Scorned girlfriend threatens to kill boyfriend - here's how it's reported

speedboatchase

Ficheall wrote: »

Nope. It's not in my nature. I'm more the 'curl into a ball and not talk to anyone' type. All I'm saying is that I could understand why the woman in the story might have reacted the way she did, or at least, insofar as I can understand how the guy in the story was such a complete prick.

And if a man tied up his cheating girlfriend and tortured her - you could understand that, considering that the woman had been 'such a complete prick'?

Ficheall

No, in the same way that I'd generally have a much bigger problem with guys hitting girls than the other way around. It's probably a social conditioning thing, as has already been mentioned. I could understand the guy wanting to though, certainly.
I'm perfectly aware that's a double-standard on my part, and I acknowledge that's unfair. This prevalent double-standard, I presume, was one of the main points of the thread. And it is an interesting one.
I'm not trying to condone what the lass in question did. But I think placing the guy in this story as the "victim" unjustly relieves him of culpability.

Bipolar Joe

The crazy bint is a victim with the whole cheating thing, the man whore is a victim in torture.

I've been cheated on. I ground the chick up and fed her to her parents. Good times.

the_syco

Morgase wrote: »

What that woman did is nowhere close to a reasonable response to the man's cheating.

edit cos it was taken out of context: So if the woman had cheated, you'd be totally okay with her being tied up, beaten and tortured?

The_Morrigan wrote: »

There is a logic to this to be fair - bruises and cuts tend to heal

Being tortured for a few hours will probably leave him with massive physiological scars.

The_Morrigan

the_syco wrote: »

Being tortured for a few hours will probably leave him with massive physiological scars.

:rolleyes: The_Syco, that post is in response to Ficheall's post regarding their own personal thoughts/attitude on the scenario, not the OP - you've taken it out of context!

Pyr0

Ficheall wrote: »

I'd be of the opinion that he deserved what he got.

You can't honestly be serious.

SugarHigh

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Davei141 wrote: »

Eh i think being tied up, tortured and threatened with being killed leaves emotional scars too.

@Ficheall

If your GF was caught cheating on you would you give her a kicking? After all she would deserve it apparently.

A few angry slaps from the woman scorned in the heat of the moment i can understand, but the premeditated act of subduing and torture? That's a warped mind at work.

I said cuts & bruises - I didn't mention extreme torture or abuse.

Also, there are plenty guys out there who do give their gf's a kicking over the most mundane and stupid things. And it works both ways, there are plenty of guys who are subject to abuse by their partners.

I'd imagine that any assault that leaves cuts and bruises would do far more emotional damage than being cheated on.

The fact that some guys beat up their GF's really has nothing to do with this thread. Domestic violence against women isn't something which is seen as acceptable or something to joke about unlike when the man is the victim. That's the point of the thread.

Logical Fallacy

Pyr0 wrote: »

You can't honestly be serious.

It gets even funnier if you read the rest of his posts.

sunflower27

I can't believe anyone would be sympathetic to her.

OK, he cheated, not nice thing to do, but torture, good grief. She should be tried for the criminal she is.

Raze_them_all

Ficheall wrote: »

You think it's okay to be unfaithful to one's partner?

You're right I see the scene now.


4 of guys in a prison cell telling the new guy, one guy there for pistol whipping, another guy is there for false imprisonment, another for assault with a deadly weapon....In walks a guy, the other 3 stop talking immediatly and cower in the corner.....the new guy whispers asking what the other guy did....cue the guy in for assault with a knife whispering with a quiver in his voice that he cheated on his partner....


BTW all 3 crimes are punishible by prison time for guys if they do it to any man or woman, yet this woman did all 3 to one guy and you agree with her.


Hmmmm I'm hungry, think I'll go boil myself some bunny.


Oh and on the double standerds thing, man woman little scum 12 year old comes at me with any weapon and I have no problem whatsoever in putting them down

Logical Fallacy

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Oh and on the double standerds thing, man woman little scum 12 year old comes at me with any weapon and I have no problem whatsoever in putting them down

Justice is a dish best served from side control.

Ficheall

I never said I agreed with what she did - I said that he deserved it, and that I could understand why she might have done it. She over-reacted, yes. (And she probably is a nut-case - but that's another matter...)

Regarding your prison analogy - what sentences were meted out to these two guys who inflicted wounds not requiring medical attention under mitigating circumstances?

