Domestic Violence

[Kenny Powers]

In May 2005, in Grants Pass, Oregon, Wendy Maldonado was arrested and charged with the murder of her husband, Aaron. According to Wendy Maldonado, the incident took place after almost 20 years of violent domestic abuse committed by Aaron against his wife and their four sons.

At one minute to 9 am, Wendy takes a hammer and an ax into the bedroom where Aaron is sleeping. She strikes him three times in the head, and then runs from the room hysterical. Aaron is still groaning and so her son Randy picks up the hammer and hits him three more times. Wendy is already on the phone, calling 911 to tell them that she has just killed her husband.

Days later her eldest son, Randall (known as Randy), was arrested for his part in the killing. In 2006, a plea bargain led Wendy and Randy to plead guilty to the reduced charges of manslaughter. Wendy was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and Randy to 75 months imprisonment. Before sentencing, Randy was detained in jail while Wendy was allowed home on bail to take care of her other three children.

Her greatest fear when the police come to arrest her is that Aaron is not really dead. When they come to her jail cell and charge her with murder, she admits that she felt the greatest relief in her whole life. She doesn't hear "murder charge", she hears that the reign of terror is OVER.

She accepts a plea deal, for ten years in prison, so that her son Randy does not get the 25 year minimum prison sentence that was possible if a jury convicted them. Wendy is confronted many times by well meaning people, who say "No jury would have found you guilty". To Wendy, even the possibility that Randy would spend 25 to life in prison was not worth the risk.

Randy will be eligible for parole in August of 2011. Wendy, in 2016.

I watched this documentary on HBO entitled Every Fucking Day of My Life which was taken from the 911 conversation Wendy Maldonado had with the 911 dispatcher after she killed her husband. The dispatcher asked her how long has her husband been abusing her, and she said "Every fucking day of my life".

The documentary show the last four days of Wendy's life as a free woman with her family before she goes to jail. Wendy and her children tell brutal stories about her husband's years of abuse and his fantasies to be a serial killer. There are even some disturbing home videos of her husband kicking dead deers in the head, licking blood from the carcass, gutting them, hanging them from the tree and dancing with them.

Wendy stated her husband would take her to killing spots in the field, strangle her, and leave her for dead. Her sons stated that they could hear her head be slammed through the walls of the house, and they even gave their accounts of their own abuse from their father.

One night Wendy finally snapped and told her oldest son Randy she was going to kill her husband. She hit her husband in the back of the head with a hammer and her son joined her. She called the police and admitted to killing her husband afterward. Wendy stated the reason she never called the police or notified anyone (even though her family, friends, and neighbors knew she was being abused) was because her husband told her he would kill her family members.

Wendy took a plea deal of manslaughter to serve 120 months (10 years) with the possibility for parole in 2016, and a reduced sentenced for her son Randy of 75 with the possibility of parole in 2011. Many people feel if this was a high profile case like the Casey Anthony trial, Wendy and her son would have been found not guilty of first degree murder.

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Do you agree with her jail sentence?

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Of course she should have notified the fucking police, dont be fucking ridiculous.

You dont ever take the law into your own hands to end anothers life, especially by smashing their head with a got-damned hammer, that is just fucking absurd. Right, she said he did this and that for so many years, so we are just taking her word for it? So I guess since she said it, that is what had been happening? That is insane to me that a jory would buy off on that, with no legal prior documentation of abuse.

In the midst of a domestic assault, you defend yourself, and lose your shit on the other person? Ok, sure. However, She wasnt defending herself, she fucking murdered someone with an ax and a hammer in their fucking sleep, in cold blood. If you have a damn problem, that is what police are for. If he makes threats on your family, that is what police are for.

Fuck that.

 

[Gelgarin]

It is against the law to repeatedly strike a sleeping person in the face with an axe whilst your children watch. There are no circumstances in which the above actions are not against the law, and I must say I'm quite glad about this.

