Medical student assaults girlfriend

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

RayM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you're going to use the language of abusers while attempting to mitigate their crimes, don't be shocked when you're called out on it.

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rather tellingly, you asserted earlier that "There's a lot more to it than your man bad woman good tripe". We get it - you don't like it when men are the bad guys because women are equally capable of being bad, etc, etc. Seriously though, do yourself a favour and don't choose this case as the hill you're gonna die on. Find one where there's, ya know, at least some level of ambiguity.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

backspin.

I think people are going to come away from this thread with the belief that it is OK for a woman to assault a man when she is angry. And if she does she is blameless.

Shoving food in someones face is obnoxious.

Punching someone to the ground and kicking the bejeezus out of them is criminal.

Spot the difference.

pitifulgod

Patww79 wrote: »

Ah year sure it's the excuse I use all the time myself! :rolleyes:

I just want to know where is the unquestionable certainty that there was mental abuse on his part in the lead up to it all.

The fact he pursued her through the home and could very easily have murdered her. In addition pouring coca cola over her, would indicate he has a personality that enjoys psychological abuse. No decent person would do what he did...

The J Stands for Jay

anna080 wrote: »

This is a no brainier for me. He is totally to blame. She pushed a take away in his face and gets the absolute shlt kicked out of her for it. To kick another person when they're lying on the ground is scumbag behaviour.

Worrying that people think she shares some of the responsibility for his disgusting actions towards her. Precarious times indeed but people are losing the ability to see right from wrong in the process.

The ref should give a free kick against her for the initial foul. For the off the ball incident, he should get a straight red, with a report sent the the authorities. He should receive a lengthy ban and a large fine.

RayM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More like, if you use the most blatantly obvious language of an abuser while trying to blame a victim, eyebrows will be raised. Don't play dumb.

backspin.

Candie wrote: »

Shoving food in someones face is obnoxious.

Punching someone to the ground and kicking the bejeezus out of them is criminal.

Spot the difference.

What about this for an idea. Don't do either.

Shoving food in someones face is an extremely confrontational thing to do. No man would ever do it to another man during an argument and not expect things to escalate very very fast. This woman did it to a violent man and he reacted as he did. I think its reckless for people to downplay her role in the incident. The message should always be that during an argument never lash out. She was wrong to start it and he was very very wrong to beat her up. Actions have consequences and all adults need to act wisely particularly during confrontations.

rgace

backspin. wrote: »

A test for people. Go down to your local chippy tonight after the nightclubs have closed. Find some drunk guy much bigger than you and shove his curry chips in his face. Let me know how things go for you?

The chances are a much bigger guy would give you a belt or push you away and warn you to **** off or else.
Do you think the majority of drunk, big guys kick the ****e out of anyone who hassles them?

Collie D

Every once in a while this forum brings up a thread that really makes you wonder about people. This is one.

Yes, she was a bit of a weapon for pushing the food in his face. Was it justification for punching her from behind and kicking her while she was on the ground? The answer to that should tell you a lot about yourself.

She probably provoked him into it. Women should definitely take the blame for everything and anything that happens to them. Probably a stupid feminist who thinks men should be 2nd class citizens anyway.

pitifulgod

backspin. wrote: »

What about this for an idea. Don't do either.

Shoving food in someones face is an extremely confrontational thing to do. No man would ever do it to another man during an argument and not expect things to escalate very very fast. This woman did it to a violent man and he reacted as he did. I think its reckless for people to downplay her role in the incident. The message should always be that during an argument never lash out. She was wrong to start it and he was very very wrong to beat her up. Actions have consequences and all adults need to act wisely particularly during confrontations.

It's pretty reckless that you appear to be legitimising his response. He could have killed her, such a person should be sent to jail as ultimately they are a danger to public safety.

Sand

The problem here is the attack was sustained. It would be one thing if he had a moment of rage when she threw the food at him and had lashed out in that moment. But he followed her to attack her. Time enough for him to grab hold of himself.

Medical students seem to get an easy enough ride in courts for some reason. There was that junkie in the UK who stabbed her (then) boyfriend because he got between her and her addiction. She got off lightly in court and is back studying as if nothing had happened.

I presume its because medical students, all other things being equal, are more likely to be from the right sort of families.

tomwaterford

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's pretty reckless that you appear to be legitimising his response. He could have killed her, such a person should be sent to jail as ultimately they are a danger to public safety.

The judge has more or less implied he'll get off Scot free if he pays compensation


I'd have taught this would've been the bigger scandel here,
This lads buying his way outta conviction for violent offences.....not me wan throwing chips at him???

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pitifulgod

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The absolute animal is the man who beat the living daylights out of a woman and could have murdered if she hadn't locked the door. There was no justification for his behaviour.