The greatest harm done to the "victim" was probably the psychological damage he suffered while tied to a bed - but one would suspect that he knew his "bitches be crazy", and surely he must, at some point, have contemplated that one of the two ladies who (we shall presume) loved him and who he was knowingly cheating on and deceiving (length of time not mentioned in article) might eventually find out?
And then on that fateful night, when he picked up one of his inamorata for a good boink, did he think that she knew he'd been an asshole? Not likely, if he went ahead with letting her tie him to the bed. Maybe he even felt remorseful for his actions. So they talked for a couple of hours, but it probably wasn't quite the right time to tell her that he'd been cheating on her, or even to do the "decent thing" and break up with her. He was probably writhing in mental anguish over the tough decisions he would have to make, the poor guy. Maybe he'd just wait and see how things turned out...

Raze_them_all

Ficheall wrote: »

I never said I agreed with what she did - I said that he deserved it, and that I could understand why she might have done it. She over-reacted, yes. (And she probably is a nut-case - but that's another matter...)

Regarding your prison analogy - what sentences were meted out to these two guys who inflicted wounds not requiring medical attention under mitigating circumstances?

The greatest harm done to the "victim" was probably the psychological damage he suffered while tied to a bed - but one would suspect that he knew his "bitches be crazy", and surely he must, at some point, have contemplated that one of the two ladies who (we shall presume) loved him and who he was knowingly cheating on and deceiving (length of time not mentioned in article) might eventually find out?
And then on that fateful night, when he picked up one of his inamorata for a good boink, did he think that she knew he'd been an asshole? Not likely, if he went ahead with letting her tie him to the bed. Maybe he even felt remorseful for his actions. So they talked for a couple of hours, but it probably wasn't quite the right time to tell her that he'd been cheating on her, or even to do the "decent thing" and break up with her. He was probably writhing in mental anguish over the tough decisions he would have to make, the poor guy. Maybe he'd just wait and see how things turned out...

The last person who cheated on me I went and slept with 3 of her friends. But thats me I don't see cheating as an excuse for torture

Logical Fallacy

Ficheall wrote: »

I never said I agreed with what she did

I have to say, i find it hard to draw a line between him deserving it and you not agreeing with what she did. They are, to me, counter points that have no real relation to each other in a rational mind.

Look, it's really quite simple. Matters of the heart do not and should not boil over into physical abuse. Definitely not a protracted torture session.

Don't get me wrong, when someone is 12 and they like a girl and pass her a note and the girl laughs and all her friends laugh and then the boy reacts by pushing her over in the mood i can understand such childish things.

However, the second you nuts drop your supposed to be mature enough to figure this kind of thing out.

I get it, you hate cheaters, your on a moral high horse about how horrible a betrayal of trust it is and yadda yadda yadda... but the stance that he deserved it is idiotic beyond belief.

Don't get me wrong, i hate a cheater. If any of my mates ever cheated on their girlfriends it was always stern ****ing talking to, if the girl was a mate of ours the dude was dropped from the social circle...but i have to be honest...I think your talking out of your ass. Get coherent and then come back to the thread maybe?

Ficheall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to say, i find it hard to draw a line between him deserving it and you not agreeing with what she did.

Suppose one were to take some banker who had stolen money from customers etc, for example, and one said that they deserved to have all their money and earthly possessions taken away from them. One could say and believe that they deserved that, but still not agree with someone who went and took all their money and possessions from them...
I realise that's simply equating like with like, but the idea is essentially the same.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, it's really quite simple. Matters of the heart do not and should not boil over into physical abuse. Definitely not a protracted torture session.

An unsubstantiated "look, it's really quite simple" doesn't lend any extra weight to your argument. I'm not saying that I don't see where you're coming from, mind. I can see why some people might feel sorry for him, and I was probably careless in an earlier post when I said that I couldn't see how they would, or whatever it was - but I, personally, do not feel any pity for him.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

However, the second you nuts drop your supposed to be mature enough to figure this kind of thing out.

One is supposed to be mature enough for other things too. Both people in the story seem to somewhat be lacking in the maturity front.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I get it, you hate cheaters, your on a moral high horse about how horrible a betrayal of trust it is and yadda yadda yadda... but the stance that he deserved it is idiotic beyond belief.

I wasn't aiming to seat myself on a moral high horse, but I was surprised at how "shocked and outraged" people seem to be, as though the fact that she had been cheated on should have had no bearing on her actions.
Granted, mind, we don't know fully what her intentions were. The "protracted torture session" could simply have been to exact some revenge on the guy and scare the ****e out of him. Had she been planning to cut him into itty-bitty pieces, I would agree that she probably had more than a few screws loose, but in the end the guy didn't even need medical attention.
I don't know where along the scale between "a shout and a slap" and "cutting into itty-bitty pieces" the tipping point, for me, lies - it seems to be somewhat further along than for other posters.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

...but i have to be honest...I think your talking out of your ass. Get coherent and then come back to the thread maybe?