Most civilized countries recognise the phenomena of battered wife syndrome and have done so since as early as the 80's (R v Ahluwalia etc) but in every legal system in the western world BWS will only serve as a partial defence to downgrade murder to mansluaghter (or equivalent). In this particular case it shouldn't even have done that.

Battered Wife Syndrome is recognised in most legal systems as a form of diminished responsibility whereby the accused is judged to, as a result of years of abuse, not be in full control of their actions. This was not the case here. This woman didn't impulsively pick up a kitchen knife after being assaulted and stab her husband, she waited for him to fall asleep, acquired the tools for the killing, informed her family of her intent and then committed the murder. This was not self defence, it was not automotive behaviour and it was not diminished responsibly... under the law of the land it was straight up murder, which is why her lawyers will have advised her to take the plea bargain.

Do I feel sorry for this woman? Absolutely. Nobody deserves that kind of treatment, and I can fully empathise with a person snapping in her situation, but that doesn't make it right or legal for her to do so. Her husband by all accounts sounds like a sick and evil waste of human life, and I'm sure you wouldn't struggle to find people who would say he deserved to get hit in the face with an axe, but that's not a decision for one person to make.

This is civilization, and we have laws. We have courts and police specifically to deal with these sorts of situations. What we do not have, nor do we want, is mobs and vigilantes. That's barbarism and nothing more. As Norcal says, you cannot take the law into your own hands. This woman had twenty years to do something and had plenty of options open to her within the rule of law (fuck, this documentary proves that there were no end of witnesses and video evidence that could have had the man locked away) and unfortunately she didn't take them. It's tragic, but at the end of the day, the freedom to break the law comes with the freedom to take the consequences.

She'll go to jail, probably minimum security for most of it. She'll do the minimum time before getting parole approved. That's fair enough, but the consequences must be seen to exist. You are not allowed, whatever they may have done to you, to hit a sleeping person in the face with an axe. I don't want to live in a world where this ceases to be the case.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

Nobody has the "right" to kill another person. Sometimes, it's understandable why they do it, but even if it's clearly a case of self-defense, no one has the "right." Yes, the theory of "justifiable homicide" exists but courts had better be very wary of applying it.


Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

They should, which doesn't guarantee they would. Juries are instructed to follow the facts of the case and not to base their verdict on sympathy for the victim (or for the murderer). Clearly, they sometimes do base it strictly on feeling sorry for the people involved, but that doesn't change the fact that the person is a murderer. Wendy and her son contemplated the crime, then committed it. They're murderers in the eyes of the law. The sentence pronounced may provide allowances for what led to the murder, but the jury isn't supposed to concern themselves with the sentence.


Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Obviously, but even more than that, she should have gotten her sons and herself out of that situation long before it came to murder.

Do you like sympathy? If so, the ones I feel sorriest for are the sons, being forced to live in an abusive environment because their mother was too scared to get them out. If you have no kids and want to stay with a man like that, it's your privilege. But in a case where you have to protect your kids, you go to the police and bring the sons with you; let 'em all tell the story. Once there, you tell the police that the husband threatened to kill other family members if the abuse is reported.


Do you agree with her jail sentence?

Sure. Who really knows how much time is too much or too little?


Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

Unfortunately, it seems to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction how these things are handled, but the law can't presume the abused spouse is making too much of the situation and give the abuser a chance to do damage before they finally receive protection. My own feeling is that abuse allegations are taken very seriously by the legal community and protection will be given .......providing it's reported in the first place, which was the problem in this case.

 

[DJ Kyo]

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

Absolutely. This whole moral BS of "no one is allowed to kill another, should be allowed, etc." is brainwashed propaganda to keep people in line with society and what government wants. If someone is continually hurting you non-stop and hurting your kids, you're damn right you have the right to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to keep it from happening again. Even if that means you'll feel safest by taking them out. Kill the bastard.

