THOUGH a close relative said he never saw injuries on Barbara Sheehan, she was acquitted yesterday of shooting her husband, Raymond, 11 times with two guns. The acquittal is a victory for those who claim that a woman who testifies that her husband hit her is justified in killing him.

Raymond Sheehan, a former police sergeant, was murdered in the bathroom where he was shaving; the water was still running in the sink when he was shot. His wife said that he pointed his gun at her during an argument. It is unclear why she did not run away instead of riddling him with bullets, using one gun and then reaching for another. If he was about to shoot her, how was it that a trained policeman was a worse shot than his wife? And wouldn’t one shot have incapacitated him? Proponents of “battered wife syndrome” claim that a woman loses free will and Mrs. Sheehan’s attorney, Michael Dowd, who specializes in defending abused women, said she had been justified because she was terrorized by her husband.

                                              — Comments —

Daniel writes:

You write that “a close relative said he never saw injuries on Barbara Sheenan” but fail to offer the counter-evidence, that her own children attested she had been beaten? You also failed to note that she has been found guilty of gun possession, a sentence of 3.5-15 years. For shame, such a skewed presentation.

Laura writes:

I linked to an article that provided a full account and I presented what I thought was striking. Her own children did not testify to a pattern of repeated physical abuse. The police had never been called to their home and she had never sought help for physical abuse. The son and daughter’s testimony that their father was angry and had hit his wife a couple of times was obviously significant to the jury, which was almost deadlocked. But I still think it is shocking that she was acquitted. The husband’s character could have been taken into consideration at sentencing, but the fact is that she shot him 11 times when there is good reason to believe that she could have turned and walked away.

It’s a sad case.

Roger G. writes:

Your quotation marks, and the tone of your post, are terribly unfair to Barbara Sheehan. Understand what she has been through. She was entirely justified.

“It is unclear why she did not run away instead of riddling him with bullets…” Maybe to somebody who has not endured a monster for decades.

For anyone who’s been there, the following will release a torrent of rage and remembrance. Here’s a piece at Oprah.com and an article about the son’s testimony.

God bless those with sane, rational fathers and husbands, safe and dependable home lives; who have not been at the mercy of a man cycling continually through “good” and “bad” moods. All wives and children deserve every bit of that emotional security, and more.

This woman and her son and daughter were in this man’s control – captives, as surely as birds in a cage. Finally she snapped. Good on her – though 24 years too late. I hope the first six rounds were in the groin.

Laura writes:

I haven’t read the Oprah piece yet but I think the idea that in an age of easy divorce or separation Barbara Sheehan was a “captive” and therefore was justified in murdering her husband is outrageous. No, the family was not captive like birds in a cage. They were free to come and go, and she was pictured happily kissing her husband on a vacation a couple of years before his death. Maybe Raymond Sheehan deserved to be hated all his life by his family, but he didn’t deserve to be murdered, even if he had an affair with another woman. Again, his behavior and the wife’s sudden loss of control because of the tension in the house could have been taken into consideration at sentencing.

I think I was justified in putting quotation marks around “battered wife.” From my reading of the testimony, Barbara Sheehan was not battered in the sense that she was repeatedly beaten or even beaten often.

You say, “Finally she snapped.” I’m sorry to say, but snapping in that way is against the law. Again, she shot him 11 times with two different guns. Perhaps her husband “snapped” when he poured hot pasta sauce on her.

Buck O. writes:

When my son was eight years old, about one year before the divorce, his mom came home from work and began to act in a bizarre way. Normally the tension between us would build naturally into an argument. This day she walked right up to me and positioned herself right in my face. She never does that. I backed away a little confused. She came back at me, and every time that I would move and created some space, she would fill it immediately. She backed me down the hall and into a back bedroom, through the door. I had no place left to go. I made a quick move around here and broke free like I was a running back. I wasn’t actually running, but, now I had all the room in the world. At that point it hit me, and it hit her too. She stopped, went quiet, and walked away. It was obvious what she tried to do. When she ceased her absurd tactic, she looked a mix of humiliated and dejected. 

