PDA

View Full Version : Wife kills husband, jury acquits in 1.5 hours



danno
28th June 10, 10:48 PM
http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/05/27/1513631/Falls-420x0.jpg


A WOMAN acquitted of killing her husband says she saved her son being killed by the 'Terminator'.

Susan Falls, 42, who know lives on the Gold Coast with her new partner, was this month acquitted of killing her husband Rodney James Falls in May 2006 at their Caloundra home after putting 25 sleeping pills in his favourite meal, curried prawns.

Last night, Mrs Falls, told the Nine Network she was given no choice but to kill her 120kg husband who bashed her frequently and abused steroids.

Mrs Falls was 14 years old when she met 16-year-old Rodney and she said she dated him for five years before marrying him in 1987.

She said she walked herself down the aisle without her parents there after Mr Falls spat in her mother's face and said she suffered her first serious bashing when she was pregnant with their first child Amanda.

Mrs Falls decided to kill her husband when he made a threat against one of the children, saying he would kill one of them.

He wrote the names of the four children on pieces of paper.

"And he told me to pick one and I wouldn't," she said. "And that's when he grabbed me and pushed my head down on the table and said: 'pick one'.

"I had no choice, so I picked one."

She said she had chosen her son.

"I remember him saying that should be easy because he was still young enough for cot death, he was three at the time," said Mrs Falls.

"And then he asked me when my mother's birthday was ... and then it became very clear now there was a name chosen my mother's birthday was to be the day ... not only was it a punishment to me, but it would be a punishment to her as well."

Mrs Falls said she bought a gun with a silencer after sending her daughter out with $5000 to purchase a weapon.

She changed into her pyjamas and socks, approached him and shot him twice after he ate the curried prawn meal she had prepared for dinner.

To her surprise he was still alive.

"To me, he was like the Terminator," she said.

She later arranged for his body to be buried in state forest near Mapleton.

After lying to the police Mrs Falls eventually turned herself in and spent about 70 days in custody.

She was acquitted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane after her lawyers said she was a victim of battered women's syndrome.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/06/29/233441_gold-coast-news.html

people often complain that those who act in self defense are unfairly dealt with by the law. not so in this case.

were her actions just?

imo, cunt got what he deserved.

WarPhalange
28th June 10, 10:56 PM
What an asshole. Her decisions weren't the most rational, but I could picture myself doing the same thing in her shoes. If her attempt at getting away from him somehow didn't work out, she'd have hell to pay, so she made sure she went all the way.

Ajamil
28th June 10, 10:56 PM
Acquitted of murder in defense of assault? In prevention of threats? I'm going to get bashed for this, but I don't think this was right. I think he got what he deserved, but I don't think this was right. I feel...I feel what she did was right, but I also feel it was illegal and she should go to jail for it.

danno
28th June 10, 10:57 PM
oh yeah, i forgot to mention that i lived in that neighbourhood for a couple of years.

danno
28th June 10, 11:01 PM
Acquitted of murder in defense of assault? In prevention of threats? I'm going to get bashed for this, but I don't think this was right. I think he got what he deserved, but I don't think this was right. I feel...I feel what she did was right, but I also feel it was illegal and she should go to jail for it.

yeah, i'm kinda with you. what she did wasn't really right, and i wouldn't have suggested that course of action to her.

but i bet she was driven half insane by this guy. and there is a part of me that feels this was right, and i'm glad there is one less cunt in the world, and i'm glad the jury did what they did. overall, i feel this was justice.

fes_fsa
28th June 10, 11:01 PM
no. her actions were not just.

she should've gone to the police.

HappyOldGuy
28th June 10, 11:03 PM
oh yeah, i forgot to mention that i lived in that neighbourhood for a couple of years.
So do you know first hand that her story is true?

Because you are taking an awful lot on faith. After all, Aileen Wuornos claimed that she was defending herself against all seven of the men she shot in the back.

Of course the odds are she is, but i think her hubby has a kind face, so she is wrong.

Keith
28th June 10, 11:03 PM
her 120kg husband

That's about 264 lbs.

The only thing I think was wrong was that she stayed with him so long and let things go so far that by the time she had enough and was willing to do something about it, killing him was the only option. There's no way that roid-raging meathead would let her go if she just tried to leave.

danno
28th June 10, 11:06 PM
So do you know first hand that her story is true?

Because you are taking an awful lot on faith. After all, Aileen Wuornos claimed that she was defending herself against all seven of the men she shot in the back.

Of course the odds are she is, but i think her hubby has a kind face, so she is wrong.

no, i don't know if it was true. that would change things completely.

i'm assuming that enough evidence was brought before the court to make a pretty good argument she was telling the truth.

HappyOldGuy
28th June 10, 11:08 PM
You have alot more faith in juries than I do.

But the odds are still that she was telling mostly the truth.

Ajamil
28th June 10, 11:08 PM
What would the police have done? Relocation? Protection? I don't know her situation - did she have a means of separate living?

Does any of that balance out the worth of a life? Is this guy's life worth anything? Not our place to decide that last one, I suppose.

Not to make light, but this exemplifies the "better to ask forgiveness than permission" rule.

danno
28th June 10, 11:12 PM
What would the police have done? Relocation? Protection? I don't know her situation - did she have a means of separate living?

Does any of that balance out the worth of a life? Is this guy's life worth anything? Not our place to decide that last one, I suppose.

Not to make light, but this exemplifies the "better to ask forgiveness than permission" rule.

if he was the person she described him to be, then in my view his life was worthless, and the world is better off without him.

i'd say he'd brainwashed her to the point that leaving was not an option. she thought she'd be killed or something.

WarPhalange
28th June 10, 11:22 PM
What would the police have done? Relocation? Protection? I don't know her situation - did she have a means of separate living?

Killing him is cheaper, though.

danno
28th June 10, 11:23 PM
can someone fix that typo in the title? i posted this one with too much haste.

Keith
28th June 10, 11:28 PM
i'd say he'd brainwashed her to the point that leaving was not an option. she thought she'd be killed or something.

I wouldn't even call it brainwashing. I'm pretty sure if she left him, he'd track her down and kill her, probably right in front of the kids. At the end of the day a restraining order is just a piece of paper and by the time the cops get there, they could be just cleaning up the body.

fes_fsa
28th June 10, 11:34 PM
can someone fix that typo in the title? i posted this one with too much haste.

done.

SFGOON
28th June 10, 11:47 PM
I'm glad she was acquitted. Let's face it - getting away from an abusive mindfuck of a macho asshole is not an easy thing. You've got a great deal of rage and willpower masking a great deal of insecurity and fear of being re-sodomized.

Cops and courts can't be everywhere at once, and can only do so much.

Putting that fucker out of his misery was the right thing to do. I'm glad the jury was reasonable.

Ajamil
28th June 10, 11:54 PM
Will she be put in psychiatric care at all?

danno
28th June 10, 11:54 PM
done.

you're a gem.


Will she be put in psychiatric care at all?

no idea. i'd hope so.

at the moment though, she's making some cash by doing interviews for current affairs programs.

Keith
29th June 10, 12:27 AM
Will she be put in psychiatric care at all?

The kids will probably need some, but they would anyway just from having a man like that as their father. At least this way they might live long enough to get it.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 12:43 AM
Whoa, hang on. Are we saying it's okay to murder people with clear premeditation as long as we feel like the victim deserves it?

It's pretty clear that the guy was a total asshole, sure, but that doesn't change the law. She put him to sleep with sleeping pills in his food, I'm pretty sure that's clear planning and premeditation, which makes this murder. If she'd had the gun first, then fired it when he was coming at her in the heat of the moment, that's a different story.

bob
29th June 10, 12:51 AM
He wrote the names of the four children on pieces of paper.