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

Depends on the jury to be honest. You never know what you may or may not get and what type of history someone has.

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Police have shown time and time again that they can only help out so much. Domestic violence isn't as easy as TV makes it look to take care of. It's a tough process.

Do you agree with her jail sentence?

Yes and no. She agreed to it, so whatever. However the woman stopped a reign of terror. She should be more like a Hero to battered wives. If husbands feared their wives because they thought things like that could happen to then, then the world would be a better place.

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

Absolutely.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think Wendy and her son received a fair sentence considering there was no evidnce of former domestic abuse except some testimonials by her kids. Most of the abuse happened in private, although some friends and family of hers have seen her seriously injured.
There was no way to justify murdering someone while they were asleep or under any circumstance besides self defense. After 20 years of alleged physical abuse, she just snapped without even thinking.

If her husband did imply he would kill her relatives, I doubt he would have gone through with it. He never killed her even if he did say he would one day. I don't know the entire situation, but she should have at least tried to leave or notify the police so she could protect her family

 

[LSN80]

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

Absolutely. This whole moral BS of "no one is allowed to kill another, should be allowed, etc." is brainwashed propaganda to keep people in line with society and what government wants. If someone is continually hurting you non-stop and hurting your kids, you're damn right you have the right to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to keep it from happening again. Even if that means you'll feel safest by taking them out. Kill the bastard.

Wait, what? How is there ever a time where it is justifiable in any sense to kill someone in their sleep? Call the police, get the hell out of dodge. How caan one look aty killing someone in their sleep, battered wife syndrome or not, and say that it's ok to kill another human being who is currently posing no threat to them? im glad she feels that going to jail meaans the "reign of terror" is over, my only hope is that she learns that violence begets violence in these situations.

It would be one thing if the man was beating her, or one of her children and the time. He wasn't. By all accounts reported, he was sleeping peacefully. How is this not premeditaated murder? There are provisions that aren't "self-righteous propoganda", it's ones where defense of self and others is permitted when their lives or the lives or others is being threatened. Even if this had been the case, hours ago, a day ago, or a week ago, this wasn't the situation here. Her life and the life of her son weren't at imminent danger here. I understand she may have been frustrated or angry or mentally unstaable. But she had other options here, and she chose to most impactful, violent way of doing so. I understand where she was going for here--trying to protect her family. But there were other ways to do so, and a long time ago at that.

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

I think they would have, yes. She didn't try to hide what she did, she committed premeditated murder, by her own account. Her son then aided in the slaying of the husband/dad. In what world could she haave been found innocent when she killed someone in her sleep? Im a firm believer in the entire idea of battered wife syndrome, aand can understand why she snapped. But her actions were so erroneous it makes me sick. She had so many other options here, and she chose to kill. I think a jury would empathize with her, but that's not their job. Their job in these situations is simply to examine the facts. The facts here point towards premeditated murder.

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Over the taking of another life? Id surely think so. People can argue that police have failed in the past, and add on the threaats made against her life and her family. And I do feel for her myself. Which is why she should have called the police, and had she and her children moved into protective custody. This to me looks like a crime of opportunity. For God's sakes, she, along with her children, had been being abused for 20 years. Instead of taking an axe to her husband while he was sleeping, she should have notified the police.

I understand the feeling of being trapped. I understand the fear of not wanting to expose her children to more violence. But through her actions, she did exactly that, and brought one of her sons into it as well. So the same thing she hated and despised most about her husband, she became. Is their really any question she should have called the police?

Do you agree with her jail sentence?

.

Sure I do. Should the woman have gotten 25 to life for her actions? No, not really. This isn't an easy case to evaluate or look at and say what an appropriate level of punishment is. I shed no tears for the death of her husband. But there were so many more logical, moral, and legal ways for her to have dealt with this, and she chose the worst path. Again, what message would it send to every beaten spouse if she would have gotten off? That killing their abuser in their sleep is a good thing? I fear the day where we live in a country where vigilante justice is seen as the "proper way." This simply is a fine line thats impossible to come back from if the world decides this is the appropriate way to go.

