Medical student assaults girlfriend

Skylinehead

Candie wrote: »

"All women are bitches....except me. I'm cool like you guys. Totally got your back."

pilly wrote: »

All my friends are men too.

Candie wrote: »

Girls are just soo bitchy, I can't stand being around them. So shallow and entitled.

I'm like one of the guys, really.

Mod: Enough.

dresden8

kylith wrote: »

Like you with your 'she waited up to start a fight' speculation that we're supposed to take as gospel?

Okay, I will withdraw the remark. She made the first move. She laid her hand on him first.

I still think it is unwise to start fights. Don't you?

Or do you think it is wise to start fights?

Triceratops Ballet

Gijoseph wrote: »

To sum up: domestic violence against men OK

Domestic violence against women: burn them at the stake.

Not one person said that

Hoboo

Deleted User wrote: »

You say "she did after all slap him". I'm not sure that was ever put to her in the case at all. We can't make any presumptions about her conduct, she wasn't in the dock.

She wasn't required to give evidence in the dock. The facts, including that she slapped him, were presented by a Garda. She wasn't even in the courtroom. Ill presume you didn't bother reading any reports.

RayM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Any need for that ?

Perspective? Yes, definitely. If you had even half an ounce of it, maybe you wouldn't be getting all hung up on the fact that the victim pushed food into the face of someone who went on to kick the crap out of her.

PeterParker957

RayM wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Any need for that ?

Perspective? Yes, definitely. If you had even half an ounce of it, maybe you wouldn't be getting all hung up on the fact that the victim pushed food into the face of someone who went on to kick the crap out of her.

#256

ceadaoin.

dresden8 wrote: »

Okay, I will withdraw the remark. She made the first move. She laid her hand on him first.

I still think it is unwise to start fights. Don't you?

Or do you think it is wise to start fights?

She pushed food into his face. No one has said that is acceptable, it isn't, but it is not a violent assault. He responded by slapping her. So actually he "laid his hand on her first"

kylith

dresden8 wrote: »

Okay, I will withdraw the remark. She made the first move. She laid her hand on him first.

I still think it is unwise to start fights. Don't you?

Or do you think it is wise to start fights?

Oh yes, starting fights is a bad thing.

HOWEVER it is nonsense to say that once someone starts one then all bets are off and no holds are barred. He got a smack in the face and some mayonnaise up his nose, she got asmack in the face, a punch in the back that knocked her to the floor, a severe kicking, and then to cower in a room while her supposed partner tried to kick the door in so he could continue the beating.

There is such a thing as a proportionate response. Do you think that his response was proportionate?

dresden8

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She pushed food into his face. No one has said that is acceptable, it isn't, but it is not a violent assault. He responded by slapping her.

She started the physical element of this "interaction". She started the fight.

I think it is unwise to start fights.

Don't you?

RayM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

#256

What does that mean?

dresden8

kylith wrote: »

Oh yes, starting fights is a bad thing.

HOWEVER it is nonsense to say that once someone starts one then all bets are off and no holds are barred. He got a smack in the face and some mayonnaise up his nose, she got asmack in the face, a punch in the back that knocked her to the floor, a severe kicking, and then to cower in a room while her supposed partner tried to kick the door in so he could continue the beating.

There is such a thing as a proportionate response. Do you think that his response was proportionate?

Actually, no I don't. He should be in jail and screw rich people getting off by paying money.

Nevertheless, she started the fight. And that's never a good thing to do because fights have a tendency to escalate. And you're not in control of the situation anymore.

Just like our friend Mr Machiavelli advised all those years ago.

kylith

dresden8 wrote: »

Actually, no I don't. He should be in jail and screw rich people getting off by paying money.

Nevertheless, she started the fight. And that's never a good thing to do because fights have a tendency to escalate. And you're not in control of the situation anymore.

Just like our friend Mr Machiavelli advised all those years ago.

Fairly sure that A) Machiavelli was talking about war and B ) today, even in war, there are rules of what you can and can't do. North Korea has been threatening people with nukes and has launched some missiles over Japan. Japan has more than enough military power to wipe NK off the map, but they haven't because that would be a massive overreaction, even to what is a deliberate provocation. There would be massive international problems if Japan turned NK into a smoking crater and then shrugged their shoulders and said 'they started it'.

