So there was this little girl, see, who was naughty...

[Argus]

But that's all women are, because, you know, they're just girls, so we can't judge them harshly, even when they try to have their ex-husband murdered. Hey, she's just a little girl!

Now from reading the media, or watching TV, you'd think the SC did a splendid job of letting the poor, helpless little girl go without sanctioning murder for anyone women don't happen to like. Oh they were wroth, the supreme court, at the police for failing to protect this poor little girl! And okay, even though her defense was nonsense (but accepted by the judge at trial, and the appeals court) she's JUST A LITTLE GIRL, so they decided it wouldn't be fair on the poor, traumatized little thing to make go through a retrial.

Has anyone ever seen a case where a man was let off the hook for something like this and not ordered into a new trial just because he's been through so much? Me neither. Women are equals in our society... except when they prefer to be treated like little girls.

http://news.national...o-kill-husband/

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Bonam]

I saw this a day or two ago and thought the same thing. Sexism, racism, and double standards pervade our justice system.

Realistically, what should have happened is the husband should have been investigated for any of the alleged abuses, and punished appropriately by the courts if found guilty. And, of course, the woman hiring a murderer should face the appropriate punishment for that crime. Hiring a hit man is not self-defense, nor was she in a situation of "duress" as the defense argued.

Another thing I find very disturbing about this case:

At a press conference in Halifax, Nicole Ryan, who will not have a criminal record, said she was “relieved” and hoped that she can “re-establish my life.” She has already gone back to teaching.

Really? A woman who would hire a hit man to commit murder is allowed to teach little kids in a school? Seriously? Someone who has demonstrated a willingness to commit murder like this shouldn't be let anywhere near defenseless schoolchildren.

[Guest American Woman]

But that's all women are, because, you know, they're just girls, so we can't judge them harshly,..., she's just a little girl!

... the poor, helpless little girl ... this poor little girl! ...she's JUST A LITTLE GIRL, so they decided it wouldn't be fair on the poor, traumatized little thing to make go through a retrial.

.. except when they prefer to be treated like little girls.

http://news.national...o-kill-husband/

Where does it say anything about her being a little girl?? - That she can't be judged harshly because she's a little girl? - That she doesn't have to be subjected to a re-trial because she's a little girl?

It's all about her being abused - not about her being a little girl.

I have no idea where you are getting that notion from, but it's not from anything in the article.

[Bonam]

It's all about her being abused - not about her being a little girl.

I have no idea where you are getting that notion from, but it's not from anything in the article.

From the article:

He was a six-foot-three former soldier and 230 pounds. She was five-foot-three and 115 pounds.

[Guest American Woman]

So

From the article: He was a six-foot-three former soldier and 230 pounds. She was five-foot-three and 115 pounds.

That's just stating a fact - that she was a small woman, which is quite different from "that's all women are"- "just little girls" - and on and on.

Again. It's not about her being "just a little girl" because "that's all women are." It's about the reality that she was abused by her husband - who took her out into the woods and showed her where he would bury her and her daughter if she ever left him. It's about her calling the police and not getting protection.

Nicole Ryan is a Nova Scotia woman who was abused, terrorized and threatened with death by Michael Ryan, her violent gun-owning husband. When she begged for protection from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others, she got none.

Michael Ryan was a volatile, burly soldier who imposed a “reign of terror” on his family. Nicole Ryan told the court that he routinely threw things at her head, physically assaulted her and threatened to kill her and her daughter by burning down the house around them. She said he once took them to a remote, forested spot and told them he planned to bury their bodies there.

http://www.thestar.c...-case-editorial

Yet Argus does not speak of any of that - of the abuse and the fact that the police didn't respond. It's all about women being "just little girls" - which is quite insulting and demeaning to women, to say the least. He speaks of the "poor little thing" whose abusive husband was someone she just 'happened to not like.' It's a ridiculous take on the situation.

[Bonam]

Is the abuse all alleged by the woman, or has any of it been independently confirmed?

[Guest American Woman]

Is the abuse all alleged by the woman, or has any of it been independently confirmed?

Ryan's lawyer argued that his client called police at least nine times seeking protection from her husband.

...the trial judge accepted that Ryan's testimony about the abusive behaviour of her husband was, in fact, true.

"While she had engaged the police and other agencies in an effort to assist her in the past, the evidence was that her problems were viewed as a 'civil matter'," the justices said.

"There is also the disquieting fact that, on the record before us, it seems that the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. Ryan than they had been to respond to her request for help

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/17/nicole-ryan-abused-wife-hitman_n_2499146.html

Again, it was not about her just being a little girl - about all women being just little girls - who happened to just not like her husband. You do clearly see that, right?