RayM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please, spare me the histrionics. You're responsible for what you post. If it looks like a duck, etc...

jeonahr

Since he had just come home from a night out what's the likelihood that he was drunk? If so, it changes things slightly, especially since he's a first time offender and was initially provoked.

sabat

Given that there's no mention of any injuries or medical attention being required, I'd say the assault wasn't as bad as some people here are inferring.

PeterParker957

I ever get in trouble for decking a bloke in a drunken fight I'm calling you as character witnesses.

Sure I have a rack therefore I'm never guilty eh ?

tomwaterford

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I ever get in trouble for decking a bloke in a drunken fight I'm calling you as character witnesses.

Sure I have a rack therefore I'm never guilty eh ?

WTF??


How did yous pull that conclusion out of this??



To go off rails altogether....why not use example of a toddler what throw food at someone....could you condone chasing them down,knocking them over and kicking them??

PeterParker957

tomwaterford wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I ever get in trouble for decking a bloke in a drunken fight I'm calling you as character witnesses.

Sure I have a rack therefore I'm never guilty eh ?

WTF??


How did yous pull that conclusion out of this??



To go off rails altogether....why not use example of a toddler what throw food at someone....could you condone chasing them down,knocking them over and kicking them??

No because the toddler may not know better.

However you would of course explain that actions have consequences and if you start a fight you may end off worse.

Collie D

jeonahr wrote: »

Since he had just come home from a night out what's the likelihood that he was drunk? If so, it changes things slightly, especially since he's a first time offender and was initially provoked.

Then perhaps he needs to look at himself and his behaviour after a few pints. Being drunk is no justification. If that were the case I'd have a skin full tomorrow and knock over the local Post Office. Christmas is coming after all, times are tight. And sure, I was drunk.

pitifulgod

sabat wrote: »

Given that there's no mention of any injuries or medical attention being required, I'd say the assault wasn't as bad as some people here are inferring.

Eh, the judge literally specifies.

"What this woman went through is horrific," said the judge.

Even if, physical injuries are limited. There's clearly gonna be a psychological impact from such an event. People seem to desperate to diminish the seriousness of his actions...

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No because the toddler may not know better.

However you would of course explain that actions have consequences and if you start a fight you may end off worse.

Again, he didn't raise the defence that she started it.

We have to be very careful. Words like "manipulation" don't help, as it suggests she contrived and controlled the situation to achieve an end she wanted, which seems unlikely. A word like "provocation" might be less inflammatory...but again he didn't he say that. There is no suggestion whatsoever from the accused that she did anything that contributed in any way to the sustained violence to which she was subjected.

ceadaoin.

sabat wrote: »

Given that there's no mention of any injuries or medical attention being required, I'd say the assault wasn't as bad as some people here are inferring.

She attended a doctor the next day according to the herald.ie article

In fairness, the description given in the article sounds pretty bad. No one is "inferring" anything.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No because the toddler may not know better.

However you would of course explain that actions have consequences and if you start a fight you may end off worse.

Again, he didn't raise the defence that she started it.

We have to be very careful. Words like "manipulation" don't help, as it suggests she contrived and controlled the situation to achieve an end she wanted, which seems unlikely. A word like "provocation" might be less inflammatory...but again he didn't he say that. There is no suggestion whatsoever from the accused that she did anything that contributed in any way to the sustained violence to which she was subjected.

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

Collie D

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

And he slapped her back. If you think fair is fair then that's where it ends.

She walked away, he followed her and assaulted her.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

In the entire history of law, "putting hands on someone" is not per se a defence to being accused of punching and kicking to the ground.

There are related defences, like self defence, or mitigating issues like provocation. Neither was raised in this case.

I'd respectfully suggest you get some grasp of the issues you raise.

pitifulgod

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

The verdict hasn't indicated any sort of 'manipulation'.... Even the very idea that a person could be manipulated to do what he did is indicative of him being a pretty awful individual. This is not the story of a man who is suffering unfair consequences, it's too restrained a punishment if anything.

tomwaterford

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

This makes what follows somehow less serious in your eyes??

RayM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

And he responded by... uh... chasing her around the house and "putting his foot on her", repeatedly and with force. Your posts are so weird and illogical, I'm not even sure what kind of point you're trying to make.

PeterParker957

tomwaterford wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest you read the story again. She put her hands on him.

This makes what follows somehow less serious in your eyes??

Is that what I said ? No.

retro:electro

The pouring of the coke over her actually disgusts me. The whole thing is sickening but that is truly vile.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Is that what I said ? No.

What are you trying to say?

tomwaterford

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Is that what I said ? No.

So why mention it??

PeterParker957

tomwaterford wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Is that what I said ? No.

So why mention it??

Because another poster was trying to say it never happened.

