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

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

DrFloppy wrote: »

So you support vigilantism then? That's big of you.

Any right minded person looking at this situation would abhor trial by social media and only be interested in due process and the legal and judicial system's outcome.

The precedent set by this is terrifying.

How is that vigilantism? People have a right to feel safe and where they spend their cash. If they don't feel safe or would prefer to spend their money elsewhere then that's their right, it's not vigilantism.

zeffabelli

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Why should they be protected from the truth?

1. We don't know with any certainty what the truth is.

2. Because they are very young and can't process it and because they need to sustain a relationship, especially now independent of their mothers history with them. Kids don't want to know or hear about the bulk**** between their parents. Atmospheric contamination.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Riskymove wrote: »

this is nonsense

saying "we don't know if a person is telling the truth" is not the same as saying "that person is a liar"

Well accusing a woman with a black eye of being a bunny boiler who was looking for it, or accusing her of "faking" her black eye, well that is accusing her of lying, isn't it?

tritium

eviltwin wrote: »

How many men die each year at the hands of an intimate partner? No one is suggesting men are less likely to be victims just that the outcomes for women are more likely to be more serious and you don't get more serious than death.

Actually that is exactly what is being suggested if you read what I've been responding to from wetfoot and trudhia

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

zeffabelli wrote: »

It will be her problem when she gets no child support because he has no money, from loss of business and legal defence expenses.

You can be well within your rights but that doesn't mean practising them is without consequence.

You can insult someone's mother at her funeral but don't get surprised if you get slapped in the face.

You can write all the books you want but that doesn't mean you won't be liable for defamation or other consequences.

She didn't name him so he defamed himself. She didn't identify anyone but herself. And you're dead right about consequences, he's now dealing with the consequences of abusing the mother of his child (by his own admission)

Riskymove

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well accusing a woman with a black eye of being a bunny boiler who was looking for it, or accusing her of "faking" her black eye, well that is accusing her of lying, isn't it?

tbh I find it interesting that you say "don't brand her a liar until facts are known" but are seemingly happy to believe everything about the partner without any finding of facts

zeffabelli

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She didn't name him so he defamed himself. She didn't identify anyone but herself. And you're dead right about consequences, he's now dealing with the consequences of abusing the mother of his child (by his own admission)

Ah yeah....but she gave so much detail of her own identities and her children that she gave far more identifiers than a name ever could.

Riskymove

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She didn't name him so he defamed himself. She didn't identify anyone but herself.

you are just plain wrong here

she identified herself and made the allegations about her partner and mentioned going to his gym

she doesn't have to use his name to identify him

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Well I know he admitted to shoving her and got shady on the end details (she may have fallen on the floor or against the car, I don't know) :rolleyes: and I know she has a black eye that he didn't deny giving her, so that's good enough for me

Riskymove

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well I know he admitted to shoving her and got shady on the end details (she may have fallen on the floor or against the car, I don't know) :rolleyes: and I know she has a black eye that he didn't deny giving her, so that's good enough for me

I love a fair trial your honour

zeffabelli

Riskymove wrote: »

this is nonsense

saying "we don't know if a person is telling the truth" is not the same as saying "that person is a liar"

It's not even as simple as that,,,it can also be a case of subjective realities vs. consensual realities.

Both parties may have processed events very differently.

We have no way of assessing anything stable right now.

Trudiha

Dogowner55 wrote: »

Why? Cause of a sterotype his culture don't pay childcare and are deadbeats?

Well no, that's not what I said but you obviously feel entitled to extrapolate to the point of nonsense and introduce a slur. He won’t be paying because that’s one of the ways abusive men punish their partners, by depriving their children.

zeffabelli

Trudiha wrote: »

Well no, that's not what I said but you obviously feel entitled to extrapolate to the point of nonsense and introduce a slur. He won’t be paying because that’s one of the ways abusive men punish their partners, by depriving their children.

So is public humiliation.

Trudiha

tritium wrote: »

Horse****, I misrepresented nothing, as I think you realise only too well.

The post I responded to quoted a one in four statistic. The comparable figure from the (fairly definitive) NCC survey is for all forms of domestic abuse. The figures for men and women are broadly the same for this. If you'd like to focus on severe abuse the figures are higher for women than men, but dramatically below the 1 in. 4 figure that was quoted. I think I'll generally place my faith here on well constructed statistical analysis once the methodology is free from deliberate biases.

