"There are two loaded guns in the house. I'm afraid he might use them"
Story Published: Apr 11, 2008 at 5:36 PM PDT
By KVAL Web Staff Video A woman shot and killed by her husband had sought a restraining order against him a month before her death.
Tyke Supanchick admits killing his estranged wife, Kelly Supanchick, two days before Christmas 2005. The Junction City man and former Marine is on trial for the murder of his estranged wife.
Kelly Supanchick filed for a restraining order a month before the shooting. Court records show she claimed Tyke Supanchick threatened to beat her or slit her throat.
"There are two loaded guns in the house, and I'm afraid he might use them," she wrote, according to court records.
Defense attorney Randall Vogt said Tyke Supanchick fired the shots that killed his wife when police attempted to break down the door of their home.
"There is no dispute about the fact that he fired a shotgun and that killed his wife," Vogt said. "This is not a who done it. It's a question of intent."
Vogt said Supanchick was recently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome, or PTSD.
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event in which grave physical harm occured or was threatened.
Vogt said Supanchick was in Washington, D.C., during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax scare a month later. Vogt said the defendant was in an accident while in the Marines.
The trial resumes Tuesday, April 15, at 9:30 a.m.
http://www.kval.com/news/17566589.html
I can hear Bush's supporters now blaming the media yet again for reporting on this. What I cannot hear them say is that something has to be done to take care of these wounded men and women as soon as possible and maybe, just maybe, some more lives will be saved.
While not all PTSD veterans will react with violence, some do. I cannot tell all spouses to stay in a marriage if there is violence of threats of violence. You must take care of your own safety and the safety of your children. This does include calling in law enforcement. As with this case, we can see it did little good to call the authorities and seek a restraining order. Right then and there he should have been forced to be evaluated simply because he was dangerous to others and himself. Why was he allowed to be considered reasonable enough that he would honor a restraining order? This was a stupid move but this happens all the time.
When a person is dangerous to someone they are supposed to love, they are dangerous to others as well. In the case of a veteran, a trained killer, as soon as they are deemed enough of a threat that there has to be a restraining order against them, they should immediately be taken for a psychological evaluation. You cannot force someone to get help but you cannot expect the general public to put up with dangerous people freely able to commit murder when there were already warnings about what they may do.
I believe in the right to privacy but I also believe in the right to be safe in your own home. How many times is this going to happen before different rules are in place to make sure that they are evaluated and if found dangerous, treated as such?
as a mental health professional I wanted to say that I absolutely 100% believe in the severity of PTSD. However this case hits close to home, just an FYI he was abusive to her in a systematic way for their entire relationship: emotionally, physically, and economically abusive. Kelly tried to get help, she had done everything by the letter of the law- filing complaints and restraining orders and staying in the state to complete the process of divorce (if she would have gone home to her home state of KS she could have been charged with kidnapping the couples 18 month old daughter).
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with PTSD. This scumbag never served in a combat. He deployed to Kuwait once. He is using PTSD as a crutch to save his own disgusting neck. Find another PTSD poster boy because this one ain't it. I am on active and have been for 30 years and PTSD is real but it disgusts me when someone like this clown uses it to justify his criminal actions.
ReplyDelete"Poster boy" blows any kind of power of your post. You also didn't read what I wrote because this needs to be taken as a warning to women who are in dangerous situations in some cases. The other thing that blew your comment is "anonymous" but I guess you also didn't read the part where I put in you will not be taken seriously using it.
ReplyDeleteI was a juror on the Supanchick case. I can tell you that the question was not whether he had PTSD but whether PTSD was the reason he shot his wife 4 times. The defense maintained that he was reacting to a PTSD "fight or flight" and did not intend/plan to shoot her. We did not believe his actions of pulling the trigger 4 times of a Mossberg rifle was due to PTSD but due to what he told the police afterwards... "If I have to go to jail, then she gets Guin. That is NOT an option" (Guin is the daughter). That is EXACTLY why he shot her, so Kelly would not get their daughter. End of story.
ReplyDeleteJustice has to be measured with the facts. All the facts. I do not support anyone with PTSD getting away with crimes simply because they have PTSD, but the fact PTSD affects the thoughts of the person on trial must be taken into account for justice to be fairly concluded. There are different levels of PTSD. If they have it "full blown" then every thought process is altered. Again, this does usually lead to violence, but sometimes it does. If they have mild PTSD then they are not as troubled processing thoughts. While some people would have been violent without PTSD, the condition makes them apt to be even more violent. My only argument in all of this is that it must be taken into account and if they should be sent to prison, then they need to have their condition addressed and treated and that it is taken into account.
ReplyDeleteLast thought, anyone posting as "anonymous" must be taken as an unknown poster who can post anything they want. We have no way of knowing if they are who they say they are or not. I leave the interpretation to the reader.