"And he told me to pick one and I wouldn't," she said. "And that's when he grabbed me and pushed my head down on the table and said: 'pick one'.

"I had no choice, so I picked one."

She said she had chosen her son.

Well, at least they ended up with a funny story to tell at that kid's 21st.

"Lol, remember the time dad said to choose which one of us should die and mum chose YOU!"

danno
29th June 10, 12:55 AM
Whoa, hang on. Are we saying it's okay to murder people with clear premeditation as long as we feel like the victim deserves it?

It's pretty clear that the guy was a total asshole, sure, but that doesn't change the law. She put him to sleep with sleeping pills in his food, I'm pretty sure that's clear planning and premeditation, which makes this murder. If she'd had the gun first, then fired it when he was coming at her in the heat of the moment, that's a different story.

i think the years of beatings and head fucking made her mental health play an important role in the decision of the jury.

WarPhalange
29th June 10, 12:55 AM
Whoa, hang on. Are we saying it's okay to murder people with clear premeditation as long as we feel like the victim deserves it?

Yes.


It's pretty clear that the guy was a total asshole, sure, but that doesn't change the law. She put him to sleep with sleeping pills in his food, I'm pretty sure that's clear planning and premeditation, which makes this murder. If she'd had the gun first, then fired it when he was coming at her in the heat of the moment, that's a different story.

Tell me this after being abused by a guy over twice three times 9000 times bigger than you for years and having him make you pick out which child he should murder.

Read my first post in this thread. She knew that if she didn't make him stop then she would really get her ass kicked for trying to stand up against him. Going to the police would have been the better thing to do, but let's face it, the po-po isn't omnipotent and she knew it. There would still be the possibility of him going apeshit on her without the fuzz getting there in time or whatnot. This was the only way out where she would definitely be safe, forever.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 12:58 AM
i think the years of beatings and head fucking made her mental health play an important role in the decision of the jury.

I'm sure that's a possibility, but having not been at the court proceedings, I don't want to presume.

However, if it's not the insanity plea, and simply people feeling like the guy deserved it (which was kinda the vibe I was getting on here), that's not a great way to run a legal system.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 01:00 AM
Tell me this after being abused by a guy over twice three times 9000 times bigger than you for years and having him make you pick out which child he should murder.

Read my first post in this thread. She knew that if she didn't make him stop then she would really get her ass kicked for trying to stand up against him. Going to the police would have been the better thing to do, but let's face it, the po-po isn't omnipotent and she knew it. There would still be the possibility of him going apeshit on her without the fuzz getting there in time or whatnot. This was the only way out where she would definitely be safe, forever.

What you're advocating is vigilante justice, which is fine by me. However, that's not something we should institutionalize. If she wants to kill her husband? Fine, but she's got to do the time for it. Letting it go because of personal feelings about "justice" or "just deserts" is a very slippery slope, in my opinion.

danno
29th June 10, 01:12 AM
I'm sure that's a possibility, but having not been at the court proceedings, I don't want to presume.

However, if it's not the insanity plea, and simply people feeling like the guy deserved it (which was kinda the vibe I was getting on here), that's not a great way to run a legal system.

here is the relevant part:


She was acquitted in the Supreme Court in Brisbane after her lawyers said she was a victim of battered women's syndrome.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 01:24 AM
That's what the argument her lawyer made, which may or may not be the same reasoning the jury used.

SFGOON
29th June 10, 01:39 AM
IT IS NOT INSTITUTIONALIZED VIGILANTISM!!

SHE WAS TRIED AND ACQUITTED!! BY A JURY OF AUSSIES!!

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!! WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION?! WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOD!!!!! IDIOT!!!!11

danno
29th June 10, 01:47 AM
That's what the argument her lawyer made, which may or may not be the same reasoning the jury used.

yes, but we're making assumptions in either case.

i'd be surprised if the jury didn't take it into account, and decided she should not go to jail simply because "he deserved it".

Arhetton
29th June 10, 01:54 AM
i imagine that there would have been extensive evidence of her abuse outside of her testimony - other witnesses, perhaps medical records (broken bones, misshapen nose or cheekbones etc).

Ultimately she did this in defense of another life (her sons) which I think makes the action just.

I can also imagine that in this case she has probably tried to call the police before (or sometimes your neighbour calls them), which results in the abuser becoming even worse after the fuzz have dissappeared. Eventually the victim doesn't feel the law can protect them, but at the same time has vulnerabilities that don't allow them to leave the abuser (economic, emotional, relational [children]). Violence is instant and the law has latency, so in a way sometimes you need to be able to act in your own defense, because the law can't protect you in the moment. It would be awful to life with the threat of violence over your head all the time.

On the other hand, if there was little evidence of the abuse including from character witnesses, and she had a motive other than protection of her children, I would be suspicious of this case.

Criminals are very good liars too.

I don't think what she did was insane, it was very calculated.

Kein Haar
29th June 10, 04:37 AM
Some people need a killin'.

Sometimes...it just doesn't have to be much more complicated than that.

If 12 people, approved by the prosecution, think this was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances...then...fuckin a. It was probably pretty reasonable.

Kein Haar
29th June 10, 04:42 AM
A CO I know had a funny story.

A 60 year old dude was sitting in county jail, resh from a chicago lock-up somewhere... all beat up. Arm in a sling...bandages on his head.

CO: "Man..what happened to YOU?"
Inmate: "I got my ass kicked by someone with a baseball bat."
CO: "You're a mess!"
Inmate: "Me and him got to arguing, and he was way younger and bigger than me too! On top of all that, he grabbed a bat and started whoopin' my ass!"
CO: "I don't get it. Did you sit there and take it? Why are you here then?"
Inmate: Oh, no! I shot him!

He was there on a aggravated battery charge, and he will have his day in court. Godspeed!

Harpy
29th June 10, 06:23 AM
Karma's a bitch, case closed.

May that woman and her children live the rest of their days in
peace and without fear of abuse under their own roof.

EvilSteve
29th June 10, 07:48 AM
Mrs Falls said she bought a gun with a silencer after sending her daughter out with $5000 to purchase a weapon.

Everything else aside, anyone notice this? "Honey, can you run down to the corner and pick me up a carton of Glock?" I thought that guns were somewhat difficult to get in Oz due to semi-recent legislation. How did the kid buy a gun?

EuropIan
29th June 10, 07:59 AM
let alone with a silencer

Vieux Normand
29th June 10, 08:39 AM
...i think her hubby has a kind face, so she is wrong.

Check out his fur, though. Successful mullets are bad enough; a failed attempt at one...that's reason enough to kill right there, just on principle.

danno
29th June 10, 10:37 AM
Everything else aside, anyone notice this? "Honey, can you run down to the corner and pick me up a carton of Glock?" I thought that guns were somewhat difficult to get in Oz due to semi-recent legislation. How did the kid buy a gun?

this is true, but there are a few bikie gangs in the area. most shootings in aus are related to these guys.

Keith
29th June 10, 10:58 AM
Everything else aside, anyone notice this? "Honey, can you run down to the corner and pick me up a carton of Glock?" I thought that guns were somewhat difficult to get in Oz due to semi-recent legislation. How did the kid buy a gun?

This is an interesting point. I'm a bit of a gun person myself and I wouldn't know where to buy a gun with a silencer. And WTF was the silencer for if it was a legal killin?

Feryk
29th June 10, 12:21 PM
You guys are splitting hairs.

She was in fear for her life. He was an abusive asshole. She knew she couldn't 'almost' kill the guy.

She poisoned him, then shot him. Probably got the silencer so as not to wake the neighbors. Her intention was to lie her way through this, and I'm sure, collect the insurance money.

