Army Colonel: Porn Led Me to Kill My Wife

CNN ^ | 9/30/02

[11th Earl of Mar]

ANNAPOLIS JUNCTION, Maryland (AP) -- A lieutenant colonel at the Army War College pleaded guilty Monday to killing his wife, saying he beat and strangled her as they fought about his use of the Internet to find pornography.

Lt. Col. David Bartlett Jr., 46, reached a plea deal with prosecutors in the slaying of his 39-year-old wife, Suzanne.

[bootless]

Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin'? ;^)

I think so, Brain, but where are we going to get a duck and a hose at this hour?

[Woahhs]

a man that would murder is wife, because she didn't like him looking at some stupid skin show, shouldn't be a commander in the Military.

Read it again. That's not what it says.

[Zon]

But pornography is a victimless crime.

You're right. Still, if you think another person's act of viewing pornography has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. That's what a rational person does when they're the victim of a thief who robbed them, right? Doing that to gain restitution for the harm done to them by the thief.

[Howlin]

I've seen porn. Was I supose to kill somebody and didn't know it?

[Capt_Hank]

Good evening Darling.... I prefer the "Newsgroups" myself, uncensored and raw.

[ReadMyMind]

Yeah, it was obviously the thongs, not the cigars that caused it.

[adam stevens]

Yes you were.

[biffalobull]

Hey bud, explain this to me. I think it says an army man killed his wife, because she got on him for watching porn shows. Am I missing something here. Regards BB

[Howlin]

I didn't get the memo. I'll be gone for a while...

[Woahhs]

Hey bud, explain this to me. I think it says an army man killed his wife, because she got on him for watching porn shows. Am I missing something here. Regards BB

Yes...you are missing something here. See my previous posts, bud.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not to mention, reading Free Republic.

[ValerieUSA]

*L* I must have inadvertantly asked a question.

[Aquinasfan]

What would constitute evidence of the harm of pornography for you?

[Woahhs]

What would constitute evidence of the harm of pornography for you?

As much regard as I have for your opinion, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I could well adopt the same rhetorical stance on the question of gun control, and it would be quickly dismissed on the same grounds I reject this assertion.

Whatever the net effects of viewing pornography may be, this is not the case to evaluate them by.

[Zon]

My criteria is probably different than yours and you should not use my criteria to be the guide of your life. You'll have to think for yourself.

I have never been harmed by a person's act of viewing pornography. Have you? If and when you think you've been harmed by a person viewing pornography, take them to court and do your best to prove to an impartial jury that you've been harmed by that person's act of viewing pornography.

[Zon]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Pornography doesn't harm people. People harm people.

[Woahhs]

Exactly my point.

And if there is one person on this forum who would never fall for the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, it's Aquinasfan.

[Joan912]

So perhaps the "Mrs." shouldn't have confronted her husband at all about his porn addiction? Maybe she should have stood at the computer with him offering suggestions as to what type of porn he should check out. "No, honey, why don't you look at the bigbutts.com site? I've been told it's da bomb." Shame on her for not playing the role of doormat!

[Joan912]

Well said, Valerie!

[Woahhs]

No, but I think her end shows rather emphaticly that she should have either split, or left it alone after the initial fight. You don't think he's the one that kept bringing it up do you? And I read nothing about "addiction" in the article. Did Opra have something to say on this case I didn't hear about?