A rare honour killing: Pak woman guns down husband for sexually abusing daughter-in-law

[#hydra#]

https://www.google.co.in/amp/indian...exually-abusing-daughter-in-law-4688709/lite/

A man was shot dead in Pakistan allegedly by his wife who accused him of raping their daughter-in-law in the absence of her soldier husband, in what local media described as a “rare incident of honour killing”. Begum Bibi, who lived in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Shangla village, said she killed Gulbar Khan because “he didn’t respect family and relations”.
She claimed that Khan had been repeatedly assaulting their daughter-in-law for the past three months, the Express Tribune reported.


The rape victim’s husband, a Frontier Crops soldier, said he knew his wife’s ordeal “but due to parental respect, I couldn’t kill him, but informed my mother that I will leave home after my return” from training, the report said.

Khan was sleeping when his wife opened fire on him with a pistol with their daughter-in-law’s assistance, police said. Begum said that Khan, in the absence of their son, forced his wife into an “illicit relationship” and the practice continued for three months, the report added.

“I decided to kill him when he refused to give up his evil practice,” Begum said.

Police on Saturday produced Begum, her daughter-in-law and son before a court which remanded them to judicial custody.

 

[Icarus]

Refrain from making off-topic posts. Stick to the discussion at hand (if there is any to begin with).

 

[jetray]

“I decided to kill him when he refused to give up his evil practice,” Begum said.

Good work , but daughter in law should become smart & plead self defence in court and simply walk away.

The rape victim’s husband, a Frontier Crops soldier, said he knew his wife’s ordeal “but due to parental respect, I couldn’t kill him, but informed my mother that I will leave home after my return” from training, the report said.

He has obligation to protect his wife first then the country. I dont know what parental respect has got to do here, crime is crime. Here it is more worse, the trust & faith of institution called family is completely broken.

 

[RealNapster]

Indian army can rape, abduct women: Kerala leader

Army can rape and abduct women, shoot people... nobody can question them: Left's Kodiyeri Balakrishnan

Communist Party of India's Kerala secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. PHOTO: MATHRUBHUMI NEWS

Communist Party of India’s Kerala secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan has sparked controversy after he claimed the Indian army could rape and abduct women if given additional powers and no one would question them.

India uses excessive repression in occupied Kashmir, reports Amnesty

“They [army] can do anything to anybody. If they see more than four people standing together, they can shoot them…They can take any woman and rape her, nobody has the right to question them. This is the state wherever the army is,” Balakrishnan said on Thursday.

The remarks by the Kerala leader came a day after India’s Finance and Defence Minister Arun Jaitley said the country’s armed forces have been given a free-hand to take decisions in “war-like situations.” He further added officers are not bound to consult members of Parliament and can do as they deem fit to counter terrorist forces.

Balakrishnan further added if the army is deployed in Kerala state’s Kannur, clashes between army and the people are bound to happen.

Five killed in latest Indian-occupied Kashmir violence

Indian army has long been accused of atrocities in Indian occupied Kashmir too. Repression in occupied Kashmir also featured prominently in Amnesty International’s 2016-17 report, claiming that the Indian authorities are using repressive laws to curb freedom of expression and silence critical voices.

Nothing to do with the thread SIR. Avoid trolling. it's happening in your society. He even abused his Daughter-in-Law in Holy Month of RAMDAN. We all should feel sorry for that. don't shoot the messenger.

@#hydra# , I was going to Post this news. but found your's. Good share.

 

[Divergent]

Why is this referred to as 'honour killing'? She saved her daughter in law from abuse. This is termed incorrectly

 

[Jugger]

Why is this referred to as 'honour killing'? She saved her daughter in law from abuse. This is termed incorrectly

To save her daughters honour from further disgrace she killed the abuser, so it's kind of honour killing.

 

[Divergent]

To save her daughters honour from further disgrace she killed the abuser, so it's kind of honour killing.