When that wasn't going to work, she got honest. And the reason she was acquitted is because we all believe she did the right thing and protected her son - and herself.

I'd like to believe that if I had to do something to protect my family that someone would actually use some common sense - although I have little faith that it would happen.

Kein Haar
29th June 10, 02:32 PM
In all fairness to the departed, she's gonna find another asshole with whom to sleep.

That's just how it works.

But that is irrelevant to the justification behind this particular killing.

Keith
29th June 10, 02:44 PM
You guys are splitting hairs.

She was in fear for her life. He was an abusive asshole. She knew she couldn't 'almost' kill the guy.

She poisoned him, then shot him. Probably got the silencer so as not to wake the neighbors. Her intention was to lie her way through this, and I'm sure, collect the insurance money.

When that wasn't going to work, she got honest. And the reason she was acquitted is because we all believe she did the right thing and protected her son - and herself.

I'd like to believe that if I had to do something to protect my family that someone would actually use some common sense - although I have little faith that it would happen.

All this is true, but the silencer seems... odd.

Feryk
29th June 10, 04:26 PM
Not if you were planning on covering it up...which she was.

I guess she didn't have a lot of faith in the PoPo.

Kiko
29th June 10, 04:32 PM
Whatever lead this woman to pick this idiot and suffer his abuse, she may have learned to deal with her share of it, but unfortunately, he also had their kids to terrorize. Put those two things together and I don't blame her one bit. Sure, what she did wasn't legal, and maybe she could have found justice and safety from the police.

Maybe.

There's a whole other part of the psyche that awakens when a mother's young are threatened. Only a fool will taunt her like that and not expect claws and teeth.

bob
29th June 10, 06:38 PM
All this is true, but the silencer seems... odd.

That, and this...


She later arranged for his body to be buried in state forest near Mapleton.

How does one 'arrange' for a body to disappear I wonder?

Something tells me this woman had some very shady friends at the least.

Harpy
29th June 10, 07:00 PM
Keith, sceptic - are you'll trolling?

fes_fsa
29th June 10, 07:21 PM
why would they be trolling?

they're making very good points.

is it right for the courts acquit her of murder for being crazy...

when she planned her husband's death, thought about where to ditch the body, and then carried out her plan?

yeah... she has a nice little abuse story to fall back on, but murder is murder.

what she did was wrong.

danno
29th June 10, 07:46 PM
That, and this...



How does one 'arrange' for a body to disappear I wonder?

Something tells me this woman had some very shady friends at the least.

bikies. these are really the only people guaranteed to have gear like that.

when i was living in caloundra, my neighbour, literally the guy next door who i was pretty good friends with, bought a pistol from a bikie gang just because it was offered to him for cheap. he told me about it because he knew i had an internet connection, and he wanted to order a part to get it working from america. i shit you not.

also, they're the kind of people who won't freak out so much when you ask them to hide a body.

i really didn't like running in to them while doing security up there. most guards would just let them do whatever they wanted. a bikie covered in tats, bearded and obviously on the roids is not a pleasant thing to be confronted by, let alone 10 of them.

EDIT - and i reckon the husband was a bikie too. possibly, his mates had learned about his bastardry and may have even advised the wife to kill him or something like that.

Feryk
29th June 10, 08:42 PM
why would they be trolling?

they're making very good points.

is it right for the courts acquit her of murder for being crazy...

when she planned her husband's death, thought about where to ditch the body, and then carried out her plan?

yeah... she has a nice little abuse story to fall back on, but murder is murder.

what she did was fantastic.


Fixed.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 08:54 PM
Murder is murder is murder. Doesn't matter who got killed, only why it was done.

From the looks of it, this was planned and executed, which puts the insanity plea on really shaky ground, in my opinion. Why are people saying it's okay to break the law without consequences?

HappyOldGuy
29th June 10, 08:57 PM
But he was bad.

And big.

And scary.

and stuff.

Feryk
29th June 10, 08:59 PM
Murder is murder is murder. Doesn't matter who got killed, only why it was done.

From the looks of it, this was planned and executed, which puts the insanity plea on really shaky ground, in my opinion. Why are people saying it's okay to break the law without consequences?


Because the law and common sense don't always meet. Some people need killing. Some people present an immenent threat to others and where is the law to help you? Restraining order? Bitch, please.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 09:03 PM
So we fall back on common sense and just kill everyone that we think need killing?

Feryk
29th June 10, 09:05 PM
Why not? You think the legal process should be respected at the price of common sense? Which one, I wonder?

Texas seems to have a pretty quick trigger finger on death sentences. You think someone from a Liberal, bleeding heart state could live with that? Or how about the law in Singapore? Which one reflects your moral standing?

Saudi Arabia?

Keith
29th June 10, 09:07 PM
I don't want to be too quick to judge as I don't have all the facts. If a jury of her peers took a whole hour and a half to come up with a not guilty verdict, it seems there were a lot of things that we're not seeing. Still, it just seems... odd.

bob
29th June 10, 09:07 PM
Keith, sceptic - are you'll trolling?

No. I'm saying she had some very shady friends at the least.

I really don't know. Maybe she's banging one of his shady friends on the side. Maybe there's a life insurance policy or a share in an ice lab. Maybe he found out about her and his even uglier pal. Probably he was a cunt and possibly he deserved a killing. I don't have enough information.

bob
29th June 10, 09:09 PM
Why not? You think the legal process should be respected at the price of common sense? Which one, I wonder?


You're right. I think I'd trust the judgement of a deranged biker skank over the police and judiciary any day.

(now I'm trolling)

Keith
29th June 10, 09:11 PM
So we fall back on common sense and just kill everyone that we think need killing?
If you think you can get a jury to come back with a "not guilty" verdict, go for it. She was subject to the law, arrested, tried, and the law says she's off the hook for this one.

HappyOldGuy
29th June 10, 09:11 PM
If you think you can get a jury to come back with a "not guilty" verdict, go for it. She was subject to the law, arrested, tried, and the law says she's off the hook for this one.

Just like OJ!!!

Keith
29th June 10, 09:19 PM
Just like OJ!!!

Yeah, look how well that turned out for him

bob
29th June 10, 09:20 PM
cop: Oh hai, [well known biker crim and all round cunt] has just been offed by his wife.
prosecuter: And?
cop: Well, we kinda have to put her to trial.
prosecuter: Oh. Yeah.
cop: So...
prosecuter: Well, I think [assistant junior first year trainee prosecuter] is free.
cop: Yeah, that should do nicely.

Conde Koma
29th June 10, 09:45 PM
If you think you can get a jury to come back with a "not guilty" verdict, go for it. She was subject to the law, arrested, tried, and the law says she's off the hook for this one.

Yeah, that's fine. Obviously in this specific case, I don't know what the jury based their decision on. I wasn't present at the proceedings.

However, to say we should do away with the legal proceedings and just kill people based on common sense seems like non-sense to me. We have these proceedings for a reason, and Feryk seems to be arguing for something remarkably similar to mob rule.

Harpy
29th June 10, 09:54 PM
We can all STFU. When you get your chance to be on a jury, you can make a difference.

danno
29th June 10, 09:59 PM
cop: Oh hai, [well known biker crim and all round cunt] has just been offed by his wife.
prosecuter: And?
cop: Well, we kinda have to put her to trial.
prosecuter: Oh. Yeah.
cop: So...
prosecuter: Well, I think [assistant junior first year trainee prosecuter] is free.
cop: Yeah, that should do nicely.

you say this in jest, but you might have a point. the cops may have been happy to be rid of him.

jubei33
29th June 10, 10:09 PM
Yeah, look how well that turned out for him
yeah there's still that reward he placed for the 'real' killer.