She may have started the fight, but she also finished it by walking away. He is the one who kept going with the intent to cause her serious harm. There is no way to justify his vicious, cowardly actions.

dresden8

kylith wrote: »

Fairly sure that A) Machiavelli was talking about war and B ) today, even in war, there are rules of what you can and can't do. North Korea has been threatening people with nukes and has launched some missiles over Japan. Japan has more than enough military power to wipe NK off the map, but they haven't because that would be a massive overreaction, even to what is a deliberate provocation. There would be massive international problems if Japan turned NK into a smoking crater and then shrugged their shoulders and said 'they started it'.

She may have started the fight, but she also finished it by walking away. He is the one who kept going with the intent to cause her serious harm. There is no way to justify his vicious, cowardly actions.

Is a war not a fight?

And she did try and walk away. But just like Mr. Machiavelli said, they do not end when you please.

And that's why it unwise to start fights.

super_furry

Coming up on 300 posts and I'm still not seeing anything other that a thinly veiled 'she was asking for it'.

tomwaterford

dresden8 wrote: »

Is a war not a fight?

And she did try and walk away. But just like Mr. Machiavelli said, they do not end when you please.

And that's why it unwise to start fights.

Meh looks like your trying to justify what this lad done here, with a misuse of obscure quote



In no world is following someone about,knocking em and repeatedly kicking em a appropriate response to what happened here....anyone who thinks it is,would do well to attend anger management classes

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

dresden8 wrote: »

I think it is unwise to start fights.

Don't you?

dresden8 wrote: »

Or do you think it is wise to start fights?

dresden8 wrote: »

Ah another one who makes stuff up to fit their world view. Starting fights is bad, mkay?

Or do you people think starting fights is good?

dresden8 wrote: »

Starting fights is bad, mkay?

Jesus Christ if it'll save nine more of these posts I'll bite.

I do think starting fights is bad. I think you can presume that everybody here broadly agrees with that.

Is there some further point or are you just stuck on that setting?

WHIP IT!

super_furry wrote: »

Coming up on 300 posts and I'm still not seeing anything other that a thinly veiled 'she was asking for it'.

Really? Are you referring to one particular poster or the whole thread? Because dozens of people have been clearly abhorred by the Accused's actions.

kylith

dresden8 wrote: »

Is a war not a fight?

And she did try and walk away. But just like Mr. Machiavelli said, they do not end when you please.

And that's why it unwise to start fights.

So he was completely unable to control himself and she should have expected a row about, presumably, him coming home drunk at 3:30 am to have ended with her in the hospital.

What if he started it? What if he provoked her into throwing the food? If I get in a shouting match with my OH is it ok for him to take a swing at me because I'm the one who started yelling?

Dude, you're actually coming across someone who may have grown up in a very troubling home environment if you think that a minor physical altercation winding up with someone trying to kick down a door so they can keep beating their partner is somehow reasonable.

ceadaoin.

dresden8 wrote: »

She started the physical element of this "interaction". She started the fight.

I think it is unwise to start fights.

Don't you?

Yes but I'm sure she wasn't expecting to be beaten and humiliated. You seem to be gloating about the fact that she was after daring to start it. Simply challenging someone on their ****ty behaviour or raising your voice could be considered "starting a fight" (and we don't know that this isn't how this incident started). Would she also deserve a beating then?

dresden8

Devin Tinkling Scapegoat wrote: »

Jesus Christ if it'll save nine more of these posts I'll bite.

I do think starting fights is bad. I think you can presume that everybody here broadly agrees with that.

Is there some further point or are you just stuck on that setting?

You're agreed then. She was wrong to start a fight. Good.

dresden8

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes but I'm sure she wasn't expecting to be beaten and humiliated. You seem to be gloating about the fact that she was after daring to start it. Simply challenging someone on their ****ty behaviour or raising your voice could be considered "starting a fight" (and we don't know that this isn't how this incident started). Would she also deserve a beating then?