How would you like me to be more coherent?
As things stand for the two - ignoring potential legal implications to be faced for the female, as they should have little bearing on the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the issue, and from the male's point ignoring the fact that one would have cheated on someone - I would sooner choose to be in the shoes of a man with a few injuries that will have mostly healed within a few weeks leaving only the difficulty of having to make up an interesting story for the new ladies as to how he'd acquired the scars, than the shoes of a woman who'd discovered that someone she (let's assume) loved had been cheating on her for however long it was.

I can, I suppose, understand if people would choose not to have been "physically tortured", but I believe the alternative position is tenable, and not "idiotic beyond belief".

Raze_them_all

Ficheall wrote: »

Suppose one were to take some banker who had stolen money from customers etc, for example, and one said that they deserved to have all their money and earthly possessions taken away from them. One could say and believe that they deserved that, but still not agree with someone who went and took all their money and possessions from them...
I realise that's simply equating like with like, but the idea is essentially the same.

are you well??? cheating does not = theft ya see there's this thing called the law, stealing is illegal, cheating is not. I kid you not. False impronment, assault with a deadly weapon are also illegal where let me point out cheating is not.

So where is the idea basically the same.


I half think you're just looking to get a rise out of posters

Galvasean

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, it's really quite simple. Matters of the heart do not and should not boil over into physical abuse. Definitely not a protracted torture session.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has been cheated on. heck, the longest relationship I've ever been in ended with the 'so and so' cheating on me, but I didn't take her captive and torture the girl. Why? because only a psycho would. we've all had our psycho moments in our head, but no way do right thinking members of society think torturing a person over infidelity is a reasonable reaction.

Ficheall

Raze_them_all wrote: »

are you well??? cheating does not = theft ya see there's this thing called the law, stealing is illegal, cheating is not. I kid you not. False impronment, assault with a deadly weapon are also illegal where let me point out cheating is not.

I'm fine, thanks And you?

Urinating in public and not paying your tv license are also illegal. What's your point?

Delirium

Ficheall wrote: »

I'm fine, thanks And you?

Urinating in public and not paying your tv license are also illegal. What's your point?

I believe that the point Raze was making is that if a banker defrauds the banks customers, the law probably has structures to seize the bankers assets to try and recoup the money wrongfully taken from the customers.

Nowhere in law does it say that it's ok for someone to torture someone who cheated on them.

The_Morrigan

koth wrote: »

I believe that the point Raze was making is that if a banker defrauds the banks customers, the law probably has structures to seize the bankers assets to try and recoup the money wrongfully taken from the customers.

Nowhere in law does it say that it's ok for someone to torture someone who cheated on them.

In all fairness considering our national situation, using a defrauding banker as a case situation for moral and legal example is a bit ridiculous. We all know the law can't sort that out!

Anyway, regardless of that I think the problem here is that Ficheall is looking at the bigger picture saying they were both wrong and they both deserve the consequences of their actions.
What I read from the posts are that this doesn't neccessarily mean the guy deserves to have his nuts cut off or skinned alive, just that he should be responsible for his actions and so should she.

I already said this on thread, people should stop being complete tools towards each other - neither party was innocent and the article reads more tabloid than broadsheet, so we have no idea of the whole truth on the matter.

Ficheall

koth wrote: »

I believe that the point Raze was making is that if a banker defrauds the banks customers, the law probably has structures to seize the bankers assets to try and recoup the money wrongfully taken from the customers.

Nowhere in law does it say that it's ok for someone to torture someone who cheated on them.

But the law also has structures in place, for example, to fine and imprison someone who has not paid their television licence etc, etc. The law is a donkey sometimes, is all I'm saying. Just because something is illegal does not necessarily imply that it is worse than something which is not. Someone's definition of "worse" being subjective.

Starokan

I would hope that this woman is prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows.

There is no other outcome that should be acceptable imo.

Regardless of how hurt she was her reaction is way out of order

Galvasean

Starokan wrote: »

I would hope that this woman is prosecuted to the full extent that the law allows.

There is no other outcome that should be acceptable imo.

Regardless of how hurt she was her reaction is way out of order

She probably won't be. Some wacko feminist organization will probably leap to her defense and produce some, ironically demeaning towards women, BS about how women should be jdged less harshly in such situations because they can't control their emotions as well as men.
Seriously, there was a thread here about such not too long ago where IIRC there was an ongoing campaign aimed at judges in the UK.
It is quite telling that there is a current documentary series running on SkyTV called 'Snapped: Women Who Kill'. It shows the prevelent attitude in society that for a woman to do something heinous she must have been driven over the edge, as opposed to men who can just be sickos and no sympathy is worthwhile.