Madgrenade
30th June 10, 11:23 AM
So she married him after he spat in her Moms face? She's retarded, he's violent, and she killed him for wanting to off on of their violent, retarded kids. How is this not a crime?

SFGOON
30th June 10, 11:35 AM
She was aquitted, remember? A jury found her not guilty. So, it wasn't a crime.

This is how laws work.

fes_fsa
30th June 10, 12:19 PM
i think that what is debating in this thread is not whether or not she had committed a crime...

it's about if what she did was just. if the court's decision to acquit her was just.

Feryk
30th June 10, 12:25 PM
We have these proceedings for a reason, and Feryk seems to be arguing for something remarkably similar to mob rule.

I am saying that I have no problem with a person under imminent threat of death acting to protect themselves and their loved ones.

I am also saying that I understand that her not trusting the police to protect her is a valid concern.

Thirdly, I am saying that I am pleased a jury of her peers agreed, and that BLIND ADHERENCE to the RULES OF LAW is a suckers game.

That does not make me in favor of 'Mob Rule'. It makes me in favor of Justice rather than LAW.

fes_fsa
30th June 10, 01:50 PM
I am saying that I have no problem with a person under imminent threat of death acting to protect themselves and their loved ones.
i think the point you're missing here is HOW it was done.

let's take her abuse story out of the equation for a minute.

a woman buys a gun. then she buys a silencer. then she puts poison in your food. then she shoots you when you're already dying, because you weren't dying fast enough. then she talks some guys into hiding your body in a certain location.

would you think this woman was protecting herself? or would you think that she was preparing to murder somebody and then carried it out?

everybody here is just talking about the WHYS but not the HOWS. (http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news12270.html)

do you still think her actions were just?

how do you feel about women who kill their babies? they're also not in their right minds, and ultimately they feel they're forced to choose between their well being and their infant's. are their actions justified when they feel just as threatened?


I am also saying that I understand that her not trusting the police to protect her is a valid concern.
according to this (http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/metro/national/general/driven-to-kill-but-not-guilty-of-murder/1849657.aspx?storypage=2) she did go to the police:



When she took the witness stand Mrs Falls told the jury how she left her husband in 2000 after a police officer involved in a domestic violence order she had made told her Rodney would eventually kill her if she didn't leave.


But after six weeks away, she returned when he threatened to use bikie connections to get to her, Mrs Falls' parents, her sister and anyone who had helped her leave.

did she come back because she was afraid? or was it to carry out her plan?


i find it peculiar that she was afraid for the lives of the people around her when she left him. but not afraid for what would happen to her and the people around her, should she fail to "protect herself". why was she not afraid of "bikie connections" for the life of the man who provided her with a firearm? why wasn't she afraid for the lives of the men she recruited to hide her husband's body?


there was no threat. she came back to her husband, not because of threats, but to kill him.



That does not make me in favor of 'Mob Rule'. It makes me in favor of Justice rather than LAW.
vigilante justice is against the law for a reason. people's opinion of what justice is is too subjective.

EvilSteve
30th June 10, 03:08 PM
how do you feel about women who kill their babies? they're also not in their right minds, and ultimately they feel they're forced to choose between their well being and their infant's. are their actions justified when they feel just as threatened?


Infanticide is NEVER justified unless your kids are annoying little shits who had it coming and did shit like bug you when you're watching TV, or drunk or otherwise had to make it all about "them."

Feryk
30th June 10, 03:09 PM
i think the point you're missing here is HOW it was done.

let's take her abuse story out of the equation for a minute.

a woman buys a gun. then she buys a silencer. then she puts poison in your food. then she shoots you when you're already dying, because you weren't dying fast enough. then she talks some guys into hiding your body in a certain location.

would you think this woman was protecting herself? or would you think that she was preparing to murder somebody and then carried it out?

everybody here is just talking about the WHYS but not the HOWS. (http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news12270.html)

do you still think her actions were just?

To answer your questions in order:

1.) Yes. This SOB threatened her kid and gave her a date. She believed him. She decided she needed to take him out to save her kid. The methodology was planned and deliberately orchestrated to give him no chance. Being that she was no physical threat to this behemoth, it was good thinking, and no one is stating it was a crime of passion.

2.) Yes. She DID prepare to murder her husband. Not arguing. Just saying it was justifyable.

3.) Were her actions just? Absolutely. It was him or her son. What would you choose if you ABSOLUTELY believed it was going to happen?


how do you feel about women who kill their babies? they're also not in their right minds, and ultimately they feel they're forced to choose between their well being and their infant's. are their actions justified when they feel just as threatened?

Women who kill their babies are either suffering from a psychotic episode or a personality disorder that is sad or repulsive depending on your view. This woman was perfectly lucid, AFAICT.


according to this (http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/metro/national/general/driven-to-kill-but-not-guilty-of-murder/1849657.aspx?storypage=2) she did go to the police:

Uh, fes. That was 9 years ago. If she planned this back then, then it took her a looong time to work up the guts. Again here, you see a pattern of someone willing to risk themselves to protect their family. Wouldn't you?


did she come back because she was afraid? or was it to carry out her plan?

Again, after 9 years, I would propose that she did not plan this that far in advance.


i find it peculiar that she was afraid for the lives of the people around her when she left him. but not afraid for what would happen to her and the people around her, should she fail to "protect herself". why was she not afraid of "bikie connections" for the life of the man who provided her with a firearm? why wasn't she afraid for the lives of the men she recruited to hide her husband's body?

As others have said, probably because they were bikers themselves. Perhaps this guy crossed a line with his own people and when she approached them, they figured it would be easier just to help her and let her take the heat. We can't really know based on the information we have currently. Also, she WAS afraid for the lives of the people around her, that's what finally forced her to act!



there was no threat. she came back to her husband, not because of threats, but to kill him.

Objection your honor! Speculation.




vigilante justice is against the law for a reason. people's opinion of what justice is is too subjective.


Compared to what exactly? The LAW? Interpretation of the law is ENTIRELY subjective, just ask any of the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court Justices or anyone who has filed an appeal.

I'm not advocating anarchy, just common sense to know when the LAW is not capable of dispensing JUSTICE, which is it's overall goal, is it not?

Ajamil
30th June 10, 03:21 PM
I agree that the "battered woman" is clouding the issue, but the reinterpreting you did removes an important part where the murderer was victimized.

What if I had a harrassing neighbor, and for whatever reason couldn't leave my house. This neighbor has assaulted me, and the cops aren't doing enough to protect me. This neighbor has threatened to kill me and my family. Thus I buy a gun and kill my neighbor. Would you acquit me of murder?

If not, what is different? I can't leave, I've been assaulted, I've had my life and the lives of family threatened. Is it that I'm not a woman? Is that we're not married?

Also, about the "kid" buying the gun - does anyone know the age of her daughter? I'm having a terrible time imagining her giving $5000 to a 10-yr-old, no matter what purpose there is for it.