She didn't challenge him or raise her voice. She made it physical when she shoved the food into his face. That's assault. That's the start of a fight. She started the fight. She shouldn't have.

Chrongen

Deleted User wrote: »

Did he complain? Is there some suggestion that he went to the police and said he was the victim of an assault and they questioned her about the food-pushing aspect, or the slap?

Sure if he didn't regard himself as having been assaulted, and she wasn't charged with assault, the issue is all very moot. Isn't it? You say "she did after all slap him". I'm not sure that was ever put to her in the case at all. We can't make any presumptions about her conduct, she wasn't in the dock.

You are correct. But we must also entertain the possibility that while charges were filed against him on the night in question she may have since chosen not to cooperate with the prosecution. The fact that the case has been adjourned until next April I think would suggest this. I could be wrong but I have seen cases whereby the aggrieved party has involved the police in the heat of the moment only to then have a change of heart and not wish to pursue an active case. She has sobered up, realised that this is a serious business and she doesn't want it to go the distance.

This doesn't excuse his violent conduct but if there was such acrimony between the two and she was adamant to press ahead with the charges I can only imagine that he too would want to drag her through the mire by pressing charges however flimsy.

I'm guessing that his lawyer has told him to have her refuse to cooperate and in turn to enter into a pleas whereby the case is adjourned contemplating dismissal.

I could be wildly off the mark here. Was she in court giving evidence? But spats between estranged partners can often seem a lot more serious than they are and when they involve the police they regret it after the dust settles and the booze wears off.

And please, anyone who wants to chime in and blindly accuse me of apologising for the guy and his thuggish actions can save your breath. I'm not saying that and I'm not going to be drawn on it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ok so you are just stuck on that setting.

Hoboo

Chrongen wrote: »

The fact that the case has been adjourned until next April I think would suggest this.

I'm guessing that his lawyer has told him to have her refuse to cooperate and in turn to enter into a pleas whereby the case is adjourned contemplating dismissal.

I could be wildly off the mark here. Was she in court giving evidence?

Have you read any of the reports?

RayM

dresden8 wrote: »

You're agreed then. She was wrong to start a fight. Good.

Why is it so important to you that the victim of an unprovoked attack should be blamed for "starting" a previous physical altercation (one which had ended when she left the room)?

WHIP IT!

Chrongen wrote: »

I'm guessing that his lawyer has told him to have her refuse to cooperate and in turn to enter into a pleas whereby the case is adjourned contemplating dismissal.

..... what??

Chrongen

super_furry wrote: »

Coming up on 300 posts and I'm still not seeing anything other that a thinly veiled 'she was asking for it'.

Well she was asking for some kind of reaction but what she got, I'll agree, was vicious and over the top.

If he, instead of laying a finger on her, calmly went into her room and smashed up her TV set or coveted ornaments she most certainly would have been asking for that and you would probably concur. That's a crime too...destruction of property. The fact that she got a beating doesn't change the fact that she was asking for something.

Did she deserve the beating?NO, not at all and nobody is condoning it, like you're "thinly" trying to maintain.

B0jangles

RayM wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that the victim of an unprovoked attack should be blamed for "starting" a previous physical altercation (one which had ended when she left the room)?

If you apply the understanding of justice and fair play that a 5-year old has, it actually makes perfect sense.

By the age of 6 most people have learned the next stage: 'I don't care WHO started it, both of you, sit down and eat your tea!'

After that, a more nuanced understanding usually develops.

Chrongen

WHIP IT! wrote: »

..... what??

What do you mean "WHAT?"

What's so hard for you to understand? I've seen it before. boyfriend / girlfriend bust up that they regret after but now it's in the hands of the courts and they don't want it to go the distance. Ask any lawyer.

WHIP IT!

Chrongen wrote: »

What do you mean "WHAT?"

What's so hard for you to understand? I've seen it before. boyfriend / girlfriend bust up that they regret after but now it's in the hands of the courts and they don't want it to go the distance. Ask any lawyer.

So, you think she no longer wants to go ahead with the case and, instead of dropping the charges, she has - on the advice of the lawyer of the chap who kicked her around her gaf - decided to become uncooperative with the court... is that correct?