Honour killing is when the victim is killed for 'honour' to which their willing actions are put to stop. In this instance the killed (not that she should take law into her hands) is not the victim. Therefore it's not 'honour killing' - it's more like defensive mechanism and manslaughter

 

[abdulbarijan]

Honour killing is when the victim is killed for 'honour' to which their willing actions are put to stop. In this instance the killed (not that she should take law into her hands) is not the victim. Therefore it's not 'honour killing' - it's more like defensive mechanism and manslaughter

Well technically (according to Merriam-Webster), 'the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family' is termed an honor killing.

• Was it a family member that killed him? - Check.
• Was it because of an alleged act that brought shame to the family - Check.

Just because you think the 'killed' is not the victim doesn't mean that the act doesn't fit the definition. Secondly, these are claims of the people who literally killed someone i.e. murder. I wouldn't exactly take their words on face value. Secondly, I don't exactly know how ANY husband, can know of the fact that her wife is being abused sexually and does practically NOTHING to stop it. Just doesn't make sense to me, so my opinion is, let there be a free and fair investigation to establish the facts before we make up our opinion.

 

[Divergent]

Well technically (according to Merriam-Webster), 'the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family' is termed an honor killing.

• Was it a family member that killed him? - Check.
• Was it because of an alleged act that brought shame to the family - Check.

Just because you think the 'killed' is not the victim doesn't mean that the act doesn't fit the definition. Secondly, these are claims of the people who literally killed someone i.e. murder. I wouldn't exactly take their words on face value. Secondly, I don't exactly know how ANY husband, can know of the fact that her wife is being abused sexually and does practically NOTHING to stop it. Just doesn't make sense to me, so my opinion is, let there be a free and fair investigation to establish the facts before we make up our opinion.

No one objected to a free and fair trial but let's not deny many people are not mentally prepared to accept or comprehend individuals they know personally capable of sadistic things. There are girls abused by their own blood uncles and this isn't easily accepted because one would rather avoid the situation than solve it.

 

[NoOne'sBoy]

#GirlPower

 

[abdulbarijan]

No one objected to a free and fair trial but let's not deny many people are not mentally prepared to accept or comprehend individuals they know personally capable of sadistic things. There are girls abused by their own blood uncles and this isn't easily accepted because one would rather avoid the situation than solve it.

That can go both ways in this case cant it? in fact we're more prone to not accepting that our female kind can be as vicious and sadistic if not more, and use their default victim hood to their advantage. I don't need to bring up the whole false rape accusation thing, now do I?

For me, I'm just saying, this seems story seems a little far fetched. A father-in-law sexually abuses his daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law does practically nothing to defend herself from the abuse e.g. doesn't go back to her family home, doesn't report it to the police etc. The husband allegedly knows all this and he does nothing except for "I'll be moving out once I get back". The wife of the abuser wasn't able to do anything. She didn't send the victim home to save her from the abuse. Yet all of a sudden individuals who weren't even able to do anything to save the alleged victim orchestrated a murder against their alleged abuser. Hence why a free and fair investigation should be conducted and the facts should be establish before we start blaming people based on the narrative of people who've committed the crime.

 

[Divergent]

That can go both ways in this case cant it? in fact we're more prone to not accepting that our female kind can be as vicious and sadistic if not more, and use their default victim hood to their advantage. I don't need to bring up the whole false rape accusation thing, now do I?

For me, I'm just saying, this seems story seems a little far fetched. A father-in-law sexually abuses his daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law does practically nothing to defend herself from the abuse e.g. doesn't go back to her family home, doesn't report it to the police etc. The husband allegedly knows all this and he does nothing except for "I'll be moving out once I get back". The wife of the abuser wasn't able to do anything. She didn't send the victim home to save her from the abuse. Yet all of a sudden individuals who weren't even able to do anything to save the alleged victim orchestrated a murder against their alleged abuser.

Hence why no one objected to a Fair trial. This isn't a case of who's more prone to crimes women or men. Either way makes it incorrect and morally wrong

 

[abdulbarijan]

Hence why no one objected to a Fair trial. This isn't a case of who's more prone to crimes women or men. Either way makes it incorrect and morally wrong

Honour killing is when the victim is killed for 'honour' to which their willing actions are put to stop. In this instance the killed (not that she should take law into her hands) is not the victim. Therefore it's not 'honour killing' - it's more like defensive mechanism and manslaughter

For some reason I find it funny, when someone who openly defends the perpetrator of the crime as the action being a 'defense mechanism' and the act termed from murder to 'manslaughter' ---- wants a 'fair trial'.