Last,
SgoO44MSIxY

fes_fsa
30th June 10, 04:46 PM
3.) Were her actions just? Absolutely. It was him or her son. What would you choose if you ABSOLUTELY believed it was going to happen?really? her son was in imminent danger? as i recall, her husband was too busy being poisoned to pose a threat of immediate death or immediate serious harm harm to her or her son.
Wouldn't you?yeah, if my son were in immedate danger. otherwise, i'd leave.
Again, after 9 years, I would propose that she did not plan this that far in advance.she would have to if she wanted to use the "battered woman defense". you have to be unable to use independent action to escape abuse or seek assistance. in other words, unable to leave or seek assistance, but able to commit murder. she left for 2 months... then she came back to kill him. didn't you know, Feryk, that you could kill your spouse if you just stick it out and roll with the punches?
I'm not advocating anarchy, just common sense to know when the LAW is not capable of dispensing JUSTICE, which is it's overall goal, is it not?i'm no fan of the battered woman defense, as you can see. BUT some people DO just need to be offed... and i can understand why that line of defense was developed. this is a clear case of the law failing to protect somebody in an abusive relationship... and this particular case, while horrible, is not uncommon.

fes_fsa
30th June 10, 08:46 PM
I agree that the "battered woman" is clouding the issue, but the reinterpreting you did removes an important part where the murderer was victimized. but that's the problem with "battered woman defense". they ONLY focus on the victimization of of the killer. not the HOWS of their crime.

have you ever seen that movie Monster? where Charlize Theron plays that dyke prostitute that killed and robbed a bunch of guys? well... she killed them and said that she was abused and assaulted by them, that her life was being threatened. her defense argued that she suffered from "battered woman syndrome." that because she was abused as a kid, she didn't have the psychological capacity to endure the abuse from her johns and so she shot them, fearing for her life and emotional well being.
What if I had a harrassing neighbor, and for whatever reason couldn't leave my house. This neighbor has assaulted me, and the cops aren't doing enough to protect me. This neighbor has threatened to kill me and my family. Thus I buy a gun and kill my neighbor. Would you acquit me of murder?2 scenarios. i'll let you pick which one should get acquited.

1) what you just said.... but neighbor came after you or a family member and you shot him, then called the cops and told them what you did, and expressed remorse for taking another person's life...

2) what you just said.... and you're sick of this bullshit. you're gonna move. in fact, you found a great place with a move-in special: first month's rent is free and 1/2 off your deposit. you could move in right away and be rid of your neighbor, but you don't. your excuse is that the lease is up at your current location in a couple of weeks and you want to wait it out so that you can use your paycheck to pay for your moving expenses. your neighbor sees you packing your stuff and he tells you that he's got friends in your new building and he'll be there to terrorize you and your family, too. you grab your gun, you wait until it's dark, walk over to his apartment, and open his door. he's passed out drunk on his couch. you shoot him in the head and hang out in his kitchen for a couple hours. then you come back and shoot him again. you realize what you've done, so you call up a bunch of friends and ask them to help you hide what you've done....

Ajamil
30th June 10, 09:16 PM
The second wouldn't be defensible, but the second isn't what was determined to happen, so isn't what the jury was deciding upon. Did they make a bad call? What you say makes it sound likely, but the court came out in favor of choice 1.

danno
30th June 10, 11:05 PM
more information:


The steroids were expensive so he maintained a crop of cannabis to make a bit of extra money.

On occasions the Falls family dogs would dig up his garden or damage his precious cannabis plants. He killed nine of them, mostly by drowning or beating.

"We would say that the dog ran away," his wife Susan recalled, giving evidence in court as she defended herself against murder charges.


She spoke to someone who knew someone who supplied her with and gun and a silencer.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/what-pushed-susan-falls-to-kill-her-husband/story-e6freoof-1225875687657

this family was obviously participating in organised crime. they were not only supplying drugs, but this woman was trusted enough that her own daughter was sold a gun with a silencer. they're probably on the inside.

the "someone who knows someone" thing doesn't really click to me. it's weird they aren't getting in trouble for supplying a gun, not sure what is happening there.

another article with more detail:


Before Susan Falls killed her husband, she went outside their Sunshine Coast duplex and had a cigarette, followed by a coffee, chased down with bourbon.

"I was trying to pluck up the courage to do it," she explained as she gave evidence at her trial this week where yesterday, after less than two hours of deliberation, a jury acquitted her of murdering her partner of 20 years, Rodney Falls.

As she sat in the witness box, the blonde, petite mother of four was describing the moment she killed the man she had once loved, the man she claimed made each day of her life a living hell by subjecting her to violence, threats and intimidation.

"I could sit here until Christmas and never find the words to properly explain how I felt and how my life and my children's lives was to live in fear, to constantly try and read a person, to worry what would set him off," she said.

What would set him off, she said, was little things like their three-year-old making noise, or his usual breakfast of Coco Pops being too soggy.

"I had to get his Coco Pops. I would know when I heard the hair dryer [he used to dry his hair] that at that point I would pour the milk so they would be just right, wouldn't be too crunchy, too soft," she said.

And the injuries from the years of "being a punching bag" were too many to list, she said.

Wounds like carpet burn all down her legs from being dragged around the house by her hair, a burn on her arm from an oxy-welder, bruised ribs from being punched or kicked in the chest, countless black eyes and bruises all over her body.

She said, he would beat her and then demand sex. She was too scared of him to refuse, describing their post-violence bedroom trysts as "disgusting".

And when he hit her, she said she wasn't allowed to cover her face because he would cut his hands on her rings.

"Later I would ask him 'why do you keep hurting me?' and he'd say 'I black out and I don't know half the stuff I do'," she said.

What drives a wife to kill?

Mrs Falls' barrister, Jeff Hunter, asked the jury to consider what had driven "an otherwise ordinary suburban housewife" to kill her husband in the lounge room of their home, while their two teenage daughters stood and watched.

"What has happened to her to make her think the only way out is to drug her husband and shoot him in the head?" he said on the first day of Mrs Falls' trial.

When she took the witness stand Mrs Falls told the jury how she left her husband in 2000 after a police officer involved in a domestic violence order she had made told her Rodney would eventually kill her if she didn't leave.

But after six weeks away, she returned when he threatened to use bikie connections to get to her, Mrs Falls' parents, her sister and anyone who had helped her leave.

He promised he would change, but he didn't.

Mrs Falls came to believe a life of domestic violence and misery was the life she was meant to live.

Breaking point

But then, in May 2006, Rodney created a deadline for her to do something about his "tyranny" and ultimately, to take his life.

Rodney devised a "death lottery" by writing down the names of their four children and forcing her to choose which one of them he would kill on her mother's birthday, May 29, 2006.

His death at her hands, just four days before what she feared would be one of her kids' last, was "a pre-emptive strike", her lawyers told the jury.

His death began with his favourite meal, curried prawns - which Mrs Falls had laced with crushed sleeping tablets.

Then, she got changed into her pyjamas, put on some socks and took off her jewellery.

She put an old, Christmas-themed tablecloth on the lounge room floor.

"I'd never shot anyone before, I didn't know if I was going to get covered in blood," she told the jury.

Then, Mrs Falls got out the gun, the gun which the court heard she must have been "so very desperate" for she sent her 15-year-old daughter out to buy it for $5000.

The weapon, which was fitted with a silencer, had been stashed in a pile of washing, waiting for the moment when she would use it.

Mrs Falls told the jury how she held the bullets in her hand and thought "how can something so small kill someone?"

But minutes later, she remembered: "I had my arms stretched out. I lined it up with his temple. And I fired."

Immediately after the first shot, she says, she saw her two eldest daughters, both teenagers, watching from the kitchen.

The three of them huddled behind cupboards and the girls told their mother they loved her.

There, they waited for the sound of Rodney's breathing to stop and his life and his reign on their lives, to end.

It took three hours. And another shot to the head.

"I knew I had no more bullets left. I thought 'a whole bottle of sleeping tablets and two bullets to the head and he's still breathing'," she said.

But just as she grabbed a doona with a view to smothering him, the breathing stopped and he was gone.

A dried tear stained his face, Mrs Falls said. She remembered it because she "felt bad".

"Like he'd been in pain and crying. He was there for three hours. Then I thought 'why am I feeling sorry for him for? He never felt sorry for me when he hurt me'."

A dead body in the room

Then, she left his body in front of an air conditioner for three days because, her lawyers said, she hadn't thought of how to get rid of more than 100 kilograms of her dead husband.

