Mexico jails woman six years for killing her rapist with ‘excessive’ force

Cicada 5

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2015
2,481
1,169
118
Country
Nigeria
An indigenous woman in Mexico was sentenced to six years and two months in prison for the murder of her rapist.

The court acknowledged that the woman, named only as Roxana Ruiz, acted in self-defence when she killed her attacker in 2021, but said she used excessive force.


The woman, 23, first knocked the man unconscious, then strangled him and finally tried to dismember his body.

She kept the body for at least 20 hours before putting it in a plastic bag on the street.


The court said that it took into consideration the woman’s “vulnerability as a woman and as an indigenous person” in its sentencing.

Ruiz will be appealing the sentence, which was handed down by Judge Mónica Osorio in Mexico on Monday, her attorney said.

“I feel sad, disappointed in (the) justice (system), they locked me up for nine months, they give me a sentence,” she said following the court hearing, according to Daily Mail.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,993
2,024
118
Country
United States
Oof...I really hate to say this, but I'm on the court's side with it. The self-defense definitely covered knocking the man unconscious. Strangling him after he was no longer a threat, though, is straight-up murder. Justifiable homicide, maybe, and you could argue heat of the moment to reduce the sentence, but it's still homicide. It's not a case of her, say, grabbing a knife and stabbing him mid-assault.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,210
4,482
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Oof...I really hate to say this, but I'm on the court's side with it. The self-defense definitely covered knocking the man unconscious. Strangling him after he was no longer a threat, though, is straight-up murder. Justifiable homicide, maybe, and you could argue heat of the moment to reduce the sentence, but it's still homicide. It's not a case of her, say, grabbing a knife and stabbing him mid-assault.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,302
8,779
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Oof...I really hate to say this, but I'm on the court's side with it. The self-defense definitely covered knocking the man unconscious. Strangling him after he was no longer a threat, though, is straight-up murder. Justifiable homicide, maybe, and you could argue heat of the moment to reduce the sentence, but it's still homicide. It's not a case of her, say, grabbing a knife and stabbing him mid-assault.
Various jurisdictions will of course have their own definitions, but generally speaking, the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends. After that you call the police and let the law handle the situation. Anything else invites vigilantism and mob rule.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,047
1,007
118
I think this is an iffy thing. "Knocked the assailant unconscious, then strangled him to death" sounds neatly guilty. But lacks detail. Watch this.

During the struggle the assailant was rendered unconscious and by the time she registered the threat had ended, he had been deprived of oxygen for too long.

The wording here lacks detail but presents it in a way which is easy to dismiss as guilty.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,216
3,354
118
This kinda verdict happens every so often in the US and other western countries, it is of no surprise it happens in Mexico too. Hell, even the supreme court's have colourful history oking it...



An abused and troubled California boy who, under police interrogation, confessed to killing his neo-Nazi father, lost in a bid to overturn his conviction.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not hear the case of Joseph Hall.

The decision was met with dismay from child advocates who argued that the then-10-year-old boy who shot and killed his abusive father in 2011 could not have realized the wrongfulness of his actions.

Joseph was convicted in 2013 of second-degree murder in the killing of his father, Jeffrey Hall, a rising star among white supremacists. He was sentenced to 10 years in a California juvenile facility and will be 23 by the time he’s released.

At the heart of Joseph’s case was his decision to give up his Miranda rights while being interrogated by a police officer. His supporters argue that Joseph, now 15, has developmental disabilities and could not have understood what that meant.


Child advocates, as well as Joseph’s legal team, believe the Supreme Court’s decision leaves unaddressed an issue that affects children interrogated by police officers.

“We are obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court denied Joseph’s petition, which presented important questions that are worthy of review,” his attorney, Nima Mohebbi, said in a statement. “We believe the notion that any ten-year-old can understand and intelligently waive his or her Miranda rights in a coercive police interrogation is nonsensical.”

Hall, then a budding leader of the largest neo-Nazi organization in the country, was shot at point-blank range while asleep on his living room couch at his home in Riverside, Calif. Joseph, according to court records, took his father’s revolver from the upstairs bedroom where his stepmother was sleeping. He fired a bullet into his father’s head, just behind the left ear.

“I shot Dad,” the boy told his stepmother.

During the interrogation, a Riverside police detective recited each sentence of the Miranda warning and asked Joseph whether he understood. The officer had to correct him and explain to him what the sentences meant. For instance, the boy thought that “you have the right to remain silent” meant he had “the right to stay calm,” according to court records.

The boy’s statements to authorities also suggested that he didn’t comprehend that his actions had lasting consequences, not only for his father but also for him.

For instance, after police officers arrived at the crime scene during the early morning hours of May 1, 2011, he asked: “How many lives do people usually get?”