[Bonam]

Yes, I do see that the issue is not about her being a "little girl". Perhaps Argus' phrasing was poor. I do, however, agree with him that this case is an example of gender bias in the justice system. Further, if the abuse was a "civil matter", that is, no abuse that could have been considered criminal ever occurred, then there is no way that the woman was justified in hiring a hit man to murder her husband, and she should be prosecuted as befits said crime.

[Canuckistani]

All the judges said they did not accept the woman’s claim that she had acted under extreme duress when she attempted to take out a contract on her husband’s life. Such a defence can only be used in limited circumstances, the court said.

But a majority of judges ordered a rare stay of proceedings, saying that it would be unfair to put the woman through another trial.

This has been distorted in the media. The judges did not accept her claim she had to hire a hit man, there's no open season on men. They did say she should not be tried again. Seems fairly reasonable in view of the facts of the case. I get very angry at the anti-male bias of our court system. We've had a woman get 2 years house arrest for jealously stabbing her lover to death, because the judge didn't think she'd do it again. We had a woman get 3 years probation for the same thing because she was Native and in treatment for her alcoholism. No way if gender roles were reversed would those sentences have stood, and the womyn would be out in force on the street. But this judgement seems reasonable.

[Bonam]

But this judgement seems reasonable.

Which part of someone hiring a hit man to commit murder and getting off scot free seems reasonable, again?

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, I do see that the issue is not about her being a "little girl". Perhaps Argus' phrasing was poor.

"Phrasing?" That's what the thread is about. Women being just "poor little girls." Look at the title of the thread - "So there was this little girl, see, who was naughty..."

I do, however, agree with him that this case is an example of gender bias in the justice system.

"Gender bias" and saying "all women are just little girls" are two different things. I agree that abuse directed at men isn't always taken as seriously as abuse directed at women, but it's not because "women are all just little girls." Again, that is insulting and demeaning.

Further, if the abuse was a "civil matter", that is, no abuse that could have been considered criminal ever occurred,

The article says that it was dismissed as a civil manner, not that it was a civil matter, and takes the RCMP to task over it. Just because it was dismissed as a civil matter doesn't mean that there was, in fact, no criminal abuse.

... there is no way that the woman was justified in hiring a hit man to murder her husband, and she should be prosecuted as befits said crime.

The Supreme Court ruled that she was not justified in hiring a hit man and I agree that she should have been prosecuted as befits the crime. The decision to stay her case, however, was not based on the idea that "women are just little girls."

And since that's the way the case is being presented in this thread, by the title and opening post, that's what I have been taking issue with. Seems to me that is the issue of this thread - that women are just little girls.

[Canuckistani]

Which part of someone hiring a hit man to commit murder and getting off scot free seems reasonable, again?

She's been aquitted twice and they just said enough is enough. With that track record, even if they had ordered a new trial she might well be acquitted again.

[Argus]

She's been aquitted twice and they just said enough is enough. With that track record, even if they had ordered a new trial she might well be acquitted again.

What happened in the first trial is one of those wierd things only lawyers and the legal system are capable of. Her lawyer used the alleged abuse as justification for her hiring a killer. However, the Crown knew damned well that under the law that is absolutely not justification, and so they never bothered to challenge her claims of abuse. Btw, the only evidence of her abuse was her own word. None of her earlier complaints to police were about abuse. They were about an ongoing, very nasty divorce process in which custody and money were under discussion.

However, the judge in the case looked at her and said "Aahhh, she's just a poor wittle girl! We can't hold her responsible for her decisions as if she were, well, a man. So he let her off. He decided to buy her justification. At that point there is no way for the Crown to introduce any challenge to her claims of abuse. Appeals only judge whether the trial was conducted properly. So when it went to the Supreme Court, all they could do was examine the judge's decision. They did so and decided the Crown was correct. Her excuse was no justification under the law. But they let her go anyway because she was 'just a wittle girl!" and so shouldn't have to face the trauma of further trials.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Really? A woman who would hire a hit man to commit murder is allowed to teach little kids in a school? Seriously? Someone who has demonstrated a willingness to commit murder like this shouldn't be let anywhere near defenseless schoolchildren.

You might also take note of the fact that the family court judge awarded sole custody of their daughter to 'the monster'. And they did that before she tried to hire a hit man. BTW, when she was talking with the hit man, she also suggested it wouldn't be a terrible tragedy if he murdered her ex's new girlfriend as 'collateral damage'. Also, her sister called police on her a couple of years back saying she had tried to run her over with her car.

Yup. Just the kind of person we want with young children...

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Yet Argus does not speak of any of that - of the abuse and the fact that the police didn't respond.

Yes, the police failed to respond at all. Curious that. Don't you wonder why that would be? She said at her trial that he had held a shotgun to her head, and other menacing things. From my understanding, it takes very little suggestion of violence for police to become heavily involved in these things. Yet the police did nothing. Curious that. Could it be there was nothing for them to do because her husband never actually did anything illegal?