Perhaps out of a sense of chivalry, the court was told, Bradley James Coupe and Anthony James Hoare agreed to dump his "smelly" body in the Mapleton State Forest.

Mrs Falls gave Coupe $1500.

Christopher Anthony Cumming-Creed - who had supplied the gun - got rid of the weapon and, with Mr Coupe, helped dispose of the blood-soaked recliner.

Yesterday, the male trio were acquitted of being accessories to murder.

Given their verdict, the jury must have rejected the prosecution's case that Mrs Falls "had other options open to her" rather than killing her husband.

Prosecutors argued she killed him not because of life-threatening cruelty he dished out to the family but because she "hated and despised him" and wanted to be rid of him.

However the jury of six men and six women must have accepted that 20 years' of violence was real and that doing what she did was the only choice she had to stay alive.

They must have been convinced it was a case of kill, or be killed.

Yesterday after the verdicts she hugged her lawyers, her kids, her friends and her new partner, who had been supporting her during the trial.

She hugged her co-accused, and their lawyers.

Perhaps Mrs Falls knows her life from now on will be filled with happiness and affection - leaving the brutality of the past behind.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/driven-to-kill-but-not-guilty-of-murder-20100603-x5ab.html

Feryk
5th July 10, 05:56 PM
really? her son was in imminent danger? as i recall, her husband was too busy being poisoned to pose a threat of immediate death or immediate serious harm harm to her or her son..

I guess you think that imminent means right in that moment. She had this opportunity four days from when it was going to be. She took it. She absolutely believed he was going to kill her son. Given what we know about him, it was reasonable for her to do so.



yeah, if my son were in immedate danger. otherwise, i'd leave.

And go....? I have no idea if there are battered women's shelters around her, but I have some relatives who are on the board's of a couple and there is a CONSTANT risk of the husbands finding the wives. Yeah, they try to keep the location a secret, but most battered women are not used to living incommunicado and they inevitably screw it up. A determined abuser may be able to find them. It's happened here. I believe she felt he would find her and her family.


she would have to if she wanted to use the "battered woman defense". you have to be unable to use independent action to escape abuse or seek assistance. in other words, unable to leave or seek assistance, but able to commit murder. she left for 2 months... then she came back to kill him. didn't you know, Feryk, that you could kill your spouse if you just stick it out and roll with the punches?i'm no fan of the battered woman defense, as you can see.

I agree that the 'battered woman' defense is thin...and in this case I believe it was more of a rational self defense arguement.



BUT some people DO just need to be offed... and i can understand why that line of defense was developed. this is a clear case of the law failing to protect somebody in an abusive relationship... and this particular case, while horrible, is not uncommon.

I guess she would rather be judged by 12 for offing someone threatening my family than attending my kids funeral knowing she hadn't done enough to stop it. It's a pretty thin moral wedge, though. What will be interesting is when the next person who kills their spouse, then cites this case in their defense.

Ajamil
5th July 10, 11:28 PM
And go....? I have no idea if there are battered women's shelters around her, but I have some relatives who are on the board's of a couple and there is a CONSTANT risk of the husbands finding the wives. Yeah, they try to keep the location a secret, but most battered women are not used to living incommunicado and they inevitably screw it up. A determined abuser may be able to find them. It's happened here. I believe she felt he would find her and her family.They go to a woman's shelter in their town. A lot of abuse happens in small towns.

Quikfeet509
6th July 10, 11:38 PM
He totally needed to cycle his roids better. I mean look at him...



Are we sure she didn't make the whole "he's a juice head that rages" thing up?

SoulMechanic
7th July 10, 12:18 AM
Feryk must be reading my fucking mind.

nihilist
7th July 10, 03:56 AM
Didn't read the whole thread but
1. Poisoned her husband.
2. Shot her husband with an assassin's tool.
3. Lied to police.

I wouldn't trust this bitch with my back turned.

Plus: OH YEAH, I REALLY TRUST THE JURY SYSTEM.

Harpy
7th July 10, 06:46 AM
Sorry for your loss but your brother was a douchebag. The Pope commissioned the job personally.

nihilist
7th July 10, 10:26 AM
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but we'll never know because some crazy cunt bought a pistol with a silencer and took away his right to defend himself.
People choose their mates. Look at the miserable douchebag you commissioned.

faelol!

Males have a genetic mindset that causes them to perceive all females as delicate, innocent flowers that need protecting.
The pope knows better than this because he is wise and shags little boys.

Feryk
7th July 10, 11:41 AM
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but we'll never know because some crazy cunt bought a pistol with a silencer and took away his right to defend himself.
People choose their mates. Look at the miserable douchebag you commissioned.

'Took away his right to defend himself?' WTF are you spewing? She wanted him dead and she KILLED HIM. That is not in doubt. Your summary of the events was accurate as far as it went.

As I said, her defense shouldn't be 'battered woman', it should be 'defense of self and family'. He was an asshole who deserved it, and she had to act when she did because he was going to KILL HIS OWN SON.




Males have a genetic mindset that causes them to perceive all females as delicate, innocent flowers that need protecting.
The pope knows better than this because he is wise and shags little boys.

Points for flirting with MJS while slapping Lily at the same time. And you even dragged the Pope into it. Mad Skillz

nihilist
7th July 10, 11:47 AM
'Took away his right to defend himself?'

Yes, he's not very able to tell his side of the story in court, now is he?

Feryk
7th July 10, 11:48 AM
One of the benefits of actually killing your victim. There is only one side of the story afterwards.

nihilist
7th July 10, 11:48 AM
He was an asshole who deserved it, and she had to act when she did because he was going to KILL HIS OWN SON.


Allegedly.

nihilist
7th July 10, 11:50 AM
One of the benefits of actually killing your victim. There is only one side of the story afterwards.

You needn't kill the victim. Lobotomies work too.

Feryk
7th July 10, 11:52 AM
I'm guessing she wasn't really interested in reading up on 'Lobotomy surgery at Home'.

And as for the 'allegedly' part you are right, but there is more than enough corroborating evidence that this guy was an abusive douchebag to make her story believable. At least the jury thought so.

nihilist
7th July 10, 11:55 AM
If what she testified to is true, I'd have no problem hitting him in the face with a baseball bat.

Feryk
7th July 10, 11:56 AM
So, the silencer and the pills just a little too, what? Civilized?

nihilist
7th July 10, 12:00 PM
So, the silencer and the pills just a little too, what? Civilized?

It's just a little too cold-blooded and contrived which is why I have reservations about her innocence.

Feryk
7th July 10, 12:17 PM
'Innocent' is not the same as 'Not Guilty by reason of Self Defense'.

I know it's splitting hairs, but the fact is she offed her husband. He just deserved it is all.

nihilist
7th July 10, 12:18 PM
You're guessing.

Feryk
7th July 10, 12:29 PM
Yup.

Harpy
7th July 10, 06:15 PM
I wonder if there is some deeper catalyst for such an act. True threat to one's life (or to those one is a protector of), Would love to know what the chemical/hormonal combination running through someone's body are at a time like that.

I firmly believe she guessed right.

bob
7th July 10, 07:03 PM
Yes. Because she did have such a clear history of good decision making prior to that.

Harpy
7th July 10, 07:44 PM
You mean the marriage and the decision to stay after each time he'd abuse her and continue to have x number of children?

Marriage is truly an institution for the sick.

bob
7th July 10, 07:47 PM
That's why they warn you in the vows sweetheart. Informed consent.

nihilist
7th July 10, 11:12 PM
I wonder if there is some deeper catalyst for such an act. True threat to one's life (or to those one is a protector of), Would love to know what the chemical/hormonal combination running through someone's body are at a time like that.


What part of PMS don't you understand?

Feryk
8th July 10, 12:19 PM
What part of PMS do YOU understand?