The_Morrigan

Galvasean wrote: »

She probably won't be. Some wacko feminist organization will probably leap to her defense and produce some, ironically demeaning towards women, BS about how women should be jdged less harshly in such situations because they can't control their emotions as well as men.
Seriously, there was a thread here about such not too long ago where IIRC there was an ongoing campaign aimed at judges in the UK.
It is quite telling that there is a current documentary series running on SkyTV called 'Snapped: Women Who Kill'. It shows the prevelent attitude in society that for a woman to do something heinous she must have been driven over the edge, as opposed to men who can just be sickos and no sympathy is worthwhile.

Galva those campaigns are supposed to be aimed at making the laws subjective towards people who have been subjected to years of emotional/mental/physical abuse and they just snap one day and lose it. UK law is objective, Irish law is subjective.
It isn't aimed at just women, it is just unfortunately that they are the majority when it comes to cases whereby the ultimate victim is in fact usually the one instigating the abuse over a long period of time.

Galvasean

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Galva those campaigns are supposed to be aimed at making the laws subjective towards people who have been subjected to years of emotional/mental/physical abuse and they just snap one day and lose it.

The article cited here and in several other sources specifically asks jusdges to take gender into account. That's what I was getting at. There is absolutely no reason why someone's gender should affect sentencing, but clearly it does happen.
The way the incidint in the OP is being reported is just another symptom of this strange notion that when a woman does something wrong it's generally not her fault, while men do not recieve the same benefit of teh doubt.

The_Morrigan

Galvasean wrote: »

The article cited here and in several other sources specifically asks jusdges to take gender into account. That's what I was getting at. There is absolutely no reason why someone's gender should affect sentencing, but clearly it does happen.
The way the incidint in the OP is being reported is just another symptom of this strange notion that when a woman does something wrong it's generally not her fault, while men do not recieve the same benefit of teh doubt.

I agree that gender shouldn't impact the sentencing, but it happens. Sure a female minor in Ireland can't be convicted of statutory rape - straight up that looks like gender discrimination, but the back story to that explains it.
Unfortunately, the fecking explanation for that was left out of legislation, but it boils down to the fact that if anyone sees a pregnant minor, they will automatically assume, by the physical form to be a criminal. That flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and that is why there is a slight gender discrimination on paper. That doesn't mean that a Judge cannot use his discretion to allow for a charge of sexual assault to be handed down.

On the other side of the coin, the males of the country held the better hand when it came to sexual assaults. It was the late eighties before a husband could be held liable for marital rape, so any man in Ireland could rape his wife without consequences as the law saw his wife as his property under a contract of marriage and he could do whatever he wanted to her.
Even now if you do report a rape case, the victim is put through hell before it even gets to court (if it gets to court at all) and if they are married they still have to live with their attacker.

Another one of the cases I covered last year in criminal law, was about a grown man who "lost it" and murdered a baby...stabbed the toddler numerous times. By right he should have gone down for murder, but the mother of the baby asked the Judge to be lenient on the man because his usual character and behaviour did not fit in with this solitary action.
Cases can turn on their facts, taking the crime in isolation without knowing the whole story is a dangerous thing at times.

Galvasean

Good post, however one part jumped out at me (bolding mine):

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Even now if you do report a rape case, the victim is put through hell before it even gets to court (if it gets to court at all) and if they are married they still have to live with their attacker.

They do?

The_Morrigan

Galvasean wrote: »

Good post, however one part jumped out at me (bolding mine):


They do?

Aye, my criminal law lecturer last year is a barrister and she said the amount of people who have to go home again and face their husband is just unnatural. Not everyone has the option to live somewhere else.
He is assumed innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the DPP whether the case will go to trial. The wife will be put through hell with questioning while the DPP deliberate and build a case, and then if they are satisfied a trial will commence. The lecturer was saying that the average wait for trial is about 9 months.

Galvasean

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Aye, my criminal law lecturer last year is a barrister and she said the amount of people who have to go home again and face their husband is just unnatural. Not everyone has the option to live somewhere else.
He is assumed innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the DPP whether the case will go to trial. The wife will be put through hell with questioning while the DPP deliberate and build a case, and then if they are satisfied a trial will commence. The lecturer was saying that the average wait for trial is about 9 months.

Wow, that's scandelous. You'd think they'd be given info to hook up with a shelter for victims of spousal abuse or something.

The_Morrigan

Galvasean wrote: »

Wow, that's scandelous. You'd think they'd be given info to hook up with a shelter for victims of spousal abuse or something.

Yup it is ridiculous.
The info is there, but it's not always possible to leave your home.

But going back to the debate at hand...you cannot ever look at a crime in isolation, you have to know about the lead up to it and then let the Judge and jury deliberate on that.

Should also say that they also have to take into consideration the mental state of the accused.