It's all about women being "just little girls" - which is quite insulting and demeaning to women,

I'm reflecting the attitude of the legal system. Women are not adults and so aren't responsible for their actions. They're just emotional, flighty things, and so we can't hold them to the same standards of behavior we do men.

[Argus]

Is the abuse all alleged by the woman, or has any of it been independently confirmed?

My understanding is it was never mentioned prior to her being arrested, and there is no evidence of abuse.

There was quite a nasty divorce battle, however, involving quite a bit of money, as well as custody of their daughter.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Guest Manny]

I see things with this case that I don't completely agree with, but it's a tough case. She didn't get protection she deserved for herself and her daughter.

One wonders about the attitude of local authorities. Nova Scotia, is it? Theyre attitude towards women, this woman was of low interest.

If I were in her place, given circumstances Id likely do the same thing.

Also the military should have some responsibility in this. Sorry, Im not impressed with the military. You dont take proper care of your soldiers and their families, when they come back from war.

[Guest Manny]

Argus, youre saying you doubt the judge? What evidence do you have that the judge doesnt have? Why would a judge accept fabricated evidence.

[Argus]

Argus, youre saying you doubt the judge? What evidence do you have that the judge doesnt have? Why would a judge accept fabricated evidence.

Because it was never challenged by the Crown. The Crown decided it didn't need to challenge it since that was no justification, that is what the Supreme Court agreed with. Unfortunately, since the evidence was never challenged that is what the judges are going by when deciding she was 'abused'.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, the police failed to respond at all. Curious that. Don't you wonder why that would be?

Not really. It wouldn't be the first time the police didn't react properly. In light of what the court said about the RCMP failing to respond, and nothing to refute what the court said, I have no reason not to believe that they should have responded - but didn't.

She said at her trial that he had held a shotgun to her head, and other menacing things. From my understanding, it takes very little suggestion of violence for police to become heavily involved in these things. Yet the police did nothing. Curious that. Could it be there was nothing for them to do because her husband never actually did anything illegal?

How would they know that - if they didn't respond and investigate her calls?

I'm reflecting the attitude of the legal system. Women are not adults and so aren't responsible for their actions. They're just emotional, flighty things, and so we can't hold them to the same standards of behavior we do men.

I see that more as your view of the courts than "the attitude of the legal system." Again, the words coming out of the legal system, the article, say nothing to indicate that "women are not adults so they aren't responsible for their actions." The court - and the article - say that she made calls about abuse that were ignored. That has absolutely nothing to with "women not being adults and not being responsible for their actions." Your take on it is off the wall.

Edited January 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, the police failed to respond at all. Curious that. Don't you wonder why that would be? She said at her trial that he had held a shotgun to her head, and other menacing things. From my understanding, it takes very little suggestion of violence for police to become heavily involved in these things. Yet the police did nothing. Curious that. Could it be there was nothing for them to do because her husband never actually did anything illegal?

I’m also a sceptic………Any threat relating to a firearm in Canada, and the police not only respond, but respond with an ERT…………And even if no charges are laid, will seize his guns and licence and then sort it out.

My other question, if the alleged abuse had went on for over five years, at some point, she would have been required to give her consent to the RCMP over the issuing/renewal of his licence……….And in doing so, is legally required to report to the RCMP Firearms Center any circumstances that might change the husbands ability to legally own firearms…………

[Argus]

My other question, if the alleged abuse had went on for over five years, at some point, she would have been required to give her consent to the RCMP over the issuing/renewal of his licence……….And in doing so, is legally required to report to the RCMP Firearms Center any circumstances that might change the husbands ability to legally own firearms…………

There are a lot of oddities about this. Chief, for me, was that the family court awarded him sole custody of the daughter. That's rare in Canada unless the mother demonstrates that she's unfit, even more rare where there's the suggestion the father is violent. Unfortunately, since the Crown decided (rightly) that her excuse would not justify her attempted murder, and so never bothered to challenge it, we don't have anything to balance her claims during the criminal trial. If the SC had ordered a new trial I think the Crown would have taken the opportunity at that point to challenge her claims. Unfortunately, the SC copped out and decided she was too stressed, the poor little thing, to go through trial again.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Not really. It wouldn't be the first time the police didn't react properly. In light of what the court said about the RCMP failing to respond, and nothing to refute what the court said, I have no reason not to believe that they should have responded - but didn't.

The supreme court had nothing to go on but her word. The claim wasn't challenged during the trial because the Crown decided it was irrelevant. If the judge had applied the law on that score (upheld 9-0 by the supreme court) she'd have been properly convicted.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Argus

[Guest Manny]

Maybe you xont know what bullying can do to people. Shes only 5'3? I say the story sounds far more boring, and typical, than you seek to portray.

[cybercoma]

Has anyone ever seen a case where a man was let off the hook for something like this

Yes, but I don't know if it was in the media.