'Cause I've been married 15 years, and it's still like putting my face in a buzzsaw.

Kiko
8th July 10, 12:40 PM
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0909/pms-september-challenge-pms-demotivational-poster-1252266207.jpg

nihilist
9th July 10, 01:18 AM
What part of PMS do YOU understand?


I've 'dated' over 150 girls/women, only one of whom was a bodybuilder who, by dint of fact that she was dieting was temporarily devioid of t3h curs3, so could you rephrase your query, plz?

danno
9th July 10, 01:27 AM
150??

what do you classify as "dating"?

nihilist
9th July 10, 01:30 AM
nshR-KsqlRM

danno
9th July 10, 01:37 AM
you've slept with over 150 women?

is this shit normal?

nihilist
9th July 10, 01:42 AM
All those tender young vaginas couldn't fill the hole in my heart.

nihilist
9th July 10, 01:43 AM
So in answer to your question, no, not at all.

Harpy
9th July 10, 02:42 AM
Proof you're gay.

danno
9th July 10, 03:02 AM
So in answer to your question, no, not at all.

150+ birds is... a lotta birds.

so you got warts or anything?

Feryk
9th July 10, 09:43 AM
He used to be in a rock band. Not out of line for musicians.

I don't understand how that qualifies him to be an expert on PMS, though.

nihilist
9th July 10, 11:30 AM
He used to be in a rock band. Not out of line for musicians.

I don't understand how that qualifies him to be an expert on PMS, though.

One needn't be an expert in wild boars to know to avoid going one on one with them.

nihilist
9th July 10, 11:35 AM
150+ birds is... a lotta birds.

so you got warts or anything?

had to take some pills about three times so I guess I was pretty lucky.

The large percentage of my escapades all happened before I was 25 and they were all pretty young and therefore clean.

nihilist
9th July 10, 11:39 AM
BTW, Feryk, most chicks hide their PMStic tendencies.

Getting married assures that you will feel the full force of the tide that has been held back only to be released post-nuptuals.

Feryk
9th July 10, 12:40 PM
BTW, Feryk, most chicks hide their PMStic tendencies.

Getting married assures that you will feel the full force of the tide that has been held back only to be released post-nuptuals.

That's part of the stuff you don't know when you get hitched.

It's not because people don't tell you. All the married guys do.

You just think that your beautiful lady must be different. Those guys are just pathetic.

And the circle is complete.

nihilist
9th July 10, 01:49 PM
I didn't get married till I was almost 40, so I had no misconceptions.

My wife is the only woman that I never cheated on.

I always assumed that it was a matter of time till a woman packed up her shit and left so I would mentally check out before she had the chance, plus, the grass always seemed to be greener on the proverbial other side of the fence.

Kein Haar
11th July 10, 03:48 AM
Your current wife?

Quikfeet509
11th July 10, 08:23 AM
The way I see it, if I wasn't allowed to use hormones as an excuse for my behavior when I was 18 and wanted to fuck and/or fight 20 times a day, then no fucking way I'll let a female use that as an excuse to be a bitch on a monthly schedule in the present.


It's like my friends that are in the mid-thirties using some event in their childhood to justify their assinine behavior now. There is no reason to tolerate it. Grow the fuck up and act like an adult that is in charge of their behavior.



My current wife totally agrees which is why she is my current wife.

Kiko
11th July 10, 10:47 AM
Some women are lucky and don't have lots of symptoms, some are able/willing to understand what they're dealing with and cope somehow, some probably have a legitimate problem and many more are willing to believe the crap they're told, remaining 'victims' while terrorizing their loved ones.

Cullion
11th July 10, 10:51 AM
The answer is the scold's bridle.

nihilist
11th July 10, 11:24 AM
Your current wife?

My only wife.

Cullion
11th July 10, 12:00 PM
I've 'dated' over 150 girls/women, only one of whom was a bodybuilder who, by dint of fact that she was dieting was temporarily devioid of t3h curs3, so could you rephrase your query, plz?

You had ~25 years of freedom before getting married. That's means you were moving on to a new woman every couple of months. ~ Six times a year, on average.

That's a relatively normal rate for a young bachelor to get through sexual partners, the only thing that makes it look unusual is that you maintained your freedom until almost 40.

nihilist
11th July 10, 09:50 PM
I had a hundred from the ages of 16-20 That's not healthy.
I was dating 3-4 girls at a time. I had a problem with intimacy and couldn't get emotionally attached. They were just moments in time that I would forget about when the next one caught my eye. The seventies and early eighties were different.
You could just meet a chick and say "so how bout it?" and the next minute you'd be getting your freak on. It was a great time for hedonism.

danno
11th July 10, 10:08 PM
at the other end of the scale, i'm 29 and my count is 4. i'm currently living with the last one and there may never be a 5.

Harpy
11th July 10, 10:30 PM
^ you better invite sceptic, Arhetton, Virus and me to the wedding.

danno
11th July 10, 10:37 PM
lol, i will.

btw, just realised i'm 28, not 29. that's 3 months away.

nihilist
11th July 10, 11:38 PM
at the other end of the scale, i'm 29 and my count is 4. i'm currently living with the last one and there may never be a 5.

I have always been jealous of well adjusted blokes like yourself.
See the thing is you aren't missing out on much. Except for the menage a trois.
That was something I will never regret.

fes_fsa
11th July 10, 11:52 PM
I have always been jealous of well adjusted blokes like yourself.
See the thing is you aren't missing out on much. Except for the menage a trois.
That was something I will never regret.

i don't think the average joe could handle a threesome.

most people don't have the ability to emotionally detach themselves from that type of situation, and when they do it it's with people they actually know.

unless of course they were college kids or younger experimenting with their sexual behaviors--they still have growing up to do and learn not to do it again.

danno
11th July 10, 11:53 PM
when i was 18 i would have been up for a bit more of it. i was too socially awkward to figure it out though.

since about age 22 i wasn't really interested anyway.

i've got no interest in triple trouble.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 12:16 AM
my husband thinks i invite women to fuck the both of us because i'm cool and want to spice things up.

he doesn't understand that i have lesbian tendencies, sexually objectify people, and (while i love my husband very much) feel temporary about our marriage.

you mention triple trouble. there is none for me. i only see the women i sleep with as objects. my husband understands this and knows i won't leave him for another woman. my husband also understands that to divorce me would be emotionally and mentally devastating, not to mention scary, so i have no doubts about his loyalty to me.

danno
12th July 10, 12:31 AM
i've seen people get things really confused and fuck up relationships doing it, i want no part of that. can't think of any case i've personally seen where everything turned out fine.

that's just my experience though.

HappyOldGuy
12th July 10, 12:37 AM
It's no big deal when you are just playing around, but not so much in committed relationships. All the people I know personally who do poly relationships live with way more drama than I want in my life.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 12:43 AM
the key to threesomes is one night stands with people you just met, using LOTS of protection. use a fake name and a fake cell phone number and just walk away when you're done.

people screw things up by fucking people they know. or they let it get personal. it's sex--it's just a release.

bob
12th July 10, 01:12 AM
So is your husband allowed to fuck them?

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 01:13 AM
yeah. and i help.

bob
12th July 10, 01:14 AM
Can you show us your craigslist ad?

nihilist
12th July 10, 01:15 AM
The key to having threesomes not ruin your relationship with your steady partner is simple:

Don't tell them.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 01:32 AM
The key to having threesomes not ruin your relationship with your steady partner is simple:

Don't tell them.

yeah... this is one of those times where being honest is WRONG.

i mean... how fucking selfish it is to burden someone who was blissfully unaware, just so YOU don't feel bad for what YOU did.