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

Sure. But not in the case where one is allowed to kill the abuser, unless their life or the life of a loved on is imminently threatened. It wasn't here. The best way to change the law is to be stricter on the abuser, not to give more freedom to the victim to commit a crime of their own.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I'm probably going to come across as a total douche right now, but here goes anyways:

To say that someone doesn't have the "right" to take another persons life is absurd. There are definitely circumstances where it is ok, not MANY, but some.

I would view this case as self defense, simply for the fact that after so many years of getting her fucking ass beat and left for dead, she waited for the one time that he wouldn't be able to overpower her. This situation is very delicate, because had she called the cops and he been released, in the time that he would have been free after the fact, he could have done some serious fucking damage to her or family.

To those of you who said she should have gone into protective custody... Dude said he'd kill FAMILY. Could've meant Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, etc... you can't take the whole freakin family into protective custody, so why risk it?

Besides... in this case you can't say that her life wasn't in any imminent danger, because the next ass whooping could have been the one that killed her. Let's be honest... if any member of your family wants to kill you because you've abused them, you're not just a one time abuser. That kind of decision would take a VERY long time to make... At any rate, none of us are/were/will ever be in this woman's shoes,so we can never really say for sure, but one this is true... The abuse is over!

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I understand why she did what she did, but it shouldnt have come to that. She should have taken action to get herself, and her children far away from her husband who by all accounts sounds like a fucking psycho.

The Police are there to protect people, and if she was in genuine fear for her life, and suffering terrible abuse then they should have been informed and measures could have been taken to protect her and the kids and the husband could have been dealt with accordingly depending on the extent of his abuse.

IF she had killed him in the spur of the moment- e.g smashing him with the axe during a period of abuse, as in just grabbed it and lashed out with it, then self-defence would come into the equation, but she commited a pre-meditated murder and you simply cannot do that as much as you may want to after years of brutal treatment at the hands of your partner. She also should not have got her son involved in the killing.

Something like this should never get to the level it did. I don't understand why people stay with a partner who abuses them, it isnt right and I am sickened by people who treat their spouse in that manner. The victim should do everything in their power to leave long before resorting to murder, they should have gone to the police if it really was happening "every day of her fucking life" and she was in genuine fear for her family's safety.

I greatly sympathise with her, she must have been in a terrible state to want to commit murder like she did, and maybe the husband didn't deserve to live after treating his family in the way he did, but she had to be jailed for committing murder in cold blood. That is the law, and she has to face the consequences of what she did.

It is a very sad story, noone should have to suffer that level of abuse, not a wife, not a child, no-one.

 

[Dilligaf]

The worst kind of coward is a man who beats on his wife or girlfreind.

Ive been married for 18 years and never once have I laid a hand on my wife.

But as previous posters have said we never know what happend behind closed doors apart from what she or he may say.

I watched this true movie the other week where a man was constantly beaten up by his wife for many reasons, but he was too ashamed of admiting it, until once he defended himself, and HE was the classed at the wife beater and it was only until their kids actually came forward and told what they had seen the truth came out.

I dont condone violence from men towards women in anyway, but in her eyes she had to do what she felt she had to and end the violence.

 

[Karilas]

Wow, I'm a little surprised at the general lack of empathy in this thread. If this were an anti-cult forum you'd see all manner of treatises on the psychology of why terrified, broken, battered people stay with their abusers, and it's something that is exceptionally difficult to relate to if you haven't been through a similar experience.

Sure, she should have escaped way sooner, but when you're trapped in that mind-set you genuinely can't see the possibility. Hell, doesn't the report state that a number of her friends and neighbours KNEW about the abuse but did nothing to intervene? Wow.