You've already decided whose the perpetrator and whose the victim. Most of the time the progress of the case will never be reported and we'll just gloss over it as another case of a 'crazy guy who got served justice' and "#girlpower".
But the fact is, this approach is dangerous because it absolves an entire gender of their crimes against humanity. Just look up how many mothers kill their own children. In the US, women are in fact more prone to killing their own children compared to men.

What I'm suggesting is saying a phrase like "we don't object to a free trial" is meaningless when people have already made up their minds, and the trend of blaming the men and absolving the women of their crimes or even justifying their crimes by making them the victims, will continue.

 

[Divergent]

For some reason I find it funny, when someone who openly defends the perpetrator of the crime as the action being a 'defense mechanism' and the act termed from murder to 'manslaughter' ---- wants a 'fair trial'.

You've already decided whose the perpetrator and whose the victim. Most of the time the progress of the case will never be reported and we'll just gloss over it as another case of a 'crazy guy who got served justice' and "#girlpower".
But the fact is, this approach is dangerous because it absolves an entire gender of their crimes against humanity. Just look up how many mothers kill their own children. In the US, women are in fact more prone to killing their own children compared to men. Look up the fact of abuse at the hands of mothers vs fathers.
What I'm suggesting is saying a phrase like "we don't object to a free trial" is meaningless when people have already made up their minds, and the trend of blaming the men and absolving the women of their crimes or even justifying their crimes by making them the victims, will continue.

My judgement is based on the article, any decent and good journalist doesn't go around story telling and has to contain three main factors within their script:

- Fact
- Sources
- Verification

Your answers are based upon questioning the article, it's credibility, authentication and that's perfectly fine. Mine was based on me taking it at face value and condemning the act. Which is also correct in its own right.

To bring 'fair trial' is irrelevant because I didn't throw in 'serves him right' I expressed an opinion which is valid and justified based upon the article and even then I condemned actions being taken into ones own hands which then vindicates the stance.

To throw in a comparison of men vs women is irrelevant and off tangent considering there was no comparison made to begin with.

You're entitled to your views and I'm entitled to mine.

 

[abdulbarijan]

My judgement is based on the article, any decent and good journalist doesn't go around story telling and has to contain three main factors within their script:

- Fact
- Sources
- Verification

Your answers are based upon questioning the article, it's credibility, authentication and that's perfectly fine. Mine was based on me taking it at face value and condemning the act. Which is also correct in its own right.

To bring 'fair trial' is irrelevant because I didn't throw in 'serves him right' I expressed an opinion which is valid and justified based upon the article and even then I condemned actions being taken into ones own hands which then vindicates the stance.

To throw in a comparison of men vs women is irrelevant and off tangent considering there was no comparison made to begin with.

You're entitled to your views and I'm entitled to mine.

So lemme question your judgement for a moment -- based upon your own criterion for journalists.

Facts- Do you think that we should trust the story of a criminal whose looking at life in jail if it's not established that she was the aggrieved party? (i.e. her personal interest is to establish that she was the victim/ helping the victim)
Sources- Who are the sources of these claims. Ofcourse the perpetrators themselves. The only other claim is that of the police, which only established the murder.
Verification- How can you take the claim as 'verified' by the writer who literally is reporting the narrative of the perpetrators?

Yet what we see is that posters like yourself are quick to judgement where you literally take the narrative of the perpetrators and run with it like its the truth e.g. you yourself said that the

• (mother in law) SAVED the (daughter in law)
• The "killed" is not the victim
• The perpetrators were doing it as a defense mechanism and that it's not a murder but a manslaughter.

Again, this is not a "good journalist" establishing the facts of the case by doing some undercover investigation. He or she is simply reporting the narrative taken by the perpetrators which we're accepting as the truth because the perpetrator is a female. (hence a comparison is also justified in terms of men vs women)