Chrongen

Hoboo wrote: »

Have you read any of the reports?

I read the newspaper article. It makes no mention of her being in court to give evidence.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Chrongen wrote: »

I read the newspaper article. It makes no mention of her being in court to give evidence.

He pleaded guilty, why would she be?

Chrongen

WHIP IT! wrote: »

So, you think she no longer wants to go ahead with the case and, instead of dropping the charges, she has - on the advice of the lawyer of the chap who kicked her around her gaf - decided to become uncooperative with the court... is that correct?

I've seen it before.

Triceratops Ballet

Gijoseph wrote: »

Or thinly veiled its perfectly OK to hit men.

Again where was that said?

pitifulgod

Chrongen wrote: »

I read the newspaper article. It makes no mention of her being in court to give evidence.

There's no requirement to be in court, trauma could be the exact reason she wasn't in court. This is a brutal attack, stop painting it as an argument that got out of hand.

PeterParker957

pitifulgod wrote: »

Chrongen wrote: »

I read the newspaper article. It makes no mention of her being in court to give evidence.

There's no requirement to be in court, trauma could be the exact reason she wasn't in court. This is a brutal attack, stop painting it as an argument that got out of hand.

That's exactly what it was.

WHIP IT!

Chrongen wrote: »

I've seen it before.

A Guilty plea was a fairly bold strategy so, Cotton... ya gotta wonder if it's gonna pay off!

pitifulgod

PeterParker957 wrote: »

That's exactly what it was.

It's a brutal attack. Far worse than any out of hand argument. He was intent on making her physically and mentally suffering.

RayM

PeterParker957 wrote: »

That's exactly what it was.

I can only assume that you're being willfully obtuse. If someone is being chased from room to room, being punched to the ground and repeatedly kicked while they're down, before having a can of Coke ritually poured upon them, that's a sustained attack - not merely some "argument that got out of hand".

PeterParker957

pitifulgod wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

That's exactly what it was.

It's a brutal attack. Far worse than any out of hand argument. He was intent on making her physically and mentally suffering.

Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

Chrongen

Devin Tinkling Scapegoat wrote: »

He pleaded guilty, why would she be?

Yes, he did. You're right. So this was actually a hearing/arraignment rather than a trial where she would be required to give evidence.

If he pled guilty then why was the case adjourned? Surely open and closed?

Was the case adjourned or was the guilty verdict accepted and a date for sentencing set?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

OH MY GOD WE GET IT

PeterParker957

RayM wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

That's exactly what it was.

I can only assume that you're being willfully obtuse. If someone is being chased from room to room, being punched to the ground and repeatedly kicked while they're down, before having a can of Coke ritually poured upon them, that's a sustained attack - not merely some "argument that got out of hand".

"Ritually" ????

pablo128

I'll bet she thinks twice about raising her hand (or curry tray) to anyone again.

Don Kiddick

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

Perhaps you are correct and she should have not run away, only aggravated the situation I guess ...I mean,...if she's not going to stand and take a punch, she only has herself to blame when he gives her a shoeing

PeterParker957

Devin Tinkling Scapegoat wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

OH MY GOD WE GET IT

Chill, dearie chill.

Triceratops Ballet

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

WTF has this to do with feminism, it was one human attacking another in a brutal and unjustifiable way.

strandroad

PeterParker957 wrote: »

That's exactly what it was.

If it happened to you, if you threw food at your partner and unleashed the Hulk who beats you down and chases after you trying to kick the door in, would you just take it? Would you sit on it, if it was just an argument you started after all? Would you have so little respect for yourself and consideration for other people he might go all psycho on next?

PeterParker957

pablo128 wrote: »

I'll bet she thinks twice about raising her hand (or curry tray) to anyone again.

Unlikely. She's seen what happens and how her instigating a fight gets defended, excused and swept under the rug.

Triceratops Ballet

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Unlikely. She's seen what happens and how her instigating a fight gets defended, excused and swept under the rug.

Show me 1 post, where someone has said she was right to throw food in his face.