So tell me exactly what did I misrepresent again?

As you seem to be having some difficulty with the counting, as well as the reading, I’ll do it for you. Over 15% of women and almost 6% of men experience serious domestic violence during their lifetime. The other 10% of women were deemed to have suffered less serious abuse. I don’t think that anyone has downplayed the seriousness of abuse sustained by male victims, every single case is a personal nightmare but the numbers are different.

Here is a quote from the study you mentioned:

In terms of the impact of domestic abuse, about half of those experiencing severe abuse were physically injured. Women’s injuries tended to be more serious – women are nearly twice as likely as men to require medical treatment for their injuries and ten times more likely to require a stay in hospital. However, respondents often identified emotional abuse or the emotional consequences of abuse – such as fear, distress and loss of confidence – as the ‘worst thing’ that they experienced. Domestic abuse is also associated with poor health and disability.
Seventy eight woman have been murdered by partners or husbands or former husbands or partners. Thankfully, no men have been murdered.
The word ‘domestic’ comes from the Greek ‘domos’, meaning ‘home’. Therefore domestic violence statistics include all abuse that happens in the home. Some of this is male on male violence, brother assaulting brother/father assaulting brother and, increasingly step father assaulting male children in the home.

You can aggressively shout ‘horse****’ as much as you like but violence is mainly perpetrated by men, sometimes it’s towards other men as well as women.

dont bother

theyre both dopes.
he because of the pushing her around.
her because she seems to be attention seeking more than seeking actual justice

Trudiha

zeffabelli wrote: »

He certainly won't be able to pay anything with a ruined career.

If you don't follow due process, them what you are doing is vigilantism.

No, here the definition of vigilantism:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante


Close reading will show that a degree of violence is required. Making a video is not a violent action.

zeffabelli

Trudiha wrote: »

No, here the definition of vigilantism:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante


Close reading will show that a degree of violence is required. Making a video is not a violent action.

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

Vigilante justice" is often rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community.

Persons alleged to be escaping the law or above the law are sometimes the victims of vigilantism.[1]

Vigilante behavior involves various degrees of violence. Vigilantes may assault targets verbally, physically, vandalize property, or even kill individuals.

Mightydrumming

Dogowner55 wrote: »

How does a revenge video change any of that?

Are you being serious? We have simply explained to you the reasons behind the victim uploading the video. I refuse to tell you again because it's becoming apparent that you do not want to accept the fact that you may very well be wrong.

Trudiha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The thing is, either you use the 1 in 4 figure and set a low threshold for abuse, in which case you have tp admit she began the abuse in this incident (by her own admission) or you don't .
Either something is abuse or it isn't it can't be both.


I'm not excusing his apparent actions but I'm highlighting the very much gendered lack of logic when talking about abuse.

I'm starting to suspect that you don't really care about why the answer is to your question but here's an explanation of why the figure are as they are:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=331

There is a gender imbalance and a lack of logic but it’s not in the direction you're suggesting.

Mightydrumming

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Well accusing a woman with a black eye of being a bunny boiler who was looking for it, or accusing her of "faking" her black eye, well that is accusing her of lying, isn't it?

Don't forget the 'vindictive bitch', 'She's milking it' etc etc.. It's down-right disgusting.

Trudiha

zeffabelli wrote: »

FROM YOUR OWN LINK:

Vigilante justice" is often rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community.

Persons alleged to be escaping the law or above the law are sometimes the victims of vigilantism.[1]

Vigilante behavior involves various degrees of violence. Vigilantes may assault targets verbally, physically, vandalize property, or even kill individuals.

https://anotherchange.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/pigeon-chess.jpg

Mardy Bum

Mightydrumming wrote: »

Don't forget the 'vindictive bitch', 'She's milking it' etc etc.. It's down-right disgusting.

I'd say there is a few relatives in the thread and those men's rights activists.

Generic Dreadhead

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'd say there is a few relatives in the thread and those men's rights activists.

What an idiotic post in fairness

Mightydrumming

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I'd say there is a few relatives in the thread and those men's rights activists.

I got a sense of that as well!

Boom_Bap

I'm closing this thread for now. If any new information surfaces, we can re-open. As it currently stands we are going around in circles on this.