When he was taken to juvenile hall, staff had to buy him a pair of tennis shoes because the facility didn’t have anything small enough to fit him. Mike Soccio, a former Riverside County chief deputy district attorney who handled Joseph’s case at that time, told CBS News in 2011 that the boy asked whether he’d be able to keep the shoes when he goes home.


Joseph’s legal team petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the case after his appeal was denied by the California appellate courts, which found that he was not coerced into talking or confessing to police, that he understood the wrongfulness of his actions and that he comprehended what giving up his Miranda rights meant.

The California attorney general’s office agreed, arguing in court records that Joseph told police he shot his father even without being asked. The agency also argued that the issues raised in Joseph’s petition to the Supreme Court “would be better addressed to state legislatures.”

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office declined to comment further.


Frank Vandervort, president of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, said the California courts’ findings have “no basis in science,” citing bodies of research on children’s brain development.


“The California court is just abjectly wrong about that,” he said.

Marsha Levick, co-founder of the Juvenile Law Center, said that although the Supreme Court’s decision was not surprising, it was dismaying.

“It’s unfortunate. He’s so young,” Levick said. “We’re talking about a 10-year-old. It’s not difficult to understand what seems absurd about what happened here.”

Child advocates and Joseph’s legal team also point to the abuse that the boy endured in his family’s home. Court records say Jeffrey Hall, the National Socialist Movement’s regional director for the Southwestern states, was addicted to methamphetamine and punished his son every day for being too loud or for getting in his way — sometimes punching and kicking him several times in the back.

The night before he was killed, Hall, an unemployed plumber who used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border looking for illegal immigrants, threatened to remove all the smoke detectors and burn the house down while his family slept, court records say.

Joseph, whose exposure to alcohol and drugs began in the womb and who bore the brunt of his father’s violent outbursts, had pervasive attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and low-average intelligence, court records say. At school, he was often unable to sit still and threw violent tantrums at his classmates and teachers. By the time he was 10, he’d attended six schools.

Adding to child advocates’ disappointment was a recent decision by California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to veto a bill inspired by his case.

SB 1052, which would not have had any effect on the case, would have required those younger than 18 to first consult with an attorney or a legal guardian before waiving their Miranda rights and before being interrogated by a police officer.

In his veto message Friday, Brown said that juveniles are more vulnerable than adults to succumb to pressure from police officers to talk and are more likely to confess to crimes they didn’t commit. Still, investigators solve countless serious crimes through questioning, Brown said, adding that he’s not prepared to sign SB 1052 into law without fully understanding its ramifications.


He noted, however, that he plans to continue to work with the legislature “to fashion reforms that protect public safety and constitutional rights.”

Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s co-author, said that giving someone access to an attorney doesn’t mean the interrogation won’t go forward and that guilty parties won’t be identified.

“The point of this bill was to acknowledge and recognize that kids don’t often understand the complexity of waiving your rights,” Mitchell said. “The law should not treat them as pint-size adults. When we know better, we should do better.”

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer must take a juvenile suspect’s age into consideration when deciding whether to issue a Miranda warning. But Vandervort said there is no federal law, either through legislation or court ruling, that requires children under a certain age to first talk to an attorney before they waive their Miranda rights.

Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s co-author, said that giving someone access to an attorney doesn’t mean the interrogation won’t go forward and that guilty parties won’t be identified.

“The point of this bill was to acknowledge and recognize that kids don’t often understand the complexity of waiving your rights,” Mitchell said. “The law should not treat them as pint-size adults. When we know better, we should do better.”

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer must take a juvenile suspect’s age into consideration when deciding whether to issue a Miranda warning. But Vandervort said there is no federal law, either through legislation or court ruling, that requires children under a certain age to first talk to an attorney before they waive their Miranda rights.


Rules also vary among states.

In Iowa, Montana and Connecticut, children under 16 must first consult with an attorney before they’re interrogated. In Kansas, the age limit is 14. In Indiana, a legal guardian or an attorney must consent to the Miranda waiver.

Joseph’s supporters believe the issue of Miranda waivers in juvenile interrogations is not uncommon and will come up again. They said the Supreme Court, at some point, will have to tackle it.

“There will be other opportunities,” Levick said. “We will just have to continue to challenge the admission of the statements when they’re obtained under these circumstances.”


police officers to talk and are more likely to confess to crimes they didn’t commit. Still, investigators solve countless serious crimes through questioning, Brown said, adding that he’s not prepared to sign SB 1052 into law without fully understanding its ramifications.

He noted, however, that he plans to continue to work with the legislature “to fashion reforms that protect public safety and constitutional rights.”

Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s co-author, said that giving someone access to an attorney doesn’t mean the interrogation won’t go forward and that guilty parties won’t be identified.

“The point of this bill was to acknowledge and recognize that kids don’t often understand the complexity of waiving your rights,” Mitchell said. “The law should not treat them as pint-size adults. When we know better, we should do better.”

