Someone asked me a good question...

last night.  They asked me why Jovan Belcher felt he had to kill his girlfriend before taking his own life.  That raises several topics for discussion. 

Why do we call them murder/suicides?  Suicide is self-murder.  Maybe we should just call them murders?  Then again, maybe not.  Murder/suicide is more specific.  However, it's high time that we stopped calling those who strap bombs to their body for the purpose of killing others, suicide bombers.  They should be labelled homicide bombers.  Their primary intent is to commit multiple acts of homicide.  Their own death is a mere byproduct.

Now let's talk about Jovan Belcher.  Trying to understand why a man who is bent on taking his own life chose to kill the mother of his three month old child first is an impossible task.  Just as is any attempt to apply logical, rational thought, to a completely irrational act.  There are very, very few killings that occur outside of war or self-defense, or defense of another, that involve rational thought.  Are there any you ask?  I thought of one example right away.  The robber who is committing his third strike offense and is about to get caught may make a rational decision that it's better to try to kill someone and escape life in prison.  I'll let you decide for yourself if that is truly rational, and/or are there other examples.

But Jovan Belcher wasn't acting rationally when he killed his girlfriend.  Nor was he acting rationally when he killed himself.  Of all the things you can do in your life, taking that life is probably the most selfish act that one human can engage in.  Those left behind will suffer the results of that choice for the rest of their lives.

A good friend chose to take his life after his wife left him and took their child.  He put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.  It was 1981 and video-camcorders were new, but he had one.  He put that on a tripod and filmed his suicide.  It was a scene I can still see in my mind and it ain't a pretty one.

You can research the current stats if you want to, but stats from the late 1990s indicated that between 85% and 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.  I doubt that's changed significantly since then, although it may be there are more male victims now willing to step forward.  However, the vast majority of these victims are indeed women.  The vast majority of those committing the abuse are men.  The vast majority of those who kill a spouse or partner are male and the vast majority of their victims are female.

How do we solve this problem?  First and foremost we need to attack the issue of bullying of children.  Those who are bullies as children are those most likely to be spouse abusers as adults.  Then we have to educate everyone that abuse is wrong.  It isn't as easy as it might sound, but it is possible.  Women have to be told and shown that they can't remain in abusive relationships.  There are alternatives and they would be better off alone and save than in a bad relationship and at risk. 

I may joke that I'd never hit a woman...first...but I'd hit her back; however, the reality is that unless I had no choice in defending myself, I'd never strike a woman.  That's just how I was raised.  Sadly, that isn't true of all men.

Maybe we need to punish abusers more harshly.  Maybe we need to empower the police to arrest abusers and press charges based solely on the presence of injuries, so women won't be intimidated into refusing to prosecute their abusers.  There are no easy answers, but someone needs to do something.  Otherwise, there is a three month old orphan who will be joined by far too many other orphans in the future.