Wife gets 30 days for 'big surprise'

A Utah woman was sentenced to 30 days at home after she promised her husband a "big surprise" during a date -- but instead beat him in the head with a hammer while he was blindfolded. The man, who had been spun around before the attack, escaped with minor injuries. Amy Walker Ricks' lawyer compared her to someone suffering PTSD during war and blamed the victim for emotional abuse. The victim's brother asked the judge to sentence her to three years.

Comments

[onetime]

well if they were minor injuries I wouldn't say she beat him. Just adjusted the angle of the nail a little.

[Unbelievable]

Smile sweety. *Whack* .. Yeah she couldn't have been hitting him very hard, wouldn't take much to crack your head open with a hammer.

[aqua]

what a pin head.

[FanDanGo]

We need to quit minimizing PTSD by assigning that diagnosis to everyone who does something stupidly violent. She was PO'd at her husband and cracked him one; that's worth 30 days.

[The Golfer]

Well she did say it was going to be a BIG surprise. LOL

[Tȟatȟaŋka Iyotȟaŋka]

The article doesn't detail the abuse the woman alleges. If she was, in fact, physically abused for a long period of time this act was her way of leveling the playing field in order to stand up for herself in self-defense.

If she just didn't like her husband's attitude towards her (emotional abuse), the higher road would have been counseling or divorce.

If the husband was a physical bully he got what he deserved.

[Jo Jo]

Or she could have left. Wait, that's absurd. Hammer to the head is much, much more rational. Justify away.

[Tȟatȟaŋka Iyotȟaŋka]

Jo Jo,

Are cops allowed to defend themselves against people threatening suicide, but women are not allowed to defend themselves against physically abusive, bullying husbands?

Can't wait to hear your hypocrisy...I mean response.

[Jo Jo]

Okay, finish being childish for a minute and then read on.

The answers to your bastardized version of the facts are 1) yes and 2) likely not, depending on the jurisdiction.

Assuming you're talking about the PV lady:

The distinction is in the immediacy of the threat. Another distinction is that, whether we believe it or not, the cops have a legally cognizable justification to use force. They're not claiming to have done something wrong and have it excused based on PTSD / battered spouse, etc. They are claiming that because the immediacy of a lethal threat, deadly force was justified. That is a matter of fact, not law, for a jury or judge to decide.

Here, the lady readily admits that she committed a patently illegal act. She is looking for it to be excused by a claim that seems to be akin to battered spouse syndrome. My somewhat limited understanding of this defense is that the standard for proving the basis of the defense varies from state to state. I also believe that the burden of proving it is pretty high.

Without using backhanded insults, I hope that answers your question.

Cheers,

Jo Jo

[Jo Jo]

Okay, oops. She was already convicted and sentenced. So I guess she's not in Utah.

And in further reading, the only claim for justification is emotional abuse. What ridiculous bull$hit. She should kiss her attorney's shoes for getting her that sweet deal.

[bob]

'Big surprise' is never good. 'Happy ending' is what you want to hear.

[Tȟatȟaŋka Iyotȟaŋka]

I agree the sentence is BS if the only alleged abuse was emotional in this case, as my original post indicated.

I was arguing a hypothetical to make a general point in the 2nd post - which you attempted to smother in the detail of this case.

Women that are truly physically abused have the same right to defend themselves as cops out on the beat. That's my general point. Agreed in general principal, or are cops allowed more self-defense?