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer must take a juvenile suspect’s age into consideration when deciding whether to issue a Miranda warning. But Vandervort said there is no federal law, either through legislation or court ruling, that requires children under a certain age to first talk to an attorney before they waive their Miranda rights.

Rules also vary among states.

In Iowa, Montana and Connecticut, children under 16 must first consult with an attorney before they’re interrogated. In Kansas, the age limit is 14. In Indiana, a legal guardian or an attorney must consent to the Miranda waiver.

Joseph’s supporters believe the issue of Miranda waivers in juvenile interrogations is not uncommon and will come up again. They said the Supreme Court, at some point, will have to tackle it.

“There will be other opportunities,” Levick said. “We will just have to continue to challenge the admission of the statements when they’re obtained under these circumstances.”


1684455608072.png

Bresha Meadows, the Ohio girl who was 14 years old when she fatally shot her abusive father, says she had to kill him to survive.


“He physically abused [my mom], I really thought she was going to die,” Meadows, now 18, said of her father, Jonathan Meadows, Fox8 reports. “I was trying to help all of us. Me, my brother and sister, my mom, all of us. I really thought my mother was going to die.”


In May 2017, Meadows pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a year and one day in juvenile detention for fatally shooting her father with his own gun while he was sleeping the year prior.


While her mother called her “my hero,” saying she saved the family from a lifetime of alleged abuse, her father’s family denied the allegations.


“He was stern,” Jackie Meadows, Jonathan’s sister-in-law, previously told PEOPLE, “but at the end of the day, he was a family man.”

On Thursday, Meadows told Fox8 she had informed people about the abuse but “nobody cared” and seeing her father’s family speak out against her claims was painful.


“That hurt me because they knew, people knew,” Bresha said. “I really never thought I would go to jail after the shooting. I thought they would understand. It was self defense. Between watching my mom get abused and the sexual abuse, it just kind of you know, was too much.”


Bresha Meadows


Meadows says she had also contemplated suicide as an escape from her life of abuse.

“I pictured myself maybe ending up killing myself from depression,” Meadows said, Fox8 reports. “And my mom passing on and my brother and sister old enough to leave, and then it would just be me in the house and Lord knows how that would turn out…It was a lot.”

At the time of her arrest, Meadows’s aunt, Martina Latessa, told PEOPLE, “I believe that she saw this as the only opportunity she had and she thought, ‘I’m free.’ “


meadows-family-1024


With that love and support from her family, Meadows has been able to work on rebuilding her life since being released in 2018. She says she is focusing on helping not only herself with counseling and graduating high school, but others by working with domestic violence survivors.

“I just want to help people in the same situation,” Meadows told Fox8. “And help myself while helping others.”

There are many such cases and numerous different factors to consider for each. But its a thing.
 
Last edited:

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Various jurisdictions will of course have their own definitions, but generally speaking, the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends. After that you call the police and let the law handle the situation. Anything else invites vigilantism and mob rule.
Yes, however, to put this in perspective : not only domestic murder and gendered violence are statistically very asymetrical (with men killing their female partner ten times more often than the opposite), when women happen to kill their male partner it's most often in reaction to the man's violence. So women get it bad in many ways. They are overwhelmingly on the receiving end of abuse and killings (femicides), with all the contexts of domination it implies, and when they react, they really have to take care of not "overreacting" in front of the law (this "overreaction" being sometimes, arguably, proportional to a life of abuse or to the violence of a mental prison to escape).

So yes, the full story is needed. But I know quite a few stories that damn the woman both before and after, with, as the expected behavior, a very narrow path (psychologically, emotionally hard to reach) between the should and shouldn't.

It's possibly a bias, an effect of accumulation (lately I felt drifting towards a form of feminist misandry that I used to reproach to some colleagues), but as a mere witness, I've sometimes felt emotionally quite close to coldly take a homicidal decision myself, on the behalf of others. So I don't really feel like judging those who have been living such situations first hand.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,175
1,851
118
Country
Philippines
It is pretty fucking ridiculous that the judge tried to tell this lady how "sufficient" her self defense should have been. I mean of course, they teach women how to determine how long it takes to strangle a man in sex ed. And how the police responded is just as ridiculous yet expected.

The two articles that have been posted so far though sound contradictory. This says she had the body for 20 hours and tried to dismember it. This one says she dragged the body out onto the street in a panic. And this honestly is the crux of the matter for me. If she really did try to conceal the body, I don't blame her at all. The fact that she's just spent almost a year already in jail shows that she was right to fear not being treated fairly by the police. But that is still a crime, especially if she tried "dismembering" the body. I'm kind of leaning towards the latter link, since the former provides no context on how they decided she was planning on dismembering the body.