Viral Facebook video speaking out about domestic violence (Read mod note in the OP)

jimdublin15

mickstupp wrote: »

Yes, you're right, I agree. The only hate mob allowed around here is against the woman who dared speak out, and we know her name already because she gave it to us, so let's try and discredit her to bits.

That about sum up your position?


You keep spouting this bull**** and haven't yet provided any evidence that this was her intention. It's like you're saying it over and over and over again, in the hope that if you say it often enough people will believe you. You're claiming you know her intentions and you do not, unless she herself told you. Did she tell you? I only ask because in the video she stated very explicitly that her intentions were entirely not what you say they were.

Now, if, as a result of her video, a hate mob as you call it started up and went after this guy, that doesn't actually mean she posted a video for that reason. The outcome of an event doesn't have to be the same as the intention behind it. I mean... you do realise that, don't you??? I assume you must...

Look I agree with your post not to discredit this person or any person reporting or for signaling a cry for help.

However as for the mob going after him, it might not be the intent of the video but you know best intentions sometimes leads to it's own horrors.

brooke 2

mickstupp wrote: »

I don't really understand some of the attitudes in this thread, but I think I can articulate a couple that I'm having trouble with.

1. There are some in this thread who seem to think: Lady posts publicly when she should've gone to the police and said nothing publicly at all (god forbid she stick her head above the parapet)... well clearly she either deserved it or has some terrible ulterior motive. We should all wait to hear the other side of the story before we jump to the totally irrational conclusion that violence is bad. In fact, let's not wait, let's be proactive and try our damnedest to discredit her because... because, I don't know.

2. There are others who seem to think that because the guy in question is some sort of Z-list known person who most people have never heard of, that's the only possible reason she's doing this. She couldn't possibly be doing it to raise awareness of a serious issue by using her own situation.

3. There are some who quite honestly believe that just because a thing is posted on Facebook, or presumably anywhere else online without the backup of 713 scientifically valid international studies, thus it's rubbish and she's not to be believed, presumably because it's anecdotal and thus not reality. She's probably using some sort of Halloween makeup.

The people who are jumping up and down shouting about this Facebook trial nonsense are the ones who are dismissing this woman every way they can. When someone above said "Her public airing to get revenge and get a mob to go after the guy is pretty disgraceful also", that's a person who's already decided this woman is a terrible human being, and doesn't actually give a damn about what happened or didn't. It's the sort of person who honestly believes: "How dare she talk about what happened to her!" Well if the guy she accused has some sort of defence against her accusations, this is 2015, there's a multitude of ways he can air his side of the story.

+100

arayess

brooke 2 wrote: »

If the authorities described that assault as 'minor', I would not blame her for reacting as she did!! I would be apopleptic if it happened to me!!

If she attacked him and he was defending himself they would have a different view on what they could charge him (if anything) with as opposed to if he punched her with no provocation.
Or if as the story comes out today that he claims he pushed her.

You have no idea whatsoever what the gardai are basing their assessment on - but it doesn't stop you taking a side :rolleyes:

mickstupp

jimdublin15 wrote: »

However as for the mod going after him, it might not be the intent of the video but you best intentions sometimes lead it's own horrors.

Oh, I get that. Absolutely.

But Dogowner55 is intent on attacking this woman. His/Her posts make that abundantly clear. And others here seem convinced that her posting a video online constitutes taking the law into her own hands... and as far as I'm aware she hasn't broken any law so...

One eyed Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

Posting this sort of stuff on Facebook trivialises what should be a serious issue. If she was genuinely aggrieved by her ex, she should have gone down the proper channels. When people start taking the law into their own hands, society will start to come apart at the seams.

It's because it's not treated as a serious issue that the proper channels aren't as effective as they could be. It's because the issue is largely swept under the carpet as victims of domestic violence are afraid to rock the boat, they're afraid they won't be taken seriously, they're afraid they'll be dismissed as simply being vindictive or "takes two to tango".

If you're afraid of society coming apart at the seams because more and more people are speaking out about the issue of domestic violence and want the authorities to start taking it seriously, then society was hardly ideal in the first place, was it?

Dogowner55

mickstupp wrote: »

Oh, I get that. Absolutely.

But Dogowner55 is intent on attacking this woman. His/Her posts make that abundantly clear. And others here seem convinced that her posting a video online constitutes taking the law into her own hands... and as far as I'm aware she hasn't broken any law so...

I am big on the gaming community and when a man did this to a woman recently I took the same position, thankfully the mainstream media took the same view of what the man did was wrong and the hatemob created was awful, still ruined the female devs life and the mob are still after her to this day 10 months later.