I had the misfortune to know a woman like this many years ago. She boasted how she'd hit her boyfriend, "I own him and he can't do anything".

I suggested once that he could go to the police and she very confidently stated "they'd believe me not him".

She was right them and she'd be even more right in the current world. My own gender sicken me at times.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Because another poster was trying to say it never happened.

I had the misfortune to know a woman like this many years ago. She boasted how she'd hit her boyfriend, "I own him and he can't do anything".

I suggested once that he could go to the police and she very confidently stated "they'd believe me not him".

She was right them and she'd be even more right in the current world. My own gender sicken me at times.

You've got a phenomenal amount of experience of women being sexist. Phenomenal. You've a relevant anecdote for all these threads.

strandroad

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I suggested once that he could go to the police and she very confidently stated "they'd believe me not him".

She was right them and she'd be even more right in the current world. My own gender sicken me at times.

You don't need to lose any sleep it seems, over your sickening gender or sickening victims in general:

A Garda Inspectorate report detailed particular problems with attitudes towards domestic violence within the force, finding some complaints were treated as a waste of time.

Some members of the force displayed "negative attitudes" towards domestic violence by referring to calls as problematic, time-consuming and a waste of resources, the findings which were published today reported.

The investigation found domestic crime incidents recorded under non-crime categories.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-report-details-problems-in-force-with-attitudes-to-domestic-violence-30736992.html

PeterParker957

Candie wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Because another poster was trying to say it never happened.

I had the misfortune to know a woman like this many years ago. She boasted how she'd hit her boyfriend, "I own him and he can't do anything".

I suggested once that he could go to the police and she very confidently stated "they'd believe me not him".

She was right them and she'd be even more right in the current world. My own gender sicken me at times.

You've got a phenomenal amount of experience of women being sexist. Phenomenal. You've a relevant anecdote for all these threads.

She was very passive aggressive also. You'd get on well

gozunda

Uboat wrote: »

"Hugh Moody (23) attacked the trainee pharmacist when she pushed a takeaway meal in his face."

She started it therefore he was right.

Seriously - what age are you?

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

She was very passive aggressive also. You'd get on well

Judging by this, you're something of a master yourself!

pitifulgod

PeterParker957 wrote: »

She was very passive aggressive also. You'd get on well

Honestly based on many of your posts, it seems like you have it in for women in general. Trying to vilify whenever you have the chance.

Collie D

pitifulgod wrote: »

Honestly based on many of your posts, it seems like you have it in for women in general. Trying to vilify whenever you have the chance.

Strangely enough I actually think that poster is a woman.

gozunda

bluewolf wrote: »

She probably provoked him into it. Women should definitely take the blame for everything and anything that happens to them. Probably a stupid feminist who thinks men should be 2nd class citizens anyway.

The only person anyone can blame for losing their temper is themselves. Each individual is the master of their own rational and their reaction to external events. 'Blaming' someone else for your behaviour is akin to a three year old saying "he/ she made me do it"

As for the the next statement of

bluewolf wrote:

Women should definitely take the blame for everything and anything that happens to them

What if they were a same sex couple or it was the woman who followed/punched/ kicked their partner- would that make for a different judgement from you?

As for the rest- it really does not warrant any further comment tbh.

And you are a category mod? Wow....

tomwaterford

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Because another poster was trying to say it never happened.

I had the misfortune to know a woman like this many years ago. She boasted how she'd hit her boyfriend, "I own him and he can't do anything".

I suggested once that he could go to the police and she very confidently stated "they'd believe me not him".

She was right them and she'd be even more right in the current world. My own gender sicken me at times.

This had literally zero to do with this case?

There is noone anywhere implying this woman was abusing her boyfriend here



There was no action this wan took/done what justified getting knocked,kicked and chased about the house?

They were living together 3 weeks...there is nothing here to imply a sustained pattern of abuse...



..have you perhaps taught of therapy if your willing to apply actions of one person and damn an entire gendar for it....as this is essentially the flip side of extreme feminism??

strandroad

Collie D wrote: »

Strangely enough I actually think that poster is a woman.

She claims to be, but she's been very vocal in the recent abuse threads, always finding faults in female victims - a typical "I'm with the guys" cool girl persona.

To push food in someone's face is a nasty and shameful thing, but she got it right back and more the moment he started with the slaps. And nothing justifies what happened later when he went after her in a full psycho mode. How could anyone focus on the victims actions is beyond me. For the record, I'd say the same about a "a lad gets in someone's face in the chipper, is beaten up and glassed in response".

retro:electro

Peter Parker the irony of your posts is that you yourself actually stand for the very thing you seem to think you're the anthesis of.
You're just reversing the genders.

retro:electro

Guess what, she could have held a knife to this throat and been threatening to kill him and I still think he would be solely to blame for kicking the living shlt out of her.