Foreigner wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:57 pm

What kind of message does that send to women who might be subjected to domestic violence (a known widespread issue in Cambodia) ?

The message says:
1. Do not lie
2. Report any abuse the first time it happens to document it.
3. Do not try to hide the body
4, Do not delay contacting the police which makes it look like you needed time to think of a good "story"


All of you that think they are innocent, let me ask you this. Why is it nobody here has mentioned the fact the wife's story of being strangled and worried he would kill them later had come out AFTER they were found guilty? It just lies upon lies.

After spending a lot of time with my other half's female friends, family, etc. I cannot believe how quick they are to say they would kill their husband if he did xxxxxx to me. Most of them say they'd put something in his food to kill him. I hear it often as they browse Facebook and chat about the sad stories they see of a beaten woman or a husband found cheating. I hope it's just them talking big but I believe there is some truth to it too.

I believe he may have beaten her, sure. Did they commit murder in my eyes? yup

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:48 am

Foreigner wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:57 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:56 pm

Foreigner wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:43 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:14 pm

Well, firstly, your idea and mine have about equal chances of being correct as we weren't involved in the case or trial.

I took my idea of guilt from three things:

1: they moved and hid the body
2: how the mum said she "chopped his head with a cleaver until he fell down" and the daughter said "he said he would kill us like he killed people in Vietnam, so I stabbed him three more times in the guts"
3: if he had beaten and strangled his wife - why was her face and neck unscathed? See pic below.




There's my take, based just on those news articles.

An allegation made by the killer of the guy should not, by itself, be enough to absolve them of guilt. That's not how justice works.

You have some expert knowledge in what a woman's neck looks like a few days after her husband tried to strangle her ?

How precisely would you react if you had just had to kill your son in law to stop him from killing your daughter ?

The fact that people think it's more likely that they killed him over $2 than in self-defence speaks volumes about attitudes to women in Cambodia.

The picture was taken the same day as the crime. Check your facts before arguing them, lol.

An interpretation (could be wrong or right) of an event in no way reflects "attitudes to women in Cambodia"

OK, apologies on the first point.

On the 2nd though I'd disagree. How many societies today would respond to a death in which 2 women claimed they were acting in self-defence from a man who was trying to kill them, by parading the women to the press with 'murder' weapons in hand whilst pronouncing them guilty and citing a motive of $2 ? What kind of message does that send to women who might be subjected to domestic violence (a known widespread issue in Cambodia) ?

In any society, they would be questioned independently and their story checked for inconsistencies, against one another and any witness statements.

This happened here and they ended up being charged and found guilty.

I understand that you are approaching this from a woman's advocacy position, but are you serious in saying that they should be let off the hook by virtue of an allegation against the deceased made AFTER they chopped his head with a cleaver and finished him off to the guts, just because they are female?

Because, to return to my original post, that's not how justice works.

Nonsense. Nowhere else in the world would they be treated like this.

The whole narrative is a complete joke. A spur of the moment murder by 2 people over $2 ? That's total bullshit.

What kind of self-defence do you advocate for a woman being strangled by a man, or a woman seeing a man strangling her daughter, if household items as weapons aren't acceptable ? If someone who could easily overpower you was strangling your daughter to death, what would you consider to be fair to defend your daughter with and what would be unreasonable ? For example, if your only options were to watch a man kill your daughter, or you attack him with a carving knife, would you decide, "nah, that's a bit much. it's only strangulation anyway, not like he's set fire to her or anything" ?

I've made my argument a few times already and now you are going around in circles.

If it bothers you that much, perhaps consider supporting them financially so they can lodge an appeal?

Ravensnest wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:28 pm
I believe he may have beaten her, sure. Did they commit murder in my eyes? yup

So you're able to tell from the pictures that they probably responded to him beating his wife, but they didn't respond to him strangling his wife ?

Wow, you ought to be a Cambodian police detective !

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:31 pm I've made my argument a few times already and now you are going around in circles.

If it bothers you that much, perhaps consider supporting them financially so they can lodge an appeal?

you've not indicated what your answers would be to the questions i've raised.

you've objected to the choice of weapons the women used to defend themselves with, so it's reasonable to ask what kind of physical defence you would have considered acceptable. you haven't clarified this a few times, or at all.

Foreigner wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:38 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:31 pm I've made my argument a few times already and now you are going around in circles.

If it bothers you that much, perhaps consider supporting them financially so they can lodge an appeal?

you've not indicated what your answers would be to the questions i've raised.

you've objected to the choice of weapons the women used to defend themselves with, so it's reasonable to ask what kind of physical defence you would have considered acceptable. you haven't clarified this a few times, or at all.

I have clarified my point of view multiple times from a position of logic.

It looks like either our two positions are incompatible or you are being intentionally obtuse.

Either way, I'm satisfied with my logic and reply. If you cannot reasonably accept that, whether you agree with it or not, is on you.

If a guy was strangling his wife/girlfriend, to the extent that she thought she was going to die, in what circumstances would the strangling be acceptable ?

and what steps would it be OK for the woman to take to stop herself from being murdered ?

Foreigner wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:54 pm If a guy was strangling his wife/girlfriend, to the extent that she thought she was going to die, in what circumstances would the strangling be acceptable ?

and what steps would it be OK for the woman to take to stop herself from being murdered ?

I see he is banned, so I know there is not going to be a reply. To reply to him, I said I "believe he may have beaten her." I didn't say nor mean I think so that day. Where were the strangulation marks or bruising? There were none. I believe a logical person can see the proof, from what I was able to see anyhow, that the females were guilty. Hence they were found guilty by a court of law and their plea for mercy was denied.
Good day sir.