The fact she is female is not the issue it's the way she set out to ruin a persons life in a public way when she could have done it officially if it was true, it's disgraceful.

How would you feel if someone made a video of you to ruin you and you cannot defend yourself.

I am not attacking the woman, I am attacking the inapropate action she has done to ruin a persons life.

Plazaman

No need to hide his name now since he had come out publicy to defend himself

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-emma-murphys-estranged-partner-who-denies-punching-her-but-admits-to-pushing-her-31361055.html

MonkieSocks

suicide_circus wrote: »

What's this guys name?

He's on second

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

Do me a favour. Go volunteer at a refuge or a domestic violence helpline for a few hours and talk to victims about what response they have had from gardai. Go talk to a Amen about the way their callers are treated when they contact gardai. You might be surprised at how little they do sometimes.

Thanks for the patronising response. You have no idea what I have seen, whom I've talked to or roads I've walked.
Do you know victims often attack the police when they come? Or how often they arrest the wrong person? How often they can't tell the defensive from offensive wounds? Or how frequent false accusations are made?

jimdublin15

mickstupp wrote: »

Oh, I get that. Absolutely.

But Dogowner55 is intent on attacking this woman. His/Her posts make that abundantly clear. And others here seem convinced that her posting a video online constitutes taking the law into her own hands... and as far as I'm aware she hasn't broken any law so...

I know and I understand both of you and the point both of you are making.
However it highlights to me that the system has failed, not only this victim but all of them. It's also failed the abusers who often also need support and counseling. (Yes they should also be punished)

But I cannot condone actions that lead to street justice. I’ve been on the receiving end of domestic abuse, as have unfortunately so many others.

However I have also seen firsthand the other side of the story not directly but a family member of mine committed suicide after a long and endless witch_hunt following a accusation over something very small, minor compared to domestic abuse. So yes victims should be supported and protected, no we can not condone street justice, certainly not when we don't have the facts, that's what we have a justice system for.

mickstupp

Dogowner55 wrote: »

The fact she is female is not the issue it's the way she set out to ruin a persons life in a public way when she could have done it officially if it was true, it's disgraceful.

How would you feel if someone made a video of you to ruin you and you cannot defend yourself.

I am not attacking the woman, I am attacking the inapropate action she has done to ruin a persons life.

1. Again you're claiming that's what she set out to do, that was her intention. You're completely dismissing her stated intention in favour of what you think was her intention, based on the outcome you perceive, i.e. this hate mob. Furthermore the phrasing of that sentence implies pretty strongly that you fully believe that either a) it didn't happen, because if it did she wouldn't be mouthing off in public, or b) it might have happened, but if it did she probably deserved it.

2. He can defend himself. He may well be doing so as we type, organising his legal defence. The assumption that he cannot defend himself doesn't actually give people the right to attack this woman instead. And when you continually claim that her motives were to damage this man, that they're 'disgraceful', that it's all about revenge... then you're not defending this man anymore, you're engaging in your own little hate mob. You are, in fact, doing what you accuse others of doing: coming to a judgement about this person without knowing all sides of the story.

3. Yes, you are attacking this woman. Repeatedly. You've deliberately and consistently misrepresented her. Your own posts are the evidence against you.

brooke 2

the_monkey wrote: »

Gotta wonder what she was doing with a violent muppet like that anyway ... her next partner will do the same , women like her always end up with the same crap...

Unfortunately, that is often the case. Her deceased mother was also in an abusive relationship. Hope her future is better.

Dogowner55

mickstupp wrote: »

1. Again you're claiming that's what she set out to do, that was her intention. You're completely dismissing her stated intention in favour of what you think was her intention, based on the outcome you perceive, i.e. this hate mob. Furthermore the phrasing of that sentence implies pretty strongly that you fully believe that either a) it didn't happen, because if it did she wouldn't be mouthing off in public, or b) it might have happened, but if it did she probably deserved it.

2. He can defend himself. He may well be doing so as we type, organising his legal defence. The assumption that he cannot defend himself doesn't actually give people the right to attack this woman instead. And when you continually claim that her motives were to damage this man, that they're 'disgraceful', that it's all about revenge... then you're not defending this man anymore, you're engaging in your own little hate mob. You are, in fact, doing what you accuse others of doing: coming to a judgement about this person without knowing all sides of the story.

3. Yes, you are attacking this woman. Repeatedly. You've deliberately and consistently misrepresented her. Your own posts are the evidence against you.

I don't care it's a woman or man, I have take this side on public witch hunting when the roles have been reversed too.

I am against nothing more then public shaming and witch hunting are wrong as you cannot prove what happened that lead to the video, I will leave it to the authorities who in this case seem to disagree with the person making the video's claims.

brooke 2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just one thing on the "he didn't respond".