Feryk
12th July 10, 04:59 PM
If the relationship is set up to be swinger or poly at the beginning, it can work fine. The problem comes later when one partner wants some variety and the other 'agrees' albeit unwillingly.

Or the one that suggests it gets agreement, and then is pissed when the partner that needs convincing ends up enjoying it more than they do.

Fes, you said you view your marriage as temporary, but later said that a divorce would be devastating and dangerous. This seems curious to me. Care to elaborate?

Quikfeet509
12th July 10, 06:15 PM
i don't think the average joe could handle a threesome.

most people don't have the ability to emotionally detach themselves from that type of situation, and when they do it it's with people they actually know.

unless of course they were college kids or younger experimenting with their sexual behaviors--they still have growing up to do and learn not to do it again.


I think the rate-limiting factor for most people that would like a threesome is that they can't hook it up in the first place.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 07:05 PM
Fes, you said you view your marriage as temporary, but later said that a divorce would be devastating and dangerous. This seems curious to me. Care to elaborate?

if my husband tried to leave me (well actually, his obligation to me and the children), i would destroy him. i'm socially isolated enough to where i can cry "abuse" and people would believe me and lawyers would gladly put his balls in a mason jar and ALL of his money in my coin purse.

however, if i left him, it's because i don't need his services anymore. it would basically be a mutual agreement to cancel a contract and we'd both walk away unharmed.

i hope to see the latter in maybe a decade or so.

Harpy
12th July 10, 07:25 PM
Fake caring??

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 07:39 PM
are you talking to me?

and if so, how am i fake-caring?

Harpy
12th July 10, 07:45 PM
I just prefer to throw the term around and not explain myself/make shit up.

People talking about 3somes - do you think early teenage dabbling in drugs and sex makes one more experimental? I never did any if that and thus can't quite understand the mindset of people who do this, those that know they want it versus those that think it's a good idea abd then the people who are just wishful but can't make it happen. It's all quite confusing to me.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 07:47 PM
I just prefer to throw the term around and not explain myself/make shit up.

how empty of you.

CARRY ON.

Harpy
12th July 10, 07:53 PM
;) You don't like your own words?

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 08:24 PM
i LOVE my words.

i love even more that you're so clueless that you appear as stupid as you ARE.

Ajamil
12th July 10, 08:48 PM
if my husband tried to leave me (well actually, his obligation to me and the children), i would destroy him. i'm socially isolated enough to where i can cry "abuse" and people would believe me and lawyers would gladly put his balls in a mason jar and ALL of his money in my coin purse.

however, if i left him, it's because i don't need his services anymore. it would basically be a mutual agreement to cancel a contract and we'd both walk away unharmed.

i hope to see the latter in maybe a decade or so.Is there a possibility that he would no longer need your service? Could there be a mutual agreement of separation initiated by him, or is this entirely up to you? Because that first statement really puts me off. That you would cry abuse as a blatant lie for retaliation - it seems petty and cruel.


People talking about 3somes - do you think early teenage dabbling in drugs and sex makes one more experimental? I never did any if that and thus can't quite understand the mindset of people who do this, those that know they want it versus those that think it's a good idea abd then the people who are just wishful but can't make it happen. It's all quite confusing to me. I would think the dabbling in drugs and sex would belie a tendency to be experimental, and thus be a symptom much like having a threesome would be. I don't think more sex/drugs would cause one to be more or less open to a threesome. I wouldn't think things done in a drug haze or as a desperate move of an addict counts, though.

I had threesomes because I was lusting, and felt no hesitation to show that lust in a room with more than one person in it, and this sometimes (not always) led to more than two of us engaging in sexual behavior. For me it was availability based on mutual comfort levels.

Harpy
12th July 10, 08:54 PM
i LOVE my words.

i love even more that you're so clueless that you appear as stupid as you ARE.
Why all the anger darlin'?

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 09:47 PM
Is there a possibility that he would no longer need your service?

nope.


Could there be a mutual agreement of separation initiated by him, or is this entirely up to you? Because that first statement really puts me off. That you would cry abuse as a blatant lie for retaliation - it seems petty and cruel.

when he's no longer obligated to serve me, he can walk away, no questions asked.

and yeah. it IS petty and cruel.

i have no soul--i have children to take care of. i'll kill somebody in front of their own mom if it means my children are fed and a roof is over their heads.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 09:48 PM
Why all the anger darlin'?

YOU'RE SO IMPORTANT!

Harpy
12th July 10, 10:03 PM
fes - are you ok? I'm off to my uni mid-semester exam, will catch the intrigue later.

Ajamil
12th July 10, 10:15 PM
when he's no longer obligated to serve me, he can walk away, no questions asked.So this is a top/bottom relationship? If so, then as long as he understood the terms going into it, then there isn't anything petty or cruel about it.

nihilist
13th July 10, 01:30 AM
I just prefer to throw the term around and not explain myself/make shit up.
WTF is wrong with you?



People talking about 3somes - do you think early teenage dabbling in drugs and sex makes one more experimental?

Is a frog's ass watertight?



I never did any if that and thus can't quite understand the mindset of people who do this, those that know they want it versus those that think it's a good idea abd then the people who are just wishful but can't make it happen. It's all quite confusing to me.

You think you are somehow morally superior to people who don't match your level of inexperience?

Harpy
13th July 10, 03:17 AM
Not superior, in fact clueless and unable to relate. Don't be reading between the lines too much Mole.

bob
13th July 10, 04:31 AM
I once convinced a girl to have a threesome because I wanted to end the relationship and I was too much of a pussy to just outright say it. That wasn't my conscious thought but looking back, that's what I did. I'm not proud of that one. Still, she didn't need that much convincing.

Feryk
13th July 10, 03:52 PM
nope.



when he's no longer obligated to serve me, he can walk away, no questions asked.

and yeah. it IS petty and cruel.

i have no soul--i have children to take care of. i'll kill somebody in front of their own mom if it means my children are fed and a roof is over their heads.

I take it you and your husband have had this discussion?

He knows that you will eviscerate him for the children if necessary? I'm not disagreeing with you, btw. I'm just wondering if he knows what your priorities are.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 03:57 PM
I take it you and your husband have had this discussion?

He knows that you will eviscerate him for the children if necessary? I'm not disagreeing with you, btw. I'm just wondering if he knows what your priorities are.

of course. i hide nothing from my husband.

although he has a hard time believing that i wouldn't take his money if i didn't have to.

Feryk
13th July 10, 03:58 PM
Moot point, because unless you are fabulously wealthy, you will have to.

It's a nice sentiment, though.

Ajamil
13th July 10, 05:29 PM
i have no soul--i have children to take care of. i'll kill somebody in front of their own mom if it means my children are fed and a roof is over their heads.What if raising your kids requires you to debase yourself? You seem ready to dominate and overcome anything for your kids, would that include your ego/pride?

Kein Haar
14th July 10, 02:43 AM
I had threesomes because I was lusting, and felt no hesitation to show that lust in a room with more than one person in it, and this sometimes (not always) led to more than two of us engaging in sexual behavior. For me it was availability based on mutual comfort levels.

Yeah, but your "threesomes" involved like 8 old dudes. So...

Cullion
14th July 10, 02:52 AM
I once convinced a girl to have a threesome because I wanted to end the relationship and I was too much of a pussy to just outright say it. That wasn't my conscious thought but looking back, that's what I did. I'm not proud of that one. Still, she didn't need that much convincing.

<Hi Five>

Ajamil
14th July 10, 05:54 AM
Yeah, but your "threesomes" involved like 8 old dudes. So... http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2009/07/15/989c2e3b064ac58/0lemonparty.jpg

Sorry to mess up the mental image, but never been with a guy older than me. I've had two threesomes with two girls, and three with two guys (me being one of the two).