 

[JWGunslinger]

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?
Nobody has the right to just kill somebody, but if your life or the life of your loved ones is in danger then it is understandable, that is self defense. It'd be alot easier to accept if it was a heat of the moment situation where she killed him while he was beating her or her children, but if she and her kids were truely being abused for years then there's alot of mental issues that go along with that and I wouldnt be surprised if they played into this.

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?
It's hard to say, Wendy's case is difficult to call because if her story is true then she doesn't deserve conviction but it sounds like this case isn't 100 percent clear on whether she's being honest or she's full of shit. I'd say because of the brutal nature of the fact that there's doubt that she's being honest then i'd say yes a jury would have convicted her.

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?
Obviously, but if her side of this is true then I understand why she would not go to the police. How many stories do you hear about a guy being accused of abuse by his wife and he either gets off or goes to jail and gets paroled early and the wife ends up dead. What she did was she was making goddamn sure this sonofabitch would never come back to hurt her or her children, that is mama bear protecting her cubs at it's finest, maternal instincts kicked in and nothing else matters then aside from making sure your offspring are safe. Again this is assuming that she's being honest, she was doing it out of fear that her husband would hurt her family and that is powerful motivation for any parent let alone a mother.

Do you agree with her jail sentence?
Yes, considering the case is a little murky at best it's hard to say but I say her sentence is a pretty good middle ground sentence. She does get punished for killing someone and if she was just protecting her well being and that of her children then she isn't wrongly in prison for most of her life, hard call though.

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?
Sure, I think that the problem with this case is not the laws but the fact that it isn't quite as clear cut as we'd like it to be. However if laws were brought in that could help someone else in a similar future situation then definitely.

 

[Born To Fly]

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

No. Nobody has the right to kill anybody else.

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

Yes. It's murder. Good on them.

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Yes. If someone is getting physically abused in a relationship, the police need to be notified. If Wendy notified the police earlier, it would not have had such a dire end.

Do you agree with her jail sentence?

Yes. I think it should be longer. Throw her in jail for life.

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

Aren't they already?

 

[Karilas]

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Yes. If someone is getting physically abused in a relationship, the police need to be notified. If Wendy notified the police earlier, it would not have had such a dire end.

You cannot KNOW this. Given that the Police are notoriously powerless in domestic abuse cases, it is still just as likely that the outcome of this relationship would be equally disastrous, only difference being that in support of Wendy's case there'd be a litany of logged calls to the Police. Still, she was too scared to notify the 5-0 sooner so she's obviously a cold, manipulative murderer.

Everyone's so bloody morally certain. It's like a Jeremy Kyle convention up in here.

I'm not saying the woman is innocent, because I am not privy to the facts of the case. What I'm railing against here are the absolutely dead-certain condemnations of a woman from people who have as much access to the facts as I do.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Fuck all this political correctness, I believe she had the right to kill her husband. I'm not saying she had the legal right, because the law is the law and the law always wins; but she did what was best for her family, she was protecting the ones she loves from what would probably would have been a similar outcome.

If she thought she could just call the cops and be done with it I'm sure she would have done that a long time ago, I saw the documentary and I stand behind what she did. If calling the cops solved everyone's problems we'd have world peace; but that's not the case and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[Born To Fly]

@Karlias — You're right. I can't know that, but at the same time, a police report and possibly a restraining order could do wonders for an abusive relationship. If it was THAT bad, she should have gone to the cops to file for something.

 

[Karilas]

@Karlias — You're right. I can't know that, but at the same time, a police report and possibly a restraining order could do wonders for an abusive relationship. If it was THAT bad, she should have gone to the cops to file for something.

It could well have done wonders, however, depending on how serious her husband's threats were, it could also have resulted in her own murder, or indeed harm to those she cared about. It bears thinking.

 

[alexikosalov]

Her situation is ungraspable. Should she have killed her husband? Who knows. I believe in certain situations where there are no laws to be followed. Sometimes existence comes down to life vs. death and all that's left to do is fight.