It's possible he has a solicitor who is smart enough to tell him not to respond under any circumstances, because it will give him some ammo in any legal battle, and not just domestic violence but more pertinently involving the children.

I think a Judge may be very critical of this move by her, and the implications for the children. She is far from the first person to have broadcast her difficulties on social media, you get more and more cases now where people vent issues about maintenance or access on Facebook...and some Judges don't like it.

He did send her one text in which he said: 'Thank you. I have seen the video'.
No apology. You can almost hear the arrogance dripping off it!!

mickstupp

Dogowner55 wrote: »

I don't care it's a woman or man, I have take this side on public witch hunting when the roles have been reversed too.

I am against nothing more then public shaming and witch hunting are wrong as you cannot prove what happened that lead to the video, I will leave it to the authorities who in this case seem to disagree with the person making the video's claims.

Nobody said you care whether it's a woman or a man, not sure what your point is there.

But as for public witch hunting, you're doing what you're accusing other people of doing. You're misrepresenting her motives and denigrating her character despite the fact that, as you yourself claim, we cannot prove what happened that lead to the video. You also cannot prove that her motives are what you've consistently claimed they were.

You're doing what you claim you're actually against.

brooke 2

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Are they really though? I've read that before but don't have first hand experience of it and can't help being a bit sceptical about it.

Either way, the post above was clearly blaming the victim which is complete horse sh1t.

I didn't read it as his blaming the victim.
Many women do find themselves in one abusive relationship after another. In some cases they have witnessed their mothers' abuse by their fathers.

Menas

brooke 2 wrote: »

I didn't read it as his blaming the victim.
Many women do find themselves in one abusive relationship after another. In some cases they have witnessed their mothers' abuse by their fathers.

Yes, I would not see that as Victim blaming either. Something does not sit right with me about this facebook video, that medium can be abused which can result in an innocent life getting ruined.
I do prefer to use the law.
But as has been pointed out above, the system is not really serving the accused or accuser in many of these case....

orubiru

mickstupp wrote: »

Nobody said you care whether it's a woman or a man, not sure what your point is there.

But as for public witch hunting, you're doing what you're accusing other people of doing. You're misrepresenting her motives and denigrating her character despite the fact that, as you yourself claim, we cannot prove what happened that lead to the video. You also cannot prove that her motives are what you've consistently claimed they were.

You're doing what you claim you're actually against.

You are being quite dishonest here. I think because you know that Dogowner55 is taking what would be considered the "unpopular" point of view in this discussion.

It seems to me that Dogowner55 is making the point that the woman in question has taken an inappropriate course of action in order to deal with what has happened to her. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue with this.

Dogowner55 has stated, quite clearly, that they are against public shaming and "witch-hunting".

Your response that "You're doing what you claim you're actually against" is utter nonsense.

Dogowner55 has not been "misrepresenting her motives and denigrating her character". They are offering an opposing, alternative, point of view and you are trying to shut it down because it does not fit in with your simplistic view of reality.

Do you think it's acceptable for someone to make one sided public accusations against another person to the point where it will negatively impact their life?

Should these kind of things not be dealt with in court with appropriate punishment being administered? What's the point in having a modern legal and justice system if people think it's perfectly acceptable to take to Facebook with their story and let the public decide?

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

When a GBH case goes in front of a judge, the defendant isn't going to walk away with a slap on the wrist. And I would advise you to actually check the facts, in that with one of those orders there's no arrest when it's broken the first time

Sheer nonsense.

Neither assault law nor the law on domestic violence contains any "first beating free" provision.

Let's not make up stuff as we go along. You assert it, you check the facts, but I can assure you you are wasting your time because as a matter of common sense it is just nonsense.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And you think someone who beats the **** out of a woman on a regular basis gives a rats arse about a court order?? You think a piece of paper from a court would stop someone enclined to come back with a shot gun? Hardly. At least if they're done for assault they'd be locked up for a year or two.

That's precisely the point I made, that a Court Order does not purport to physically restrain the respondent.

Your suggestion that people who get done for assault "get locked up for a year or two" is the third piece of utter utter nonsense you have spouted. The vast majority of assault convictions do not result in anything near a prison sentence.

donegaLroad

Plazaman wrote: »

No need to hide his name now since he had come out publicy to defend himself

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-emma-murphys-estranged-partner-who-denies-punching-her-but-admits-to-pushing-her-31361055.html

Life will never be the same again for him after this.. he may close his business and change his name now.

I feel very sorry for the girl and the 2 kids.

brooke 2

zeffabelli wrote: »

The black eye could come from the impact of a fist or from the impact of a fall.

No one knows with any certainty what happened.