She knew me. It “hit” her, how ridiculous that she had just been. 

She wanted me to put hands on her. She wanted to be able to claim abuse. She knew that I wouldn’t, but she was compelled to try. She was getting crazy and desperate. There was nothing that I could do. 

I’ll give her credit for this – in reality, all she had to do, was to say that I put my hands on her. The law was hers to use. I’d be out of my home with a phone call, six weeks minimum. At least, she didn’t just simply lie. 

Her current best friend was surely disappointed. I’m certain that they hatched the scheme together. Her friend, our friend, had been grabbed hard by her new husband. She pressed charges and now she understood the law. He was gone forever. We both, my wife and me, had been socializing with them, and we both were now supportive of her. It was all around, a good riddance to him. 

I got my good riddance a year later. It’s probably strange, I certainly don’t like her, but I would still protect her, because she is my son’s mother.

Laura writes:

There is one thing in Barbara Sheehan’s account to Oprah, linked above, that is highly disturbing.

She says that after she shot her husband several times and he was seriously wounded, he reached for his gun again and that’s why she was forced to pick it up and continue shooting him. Surely, she was not in serious danger at that point from a man who had been shot. There is no question that at that point she could have gotten away. And yet she shot him several more times. Also, she admits to thinking about what she was doing. (Right before that, she contradicts herself and says it happened so fast she didn’t know what she was doing.) In other words, at that point, she was not simply “snapping.” Now, Barbara Sheehan may have hated her husband and had reason to hate him, but she was not justified in murdering him in cold blood this way, when he was injured and possibly could have survived.

I also find her appearance on Oprah strange. Why would any woman want to talk about her husband, the father of her children, before the whole world in this way even if he was an unlikeable and nasty man? This is more than self defense.  

Typically in a murder trial the character of the deceased is not the main issue. Homicide laws are also intended to protect bad people.

Roger G. writes:

“The acquittal is a victory for those who claim that a woman who testifies that her husband hit her is justified in killing him.”

Of course “testifying” would not be enough, nor would “hitting” be enough. The acquittal is a victory for those who claim that a woman who is both mentally in thrall to her husband, and brutalized by him, is justified in killing him. The acquittal is a victory for those who claim that a man who acts like this needs killing. [Laura writes: Fortunately, it’s illegal to murder someone in this country and it’s a crime to execute someone who is cruel or unpleasant.]

“Her own children did not testify to a pattern of repeated physical abuse.”

They and their mother have in great detail discussed the continual torment to which he subjected the family. [I was not convinced by what I read of their accounts. Do you know of any evidence of continual torment presented by anyone other than Barbara Sheehan and her two children?]

“I think the idea that in an age of easy divorce or separation Barbara Sheehan was a ‘captive’ and therefore was justified in murdering her husband is outrageous. No, the family was not captive like birds in a cage. They were free to come and go, and she was pictured happily kissing her husband…”

You are not understanding the totality and the brutality of the mental subjugation. I say, without facetiousness, perhaps this is to your credit. Manwë was the noblest and the king of Tolkien’s Valar (archangels). From the Silmarillion: “…and it seemed to Manwë that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it…” [I have no idea what you’re talking about. Barbara Sheehan was free to come and go. She went on vacations with her husband and was not physically restrained. There was no evidence that she ever suffered a serious injury at his hands. Unless she is an imbecile, a woman cannot be mentally subjugated unless she agrees to it.]

“I think I was justified in putting quotation marks around ‘battered wife’…. Barbara Sheehan was not battered in the sense that she was repeatedly beaten or even beaten often.”

Same reply as above. Battery does not require a stick.

“Perhaps her husband “snapped” when he poured hot pasta sauce on her.”

Or maybe he was a sadistic psychopath continuing in a course of conduct. [The people who claimed he was sadistic were the woman who murdered him and his two children, who had obvious reason to want to keep their mother out of jail.]

