Posted on 12/04/2004 5:15:05 AM PST by marktwain
Sheriff: No charge for wife in intruder-husband killing
Protective order issued; wife's door forced open
EMILY S. ACHENBAUM
Staff Writer
The Anson County Sheriff's Office will not press charges against a woman who killed her husband Wednesday after weeks of domestic violence against her.
Joy Burgess had a protective order against estranged husband Brian Gathings. Gathings had been convicted of threatening Burgess before, and jailed several times for charges of violence against her. But as with other recent domestic violence killings, none of it was enough to keep her safe.
When Gathings broke down his wife's back door with a shovel Wednesday, Burgess had reason to fear him, said Anson County Sheriff Tommy Allen. Burgess shot Gathings once in the chest, killing him.
The district attorney is still reviewing the case, but agreed charging Burgess wouldn't be appropriate, Allen said.
"There's such strong evidence of self-defense," Allen said.
District Attorney Michael Parker said he wouldn't comment on the case until he finalized his decision.
Allen said a family member of Burgess' gave her a large-caliber handgun after Gathings tried to break into her home Nov. 22.
Another relative drove screws into her windows for reinforcement.
"They had done things to protect her from him coming back," Allen said.
Gathings, 29, had been arrested five times since July on charges against his wife that included harassing phone calls and assault on a female.
The couple, who have a 6-year-old child, had been separated for about a year.
On Nov. 16, Gathings was released on a $5,000 bond after police charged him with pointing a gun at Burgess.
On Nov. 22, Gathings was charged with criminal trespass, and his parents signed a $15,000 bond.
On Wednesday, Gathings is believed to have disconnected the phone in his wife's home, Allen said. He broke down her back door with a shovel. Burgess, who works at an Anson County prison, shot him.
The couple had been scheduled for a hearing on the protective order Thursday.
"This is a sad case for all involved. There was a pattern here that tended to escalate," Allen said.
Domestic violence experts say violence typically escalates when a victim tries to leave an abuser, and that laws aren't strong enough to help.
The results can be devastating.
On Oct. 28 in Union County, David Wyzanowski killed his wife, three others and himself within 24 hours of being released from jail on a $1,000 bond. He had been charged with violating a protective order barring him from his wife. Two weeks earlier, he had been accused of raping and kidnapping her after luring her to his home with the promise of child support money.
According to the N.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at least 56 people have been killed in domestic violence-related homicides this year statewide. -- STAFF RESEARCHER SARA KLEMMER CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.
-- EMILY S. ACHENBAUM: (704) 289-6576; EACHENBAUM@CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM
Well, since the defendant is pushing up daisies, the case should be closed, therefore no court date, therefore no failure to appear. Gramps gets the money back, I should think.
The last thing I shall say about grouping is...We have 100 pygmies in a circle. I take 1% of the said pygmies and put them in a different circle. I climb upon a high rock. I look down, and what do I see? Well shock and awe, two groups of said pygmies instead of one. That...is grouping.
Any evidence to back that up or just relying on the well know earnings differential between women and men while taking it as an article of faith that the work is the "equal"?
I will not ask you where your evidence is that says the contrary.
Sorry to see someone on FR bought into that feminist propaganda.
“Women do have the opportunity to earn as much as men. However, women very often have different goals and values,” said Carmen Pate, Concerned Women for America’s President. “The level of education, field of employment, years of consecutive work experience and, most importantly, women's personal choices must be considered when comparing incomes. Otherwise, the whole exercise is like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn’t make any sense.”
2) My evidence against your stand is circumstantial in one case and anecdotal in the other.
a) Every time I see someone claiming women are not receiving equal pay for equal work they deem it sufficient to show that women are not receiving equal pay and conveniently ignore that the two statements are not equivalent.
b) Anyplace I have worked, equal work was rewarded with equal pay regardless of gender (only one man's experiences I know).
Why should I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one who made the initial assertion.
That is just something I had to throw into the mix to stir it up a bit.
I'm sure I could google the disparity between the pay scales of both men and women in the same job. But as you so rightly confirmed, I am not your secretary.
P S Women DO have the opportunity....does that mean they can...but don't?
In my personal experience, women were paid more because:
They were promoted faster with less experience to meet affirmative action goals
Or, in at lest one case, they got extremely preferential treatment for sexual favors.
I could not prove any of this in a court of law, and several people got into trouble for trying to bring it to the attention of higher-ups.
I am not saying that this is the case everywhere, but it is my personal experience.
For pbrown, when you say "equal" do you mean "equal under the law" or something else?
I have no evidence that there is air, but since I am breathing....I say we have air.
Sexual favors...it's called blackmail, sleep with me or lose your job and stop feeding that stuff to your children called, food.
I mean equal under the law, where as it is blind to whom is applying for the job, male or female.
I am surprised that you view the mere filing of a lawsuit, where the people filing it have a vested interest in promoting the view you are defending, as evidence.
To me, it is simply evidence that affirmative action and our tort rules are out of control and need to be reformed.
As an analogy, do you view the lawsuit filed against MacDonald's as evidence that they conspired to make people unhealthy by making them fat?
Well, if they did the crime, they should do the time. However, the court better be rigorous in evaluating the work of the specific male and female individuals involved, or their verdict won't be useful for anything but greenmail and toilet paper.
I'm sure I could google the disparity between the pay scales of both men and women in the same job.
Same job does not imply equal performance, so that's meaningless unless objective measures of performance are corrected for. PC assumptions will not be accepted. If you have specific instances of female salespeople working under a different commission schedule than their male counterparts, then let's have it.
But you asked for evidence, I did not.
I understood your previous post to imply that I had no right to ask for evidence since I had produced none. I then produced what I had as well as pointed out that our positions in the thread were inherently different since you had made an assertion of fact.
I have had the good fortune to work mainly in small companies run by (mostly) honorable people. Very little sucking up to the affirmative action crowd.
I'm for the first time speechless. A proven is a proven....no matter the view I am defending.
Is that all you have to throw at me? Something that proves my point?
I thought you were supposed to say the opposite, something that disproves my point. But hey, I'll take it. You just keep proving me right and soon you will be debating both sides of the argument with yourself.
Are you more comfortable with the phrase..equal pay for equal work. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I said equal pay. I didn't realize that I would have to be exact in my wording.
So you're saying that "accusation" = "proof"?? I think most Freepers view fast food lawsuits as frivolous in the extreme and would thus interpret marktwain's analogy in the same way he did, namely that "accusation" != "proof". That said, accusations do need to be investigated for the sake of the ones that are actually reasonable. Just remember that we fortunately don't live in Wonderland, where the Queen proclaimed "Verdict first, trial later".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.