So was the television OK??
Presumably “it won’t happen again” was in reference to her next husband, yes?
If she did shoot her next husband, she could argue that her original statement was the absolute truth, as she didn’t repeat the original act by shooting the first husband again. Case closed?
Sounds like she’s actually a criminal mastermind in the making. I tried Googling her to see if there’s any other record of her floating around… Seems that she lived to a ripe old age of 76, any way (presuming that’s her - the ages seem about right)
Also, what the hell kind of hat could have posed a serious risk to a 1950s television set? Those were built like tanks. Was she hurling a German Pickelhaube at the thing?
“Not guilty” said the jury and the judge said “Set her free,
But remember it must not occur again.
And next time you must listen to your little daughter’s plea,”
Then all the Court did join in this refrain.
“Please Mother don’t stab Father with the bread-knife,
Remember 'twas a gift when you were wed.
But if you must stab Father with the bread-knife
Please Mother use another for the bread.”
Robert William Service
And what’s up with these hat-lovin’ criminal women?
Well, on Ancestry.com I found a person called Hezek Pickney, which seems to match up. If it took two years to get to court
No more information, because Ancestry.com charges money, and I’m way to cheap to pay for this sort of thing.
NAME: Hezek Pinkney
DEATH: dd mm 1953 - city, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
RESIDENCE: city, Fairfield, Connecticut
Found another thing, which pegs the death in 1953:
Conn. Mill Employe Slain; Wife Charged With Murder STAMFORD, Conn. (51 – A 47- year-old rolling mill employee was shot to death here today a"nd police said they had charged his wife with murder in connection with the slaying. Pinkney’s wife Florence, 46, admitted the shooting, Capt. William J. Lynch said. She was ordered held without bail. Lynch said this was what happened leading up to the shooting: Pinkney remained home from work all day Tuesday and spent the day drinking. He and his wife were watching a television program about 1 a.m. and he became angry because his wife had left her hat on top of the set, claiming it would scratch the set. When Mrs. Pinkney argued with him Pinkney became angry, called" her names and then locked himself in the bedroom.- Mrs. Pinkney pried open the bedroom door with a crowbar only to find her husband had left the room and had returned to the living room. Incensed, Mrs. Pinkney grabbed a .22 caliber rifle from behind a door and fired one shot at her husband. Lynch quoted Mrs. Pinkney as saying she intended only to frighten her husband and didn’t know the gun was loaded. The Pinkneys were married in 1938 and have no children.
Interestingly, the article mentions where he worked, how many kids they had, and when they were married, but no mention of his first name.
Pretty sure it’d be Ol’ Hezek though
This is just speculation, but it’s possible she was a victim of spousal abuse and may have shot him in self-defense, but, because of misogyny, needed to concoct some other explanation for why she shot him. Unfortunately, even today in the U.S. there are women who are incarcerated for defending themselves against violent domestic partners.
The “breaking the door in with a crowbar to get at him” part of the story undermines that theory somewhat.
Yeah, I just read that. Can’t always speculate accurately! Though, given that her husband was concerned about a hat scratching a television, it sounds to me like he was at least a douchebag.
Unless she was hiding in the bedroom during a fight, and he was the one that pried the door open. Not sure why she would change her story to say that she was the one that did it, though. Also - she pried open the door, and found out that he was back in the living room? What, did he climb out the window?
And surely, that is a killing offense.
Perhaps, and I’m just going out on a limb here… she was a murderous asshole? End of story, no deeper explanation required?
My intended point was that, if she was not acting in self-defense, then her irrational action was in response to her husband’s irrationality—the two were living in complementary craziness. But no, douchebaggery is not an offense that warrants execution, despite often wishing it to be.
My statement is oriented toward an understanding of the situation as a dynamic whole. Yes, non-self-defense manslaughter in reaction to concern for a television is disproportionate, but the supposed facts of the case strongly suggest that this was not an isolated incident. It’s entirely possible that, within the context of their shared domestic history, her response was proportionate. It’s also possible that it wasn’t. Thus, I remain agnostic on the issue of proportionality.
You do know the Rule of Holes, right?
Well, as a rule, I do not practice blind obedience to rules, but yes, I am familiar with your so-called Rule of Holes as much as I am familiar with the Rule of Trolls†, and neither prevents me from internetting when provoked (e.g. replying to your post):
To cast my statements as having “dug myself into a hole” is to avoid engagement with their content, and, to me, it demonstrates a lack of respect for my role and rhetorical position in our dialogue—perhaps even a lack of empathy, in that I see no evidence of any attempt to understand my perspective (n.b. I am judging your flippantly posed semi-insulting pseudo-questions, and not you personally). At the very least, I do not believe you should expect someone (i.e. me) to recognize their own sincere rhetoric as constituting a figurative “hole” without first presenting to them an argument outlining the untenability of that rhetoric‡. However, I do not expect you to do that, because it appears likely that at least some of our individual approaches to existence are orthogonal, possibly irreconcilable—a condition which happens often enough that it should not be surprising (indeed, its frequency has made “let’s agree to disagree” into the cliché that we all know and love). Therefore, should the discourse continue in this manner, I must refrain from further participation, lest it become uncivil.
In my two previous replies to you, I have tried to explain myself while addressing your comments/complaints; I will do so once more: my purpose was to raise awareness of possibilities, so that others may consider them; my purpose was not to divine some sort of absolutist capital-t “Truth” of the matter (hence my use of the subjunctive mood and various qualifiers). I recognize that, to some, this mode of interacting with information may be foreign, frustrating, even frightening, and so, for this, I am capital-t Truly sorry-not-sorry, although, unlike Mrs. Pinkney, I cannot promise that it won’t happen again.
† The usage of rule synonymous with reign.
‡ Maybe you can find help with that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies