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

Pumpkinseeds

Cold War Kid wrote: »

She has a black eye - why the longing to believe it's not true? Granted, the trial by social media thing is inadvisable.

She has a black eye - why the longing to believe it is true?

eviltwin

Justice4Adolf wrote: »

Well you can spread a message of pessimism and hopelessness to people trapped in abusive relationships or you can give them a more constructive message - there are refuges and lots of people benefitting from them every day of the week, the courts will give barring orders which secure the family home for victim, perps won't get bail easy but if they once show active intimidation bail will likely be revoked. Plus unlike in previous generations people aren't financially cut off

I'm not trying to be pessimistic but rather realistic and I speak from personal experience working in the system. You are over simplifying the legal process. There is a massive shortage of refuge places and ZERO for men. Barring orders are extremely hard to get, understandably as they make someone homeless. There are virtually no imprisonments for domestic violence which isn't recognised by the law as a crime. It's treated as an assault and that is not enough when you consider the victim of an assault doesn't usually live with their partner. As for your claim about intimidation, the gardai have enough to be doing and don't have time to deal with the likes of that.

Pumpkinseeds

I'm bowing out now, there's just no reasoning with the kind of crazy that's emerging in these posts.

Dogowner55

Cold War Kid wrote: »

She has a black eye - why the longing to believe it's not true? Granted, the trial by social media thing is inadvisable.

Why would the guards say it was minor if the black eye was proof of it being true?

Cold War Kid

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

She has a black eye - why the longing to believe it is true?

I'm not saying it's definitely true, just questioning you pretty much calling her a liar while pretending to be balanced.

Mardy Bum

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'm not saying it's definitely true, just questioning you pretty much calling her a liar while pretending to be balanced.

Yeah it comes across as very strange and cold. Especially the earlier disclosure of witnessing DA in the flesh.

Mightydrumming

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm a woman and I saw my mother take a few hits from my father when I was a child. I think you're just furious that I'm not joining the lynch mob for a random stranger. You don't seem to have the ability to take an unbiased approach to the issue, whereas I can. As I said, there are 2 sides to any story and I'd wait until I heard both sides before forming a definite opinon. Not that any of our opinions actually matter on this. I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to see that some people like to hear both sides.

I'm not furious Pumpkin. The underlying problem for me is the fact that the partner has cut all social media and is nowhere to be seen. As I have said before and I will say it again - If I was in the partner's position and I was wrongly accused of such allegations, I would make it my utmost to get my side of the story out in the newspapers/radio etc... But no, he is nowhere to be found.

Now I don't want people to be shouting 'Oh but he's getting attacked' etc etc... At the end of the day. If you or I were wrongly accused of these actions, we wouldn't leave this amount of time (certainly not me) for people to start believing.

Dogowner55

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'm not saying it's definitely true, just questioning you pretty much calling her a liar while pretending to be balanced.

I take innocent to proven quilty as the main thing and the guards saying it's minor probably means there is more then meets the eye.

Her public airing to get revenge and get a mob to go after the guy is pretty disgraceful also.

mickstupp

Dogowner55 wrote: »

Her public airing to get revenge and get a mob to go after the guy is pretty disgraceful also.

Maybe you could point out exactly where she said that's why she was doing it?

arayess

Riskymove wrote: »

I think she said she "went through his phone" i.e. found some evidence if cheating

i heard it this morning as she "threw" a phone.
she wasn't clear where she threw it.

I'll be unpopular here but if she threw it in his face and coped a punch in retaliation , it might be wrong but understandable and he isn't the devil people think he is.

I don't know I wasnt there. But I do believe there are two sides to each story.
I say this as a person who was accused of domestic violence and slandered in public. Thankfully the old social media wasn't around at that time and I was lucky I had people who believed in me.

What I do know is that she is going about this the wrong way. I believe given she is a "blogger" she does know the impact this will have and this is vindictive.

rWhat worries me most is her kid is in the video walking in and out. That's just maddness.
Kid is now identifible and whatever that fellas crime he is still their father and she has now put a stigma on that. The child will grow up knowing that everybody else knows. Punish the guilty but the child has a right to a relationship with his father that isn't public knowledge.
some fools may counter this by saying he lost his rights as a dad etc.. but they are fools and have no right to make that decision...a judge perhaps would....but why do that when you have facebook
:eek:

Dogowner55

mickstupp wrote: »

Maybe you could point out exactly where she said that's why she was doing it?

Why else would you publicly post the info online other to get a hate mob to go after her partner

Mightydrumming

Dogowner55 wrote: »

Why else would you publicly post the info online other to get a hate mob to go after her partner

The point of the video was to raise awareness to other women living in domestic situations. She never once said anything on the lines of what you are on about.

4friggA

Jeez, so many harsh posts on this thread.
I am taking the video as being truthful, which we can only do, I'm not inclined to dismiss this woman as someone wanting attention - why would anybody want attention in this way? I have no reason to believe she might be lying.
This woman is trying to use what has happened to her and her visible injuries (because more often than not people only believe what they see and, judging by this thread, even then they still find it hard to believe) as a way of showing others what she has gone through and how she has come out of it. What's wrong with that? She tries to encourage other women to find their strength. What's wrong with that? Facebook is probably one of the quickest methods of getting a message out there and she has used it. What's wrong with that?

Yes, she mentions "men shouldn't hit women" in various forms throughout the video but be realistic, she was recording a video when her emotions were heightened, it's not like she had a script, she didn't sit there beforehand and think about how she could be politically correct... give her a break. Everybody knows domestic violence can happen in any type of relationship, she hasn't denied that, nobody in this thread has denied that, I don't think anybody in the world would deny that, but she's not making a tv special, just a short 5 minute video, again, give her a break.

And in relation to the claims that this man's business may be ruined etc., maybe after going to the gardai and realising there's not much that can be done, she wanted to hit him where it hurt him (so to speak)? I don't know exactly what she went through, she only touches on mental abuse and mentions being assaulted a few other times, how can I judge whether her actions (potentially ruining his business) are rational? I've never been through that, I don't know how it would make me feel, I don't know what it would make me do.

In relation to whether she went through his phone or threw his phone, I've listened to that part of the video 3 times and can't make it out. She mentions it around the 2 minute mark. She says "I found out on Friday so I went to the gym and I confronted him and he denied it of course and through/threw when I through/threw his phone he punched me in the face".

NachoBusiness

At the 8m37sec mark pf the interview wither Adrian asks her did she ever hit him and her answer began with very oddly as if she was being cagey with her answer tbf:

Adrian: "Did you ever hit him?"

Emma: "At times, yeah, pushing and eh yeah we would be, pushing each other and eh heavy, heavy with each other, yeah... but I never slapped him across the face, never punched him the face, nothing like that".

Dogowner55

4friggA wrote: »

Jeez, so many harsh posts on this thread.
I am taking the video as being truthful, which we can only do, I'm not inclined to dismiss this woman as someone wanting attention - why would anybody want attention in this way? I have no reason to believe she might be lying.
This woman is trying to use what has happened to her and her visible injuries (because more often than not people only believe what they see and, judging by this thread, even then they still find it hard to believe) as a way of showing others what she has gone through and how she has come out of it. What's wrong with that? She tries to encourage other women to find their strength. What's wrong with that? Facebook is probably one of the quickest methods of getting a message out there and she has used it. What's wrong with that?

Yes, she mentions "men shouldn't hit women" in various forms throughout the video but be realistic, she was recording a video when her emotions were heightened, it's not like she had a script, she didn't sit there beforehand and think about how she could be politically correct... give her a break. Everybody knows domestic violence can happen in any type of relationship, she hasn't denied that, nobody in this thread has denied that, I don't think anybody in the world would deny that, but she's not making a tv special, just a short 5 minute video, again, give her a break.

And in relation to the claims that this man's business may be ruined etc., maybe after going to the gardai and realising there's not much that can be done, she wanted to hit him where it hurt him (so to speak)? I don't know exactly what she went through, she only touches on mental abuse and mentions being assaulted a few other times, how can I judge whether her actions (potentially ruining his business) are rational? I've never been through that, I don't know how it would make me feel, I don't know what it would make me do.

Official authorities have said it minor, if it was as she said he would have been arrested. She knew what she was doing posting the video online to round up a hate group and ruin the man's life and businesses without a way for him to defend himself.

If it was legit it should all be done through the guards and court system where he could defend himself

Electric Sheep

michael999999 wrote: »

Victim blaming!

You need to have a ****ing word with yourself.

Its pretty obvious at this stage your friends with the guy!

She may know him very well indeed.

No wonder domestic violence victims fear reporting it - it didn't take long on this thread for the victim to be branded a vindictive liar.

In my experience, there are SO many women who will take the man's side in these cases. Until, of course, they are on the receiving end of it from the man who's story they swallowed.

Mightydrumming

NachoBusiness wrote: »

At the 8m37sec mark pf the interview wither Adrian asks her did she ever hit him and her answer began with very oddly as if she was being cagey with her answer tbf:

Adrian: "Did you ever hit him?"

Emma: "At times, yeah, pushing and eh yeah we would be, pushing each other and eh heavy, heavy with each other, yeah... but I never slapped him across the face, never punched him the face, nothing like that".

What are you implying Nacho?

johnnyskeleton

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not trying to be pessimistic but rather realistic and I speak from personal experience working in the system.

I find that quote to be hard to reconcile with these quotes:

Barring orders are extremely hard to get...There are virtually no imprisonments for domestic violence which isn't recognised by the law as a crime.

Here is the law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0001/index.html

Here are the statistics:

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/%28WebFiles%29/BA7D7195FC5AAD7280257D1F0030ECD4/$FILE/Courts%20Service%20Annual%20Report%202013.pdf

P. 51 over 1k barring orders are made each year

There is a very high prosecution rate for breaches of barring orders:

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Issues%20Papers/Domestic%20Violence%20Issues%20Paper.pdf

Law Reform Commissioners wrote:

Thirdly the overwhelming majority of breaches of domestic violence orders lead to criminal prosecutions.In 2011 out of 1,082 recorded breaches, 936 (86.5%) led to criminal prosecutions

I can't find any statistics on imprisonment rates on google, but it is a regular occurence as most District Court Judges and Gardai treat it as a fairly serious offence.

NachoBusiness

Mightydrumming wrote: »

What are you implying Nacho?

Sorry, thought it was obvious:

It came across to me from how she answered the question that she was being very economical with the truth.

Cold War Kid

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm bowing out now, there's just no reasoning with the kind of crazy that's emerging in these posts.

"Crazy" cuz... they are in disagreement with you?

I agree she might be no saint herself (I'd say it's very likely) but the downplaying of the assault (*someone* did it) is a bit disturbing.

denhaagenite

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is a very high prosecution rate for breaches of barring orders:

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Issues%20Papers/Domestic%20Violence%20Issues%20Paper.pdf

It has to get to a barring order in the first place, which would suggest someone already having been assaulted. And what sort of lunatic would breach a barring order?? One that I wouldn't want anywhere near me, I imagine.

Dogowner55

Cold War Kid wrote: »

"Crazy" cuz... they are in disagreement with you?

I agree she might be no saint herself (I'd say it's very likely) but the downplaying of the assault (*someone* did it) is a bit disturbing.

How do you know it wasn't self defense, if there was an assault the guards whould have acted. Calling it an assault is not something you can do you don't have those facts

Mightydrumming

Dogowner55 wrote: »

if there was an assault the guards whould have acted.

They didn't act on it because they classed it as a MINOR case. Read above in the thread.

Dogowner55

Mightydrumming wrote: »

They didn't act on it because they classed it as a MINOR case. Read above in the thread.

Minor means it's not as she says and therfore sicing a hate mod on him so he cannot defend himself is an very disgraceful thing she did.

Assualt isn't minor so her story doesn't addup

Justice4Adolf

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not trying to be pessimistic but rather realistic and I speak from personal experience working in the system. You are over simplifying the legal process. There is a massive shortage of refuge places and ZERO for men. Barring orders are extremely hard to get, understandably as they make someone homeless. There are virtually no imprisonments for domestic violence which isn't recognised by the law as a crime. It's treated as an assault and that is not enough when you consider the victim of an assault doesn't usually live with their partner. As for your claim about intimidation, the gardai have enough to be doing and don't have time to deal with the likes of that.

This post shows you have no idea what your talking about.
Simple stuff like your not even aware assault is a crime.

Barring Orders are very straight forward to get. An interim order will be issued largely with just injured party evidence. Both people will be summoned to the hearing for the permanent order which will set a high standard of examination but will absolutely be granted if the court believes the partner is being abused. Hundreds are issued every week.

Your encouraging people to not stand up, with your misinformation.

Mardy Bum

Dogowner55 wrote: »

Minor means it's not as she says and therfore sicing a hate mod on him so he cannot defend himself is an very disgraceful thing she did.

Assualt isn't minor so her story doesn't addup

It is minor as in he probably isn't likely to do it now that she has moved out and a file will probably be prepared for the DPP.

Mightydrumming

Dogowner55 wrote: »

Minor means it's not as she says and therfore sicing a hate mod on him so he cannot defend himself is an very disgraceful thing she did.

Assualt isn't minor so her story doesn't addup

So if a doctor says to the E.D ''We've got a minor RTC coming in'' - it's not as he says?

You are making no sense what so ever.

mickstupp

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.

RDM_83 again

I don't really get the motivation for this (at the present time) apart from a completely understandable desire for revenge.
I know the Garda can be a bit useless but she's describing assault outside the home (the gym) even if they don't immediately put your man in the cells they wouldn't just fob it off unless there is more in the lead up to the incident.
Publishing the video doesn't do anything to protect her and antagonises him so I am presuming she is already in a safe place when she sent it.
Why not wait till she had a barring order (which afaik she could get girl I know had one suggested too her)? My guess is she may have technically assaulted him first (that doesn't justify his actions since not self defence though).
None of us really know anything at the minute.

jimdublin15

mickstupp wrote: »

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.

We simply don't know what's going on, and good chance we never will, so to make the conclusion as you have that it's 2015 and hence he should air his side as defense is not helpful at all.

It could be seen as public mud slinging if he did.
It could be his solicitor has advised him to use the proper channels.
It could be he's not adding fuel to the fire for the kids & family sake.

We don't know but I disagree with it's 2015 and he should publicly defend himself. We are thankfully not "judge jury and executioner" because being silent is not an admission of guilt.