 

[One to Remember]

Would a jury cobvict her? Hard to say. Out of ten trials i could see three hung juries, five convictions, and two aquittals.

Did she have the right to kill him? In more situations then not yes. Her dynamic was one of the few even the abused couldn't justified. She should had been more strategic to cover her ass legally.

Should she had went to the law? Yes. I've seen them fail to act and I've seen them go hard. Law enforcement is a gamble, alot of people don't want to admit that. But after the killing her issue is NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT but the COURT SYSTEM. If she thought he would get around the cops she should had still documented his abuse with audio and video. If it went on for twenty years its not reasonable to assume it was going to escalate to killing her. If she had kids she had no justification to not leave battered or not.
Why doesn't she have proof against him? And threats to her fam are moot because any one could do them harm. They need to learn to fight or fire a gun. The problem with Nicole Simpson is she wasn't prepared to shut it down. She had already had the medical reports and police reports to justify stopping O.J. Women always wanna handle their shit with some passive lolly pop response. Thats why they get swerved on so much. This dumb broad actually though she would waltz into court with a kill under her belt and walk out on mere he said she said!? Why today? Why not 15 years prior? Why not after ur first date?

Did she deserve her sentence? She deserved a few years because she killed a man in his sleep like a coward or maybe a predator. She deserves time because even if the kids saw her abuse its outragious to get them to participate in killing their father. IF THEY WANTED TO she should had spared them the need or handled it solo.They both failed as parents..


P.S. Diligaf give it a rest. Your not zorro and most of those battered women arent gonna break u off a piece just because u swooped in to stop a beating... No body should be hittin nobody because for alot of people a fight was the last thing they ever did..

 

[Calderownz]

I'll start off by saying that for the sake of a cohesive argument, I'll assume she'd be closer to the truth than he would be. I don't really have the right to assume that, but I think that the overall questions would apply in particular to a case where the woman was telling the exact truth. Meaning that if she were telling the truth, what would I think of the circumstances.

Do you think Wendy had the right to kill her husband?

Legally, no. Morally, yes. Once again, I'm not certain he did anything, but I'm going to assume she's telling the exact truth for the sake of a cohesive argument.

Now, the reason I believe she's morally fine, for lack of a better term, is because I happen to think that you have the right to defend yourself. Perhaps she could have done such a thing in a less fatal manner. Perhaps he had beaten her to the point that she felt she had no choice.

Regardless, I'm of the belief that you have to take responsibility for the position you put yourself in. If you beat the hell out of anyone for any extended period of time, you deserve what they give you in return. That may sound harsh, but so is beating on someone that doesn't have a legitimate chance of immediately defending themselves.

Plain and simple, if he did it and he wasn't defending himself and it was because he simply enjoyed or got off on hurting a woman or anyone for that matter, he got what he deserved.

Do you think a jury would have convicted her?

Likely, she wouldn't have gotten off completely. However, going to court may have actually helped her out. Depending on the state, of course. Still, all things considered, you can't really say. She obviously couldn't and therefore, she took the deal.

Should Wendy have notified the police instead?

Perhaps. It depends on the exact actions. Did she kill him during one of his rages? Did she kill him fearing one was looming? Would she have any way of proving this to police? If she couldn't prove it and he was released, would he kill her? This is all and MUCH MORE, I'd imagine, running through someone's head when they're in a position like this. It's very hard to say. But, I could see this being better for her in the long run if she had called the police, most likely.

Do you agree with her jail sentence?

(Once again, assuming she's telling the truth.) No.

Should domestic violence laws be changed to protect the victims?

I think that the laws protect the victims, but these sorts of crimes, almost ALWAYS happening behind closed/private doors are simply hard to verify. It's unfortunately just the way it is and laws being changed what really do much for a theoretical or legitimate victim.