A female reader writes:

As the wife of a “nasty man” who has a bad temper and has physically hurt me many times, I can say that this woman is in no way justfied in this murder. I don’t feel sorry for her at all. She had many options to take; this country is obnoxiously anxious to help the “battered wife”. The reason she is talking about it so much is obvious; she knows she was wrong, and she feels guilty for getting away with it. She’s desperate to feel better about it and having the approval of the masses is what she thinks will fill that void. It won’t. She will have to face God. 

A woman that is “nasty” enough to shoot the father of her own children 11 times without mercy must have been horrible to live with. I will pray for his soul and beg God to have mercy on him. I should pray for her, too, I guess. But I am in no way moved to do it, save the obligation God has placed on us to pray for our enemies. Yes, I would consider her an enemy. Women are confused enough as it is by feminist pride. Now we get away with murder. Great.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

You said, “Typically in a murder trial the character of the deceased is not the main issue.”

Well, it should be the main issue in some cases, and it would be, in any sane society where the government doesn’t regulate every aspect of our lives. Under the present system, only governments are entitled to assess wrongdoing and permitted to exact revenge.

What is the government? A group of bottom of the liners when it comes to good judgment in virtually everything. Why should I consider government-appointed judges and police somehow capable and wise, when the rest of government is utterly dysfunctional, worthless and much worse. It’s all of a piece.

People who despise government – anarchists, libertarians, etc. – all of a sudden bow with the greatest respect to the discernment of government, of all things, in being uniquely capable of determining moral right and wrong and inflicting of penalties. Where I live, some Indian reserves are allowed their own system of judgment in smaller conflicts. (Too bad it’s only where relatively minor things are concerned.) They have their own, apparently traditional, way of dealing with offenders. Too bad that we don’t have the same rights, and that we cannot apply our own particular beliefs in these kinds of matters.

Look at the matter of Life With Billy. I remember this case well. The police themselves were scared of Billy and danced around him. Jane Hurshman did what they should have done ages ago. Shame on everyone.

Laura writes:

When you talk of the “government,” you are referring to juries of ordinary people who decide the guilt and innocence of the accused. The judge did not let Barbara Sheehan go. Twelve people who were not employed by the government did.  That’s not what I call over-regulation.

Jane Hurshman shot her husband while he was sleeping in a truck? Sorry, but there are many other ways to express anger at a husband than shooting him in cold blood.  

Hurricane Betsy writes:

“When you talk of the “government,” you are referring to juries of ordinary people who decide the guilt and innocence of the accused”.

I am not referring to that at all. By the time a case comes before a jury (and sometimes it comes before a judge) it has been through an intricate, almost incomprehensible (why else do we “need” lawyers?) framework not of our devising, with much injustice contained therein. There are layers and layers of government scheming preceding a jury’s deliberations. The jury is allowed to see things only as the government wants them seen. This is an industry, one which would be smaller and less polluting if we lived in the relative monoculture we once did.

On the surface of things, the woman who killed her husband with 11 shots appears guilty and should not have been let go. But are all such battered woman cases alike? I submitted an example to show that they most assuredly are not.

Jane Hurshman wasn’t “expressing anger,” as you say. I don’t think she killed herself (if indeed she did) out of guilt, but out of memories burned into her. That feminists glommed onto this case is irrelevant.

In any society of my devising, Billy would have been quietly disposed of long before Jane did the deed. Farmers kill mad dogs and mad people of Billy’s kind are not deserving of any mercy.

Laura writes:

You might benefit from living in a country where government “scheming” truly determines criminal outcomes and where anyone accused by the government is automatically presumed guilty and jury trials are not taken seriously, as in modern Russia. Criminal courts in the United States are bound by the laws and beholden to the appeals system. Lawyers work against the government, not just for it. This adversarial relationship is built into the system. The laws are not always right; sentencing is often lenient, jurors are not necessarily just and plea bargaining can lead to unfair outcomes, but government “scheming” is not the all-powerful force you suggest it is.

As for Jane Hurshman, I haven’t fully read her story, but I can say that the ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that a woman who has been beaten by her husband in the past is justified in killing him when she is in no imminent danger is a monstrous injustice and amounts to allowing women to serve as their husbands’ executioners. 

Please follow and like us: