27 (emphasis supplied).

Eighteen years later, in Bobbitt , this Court considered whether the privilege of nonretreat from the home should also apply where the defendant killed her co-occupant husband in self-defense, after being attacked without provocation. 415 So. 2d at 725-26. This Court rejected the extension of Hedges under those circumstances:


[T]he privilege not to retreat, premised on the maxim that every man's home is his castle which he is entitled to protect from invasion, does not apply here where both Bobbitt and her husband had equal rights to be in the "castle" and neither had the legal right to eject the other.


Id. at 726.

Justice Overton, in a strongly-worded dissent, disagreed with the majority's decision because it was contrary to a "basic premise in our law that the home is a special place of protection and security." Id. at 727. He further criticized the distinction made by the majority that authorized the privilege of nonretreat instruction in cases like Hedges , where the aggressor was an invitee with a legal right to be on the premises, but not where the aggressor was a co-occupant. See id. at 726-27.

At the time we rendered our decision in Bobbitt in 1982, we were in a minority of jurisdictions that refused to extend the privilege of nonretreat from the residence where the aggressor was a co-occupant. Since our decision in Bobbitt , an even greater number of jurisdictions have declined to impose a duty to retreat from the residence. See generally H.J. Alperin, Annotation, Homicide: Duty to Retreat Where Assailant and Assailed Share the Same Living Quarters , 26 A.L.R. 3d 1296 (1969 & Supp. 1998).

IV. RECONSIDERATION OF OUR

DECISION IN BOBBITT

We now conclude that it is appropriate to recede from Bobbitt and adopt Justice Overton's well-reasoned dissent in that case. We join the majority of jurisdictions that do not impose a duty to retreat from the residence when a defendant uses deadly force in self-defense, if that force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm from a co-occupant. There are two distinct reasons for our conclusion. First, we can no longer agree with Bobbitt 's minority view that relies on concepts of property law and possessory rights to impose a duty to retreat from the residence. 415 So. 2d at 726. Second, based on our increased understanding of the plight of victims of domestic violence in the years since our decision in Bobbitt , we find that there are sound policy reasons for not imposing a duty to retreat from the residence when a defendant resorts to deadly force in self-defense against a co-occupant. The more recent decisions of state supreme courts confronting this issue have recognized that imposing a duty to retreat from the residence has a potentially damaging effect on victims of domestic violence claiming self-defense. See, e.g. , New Jersey v. Gartland , 694 A.2d 564, 569-71 (N.J. 1997); Ohio v. Thomas , 673 N.E.2d 1339, 1343 (Ohio 1997).

{edited for space considerations}

As Justice Kogan stated in his concurring opinion in Perkins v. State , 576 So. 2d 1310, 1314 (Fla. 1991), "[t]he right to fend off an unprovoked and deadly attack is nothing less than the right to life itself, which [article I, section 2] of our Constitution declares to be a basic right." Thus, the privilege of nonretreat instruction should be equally available to all those lawfully residing in the premises, provided, of course, that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Because this instruction will apply to both invitees and co-occupants alike, we recede from Hedges to the extent that Hedges does not require a middle-ground instruction for invitees.
[Edited 3/8/09 17:25pm]

Although the above case is from Florida, the court is citing common law, which applies nationwide,(except Louisiana, unless it's a Federal District or Supreme Court decision) so the rule is likely to be the same or similar.

For those who may not know why Louisiana is the exception, LA state law is based on the Napoleonic Code which doesn't recognize common law. In Louisiana it has to be codified, or formally written into law. Common law is written in cases, by judges.
[Edited 3/8/09 17:21pm]

Ottensen said:

It's the same link I posted earlier where Chris is talking w/DJ Clue about getting into fights with Rihanna. It's suitable for work.

More details emerge per TMZ:


I figured since he bit her that she had to be fighting back or something.
[Edited 3/8/09 18:11pm]

SUPRMAN said:

Domestic abuse (I have issues with that name and definition) can and does happen outside of the home, any place, and at any time. Unless you think a Lamborghini is a home. Second point: men do rape, beat, and abuse women and more often than not justice isn't served and they do get away with it. In many place in the world married women don't have the right to say "NO", still. In some instances women are killed to regain family "honor" when she's been raped, killed by the men in her family no less. Imagine! Third point: "Blaming others for individual decisions and actions is very American" Nah, it's not an American trait but your response I'm sorry to say is an all too common one. It's up their with, [i] "I was just following orders". Or, "I didn't think this could happen to me, to my family,and/or in my neighborhood".. I don't expect anyone to take the blame nor embrace the guilt of others who've done wrong. I do however expect those who violate the freedom, respect, and safety of others to stand up, speak out, and fight against those crimes/injustices. I expect for us to make sure justice it served and the guilty are punished for violating the law. I expect us to show empathy and be aware that those same acts of violence that happens to others may come floating back to YOU. When they came for the Communist I said nothing because I wasn't a Communists. When they came for the Unionist I said nothing because I wasn't a Unionist. When they came for the Jew's I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. One day they came for me and there was no one left. Ring a bell?

As my husband rightly told my daughter anyone who makes excuses which is a roundabout was of justifying violence against women... are suspect and not to be trusted at high noon or at twelve midnight.
[Edited 3/8/09 18:49pm]

TD3 said:

I don't think we're arguing here.
I am not defending Chris Brown or abusive men.
I was not talking about men worldwide but American men. It happens in America also even though everyone knows it leads to jail. That isn't enough of a deterrent is it?
Yes men in other countries with varying mores, cultures, beliefs and standards do get away with it. But that is not the U.S. judicial system's fault.

WaterInYourBath said:

I agree with this.