Or, she could have 'walked into a door'!! Perish the thought, she could even be telling the truth!!!

jimdublin15

brooke 2 wrote: »

Or, perish the thought, she could be telling the truth!!!

Could be anything, and maybe she is who knows.
This is why the cops should be investigating the matter and not the media/public.

poeticmakaveli

There's 3 sides to every story, his side,her side and the truth. I don't think any 1 single person on here agrees with domestic abuse here and to hit anybody of any gender is just ugly,shameful and complete badness! I can understand both arguments that's swinging back and forth here and all makes good points and interesting reading believe it or not but we may never know the whole truth,what provoked it before the violence, the alleged affairs,etc, I don't know anything about him as his name has not being mentioned here but I seen her profile on Facebook and I don't think a lot of the half naked pictures of herself on Facebook would be good for the seemingly bitter relationship, I mean if the mother of my kid/children had a handful of pictures of herself posing in underwear I would not be happy and obviously me as a man would not give me a right to treat her wrong in any way but I just feel jealousy and other factors come into play and definitely play a part, this just did not go from a loving relationship to just beating her, the signs come from way off and there is lot more to it,it's not so simple!
My heart goes out to any woman,man,or child getting hurt but it is my personal view that she should not have gone public about it, i said it in an earlier post was it attention she wanted or help? Please don't start with the "raising awareness" card!! I don't need to be getting slap's or boxes and know it's wrong until someone comes on and says its wrong and then suddenly I know!
And please don't think I am having a go at her here as I am not and i do believe she was beaten up but there's lead ups to these things and a whole lot of other ingredients as well.
I hope all turns out well for everybody!

Specialun

I hear on the news that she only reported the incident to the guards on friday..she put the video up v fast

One eyed Jack

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Could be anything, and maybe she is who knows.
This is why the cops should be investigating the matter and not the media/public.

The thing is though, that the authorities didn't consider the matter serious enough to warrant an investigation, and in that case what would you expect a person should do - go home and put up with it and don't bring shame upon herself and her family?

Or do whatever the hell she could do that was within what little power she had to protect herself and her family? Perhaps more cases highlighted like this in the media will actually make the authorities get their act together when there are real people behind the statistics.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Your suggestion that people who get done for assault "get locked up for a year or two" is the third piece of utter utter nonsense you have spouted. The vast majority of assault convictions do not result in anything near a prison sentence.

It is interesting though to see what people think is an appropriate punishment for an assault or an act of violence.

Like you say, it would be pretty rare for someone to do prison time over a couple of punches or kicks.

Maybe people do not agree with that though?

If it turned out that these two had been having an argument and he punched her once then it is most likely that the man would be handed a fine and put on probation? Would people say that this is not enough or is it an acceptable punishment?

brooke 2

eviltwin wrote: »

Because the system is broken and cannot help everyone who needs it.

I don't agree with what she did, I don't think anyone should do anything they can't take back when they are in a heightened sense of emotion. However, I would imagine she did it out of desperation. The attack on her face is one thing but domestic violence is so much more than the physical assaults, its emotional and mental abuse that the worst part and I think she had just had enough of it and didn't know what else she could do.

She had endured horrific emotional abuse from this lowlife. She found out that he had made another woman pregnant only a few days before she went into labour with their second child.

He accused her of being 'paranoid' when
she suspected him of having an affair. Told her that her 'insecurities would eventually kill her'!! :( I don't know about anyone else, but, to my mind, he is intimating suicide there. What a nasty,
despicable piece of work he appears to be. Sounds like she is well rid of him!!

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing is though, that the authorities didn't consider the matter serious enough to warrant an investigation, and in that case what would you expect a person should do - go home and put up with it and don't bring shame upon herself and her family?

Or do whatever the hell she could do that was within what little power she had to protect herself and her family? Perhaps more cases highlighted like this in the media will actually make the authorities get their act together when there are real people behind the statistics.

She could go through the proper channels rather than start a smear campaign that smacks of a community witch hunt/ public shaming.... She made the wrong choice.

brooke 2

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why was she happy to put up with it before? We're not getting the whole story I suspect.

She loved him, silly girl! Still does.
Not much else to the 'story', sorry for you!!

4friggA

According to a few different news outlets, the gardai have now opened an investigation.

Also this quote might put an end to the threw the phone/through the phone speculation:

Santry Gardai are investigating a claim that Emma Murphy says she was the victim of her partners rage and domestic violence, receiving a vicious punch to her left eye, when she tried to look at his phone to see if he was cheating.

Specialun wrote: »

I hear on the news that she only reported the incident to the guards on friday..she put the video up v fast

Maybe she didn't get a good response there and felt if she went public it would force them into doing something?