How many months of probation?

Remove all ads!

Can't blame you. From how you tell it, the man definitely deserved to be gunned down (and you would have been doing so in self-defense, not cold blood).

On the other hand, I doubt it would be pleasant to live with the knowledge that you had killed someone. Even if they had it coming.

That was a terrible thing for your mother to do.

Not true. Your mother had the opportunity to stop the abuse, but instead shifted the decision onto a child. I understand that this is a very sensitive issue to you, so I'll try to be delicate. I think what she did is awful. Not protecting yourself from abuse is one thing, but if your children are being abused, that's entirely different. It is better to live in poverty happy and safe, than to live in fear of being beaten.

In most instances. Hell, I think you know how I feel about the police. But the case is different for domestic violence, especially in this day and age. It is now *very* easy for a man to be locked up/given a restraining order due to an accusation of domestic violence, truthful or not. Indeed, a court can issue a restraining order against a man accused of DV, without him even appearing in court.

He uses the knowledge that the other party is unlikely to take the initiative to leave and report the incident to the police.

And then I'm in full support of the victim defending themselves. However, shooting someone in cold blood while sleeping, before trying other avenues, is murder.

Walking out the door is the first step. Whether someone has the courage to continue on that path is up to them.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 10 seconds later... ----------

The mother has to apply for custody? Apparently she is given the child by default, even after it was taken from her due to abuse.

Was he offered the child? Was he told of the abuse?

You'd be surprised.

Heh.

It does represent a general rule that the mother is shown preferential treatment in regards to the custody of the children.

Yes, lots of excuses for women.

 

T2, respect where its due

We dont know the terms on which the parents seperated, if the father walks out, he relinquishes custody, at which point its up to the mother whether she wants joint custody or not, if she doesnt, the father has to appeal to court.
In the instance of baby p, there has been nothing to say that the father was not allowed access to his child. so I ask you, where was the father? this abuse went on over a long period of time.

Ive got another one from South Wales:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-408769/Baby-swung-round-ankles-reign-abuse.html

the father is speaking out and complaining about welfare now, but this abuse went on over a period of 8 weeks, where was he when his child needed him?

Can a father breast feed? the female body is better adapted and even adjusted during pregnency to cater to rearing a child - men's bodies don't.

there are plenty of excuses (as you put it) for men too.

 

Now for the second part....

The physical abuse is nothing compared the mental abuse. Physical abuse follows mental abuse because the psychological issues make the physical abuse possible. Abusers target their victims. They look for people with low self-esteem and can be controlled. They take on people who are vulnerable and weak. My mother was a perfect target. I don't defend what she did and I've never gotten an explanation (and never will), but I think she was just beaten down to the point of being happy she wasn't targetted as much.

Humiliation ... insults ... degradation ... these things don't just happen weekly or even daily. The abuser finds sensitive issues, weaknesses, and targets them at every opportunity. I was a tiny kid -- I started high school at 4'9" and weighed 70 pounds. I was a little geek with a high-pitched voice, in all the academic classes for overachievers and I sucked at sports. I was a target at school, but the taunts were mild compared to comments at home.

He had highly offensive pet names for all of us. We were stupid -- said in every possibly offensive way you can think of. The things said about my sisters and mother were absolutely horrific. For me, I was his 'little girl'. If I showed any emotion when he hit, I was his little girl. If I was disappointed by something I was his little girl. In fact, when he was just in a mood to cause pain I was his little girl.

The sadistic glee he got when he caused pain was a psychological weapon in and of itself. He would gloat at some new insult. He was always in a great mood after a beating. Once we were getting up from a table at a restaurant and his cigarette embedded into my hand. I don't know if he did it intentionally, but he giggled all the way out to the car. He found my pain funny.

Being with an abuser is like being tortured. Punishments are random and harsh (for any violation -- there is no minor infraction as all infractions are seen as challenging his authority), the mental abuse distorts the image you have of yourself. I was embarrassed about myself because I was obviously a bad kid, a loser, a dumb ass, and a little girl -- I was too embarrassed to tell anyone about what was happening (I tried once, I told my religious leader -- he said my step-father was the 'patriarch of the family and the lord is guiding his hand'). My mother and my sisters went through the same things I did. During one argument with my mother he came into my room and declared that 'all she needs is a dick and you're old enough to satisfy that.'

These things were constant. It was the continuous stream of insults which rapidly destroyed all of our self-esteem. We were worthless and we were lucky to have him. And we believed him. Getting out an abusive relationship requires that you feel some self-worth, and believe you can actually get away alive. Both of those things are usually the first things an abuser takes from you.

Walking out the door is the hardest thing to do -- it's like jumping from a burning building and hoping there's a net below. Fighting back is an act of desperation -- the abuser has all the weapons, psychological and physical. It doesn't matter what you have at hand, open confrontation gives the advantage to the abuser. I understand why the abused target the abuser when he is 'defenseless'; because that's the only time they have a chance (in their mind). We would not think twice about a torture victim escaping his/her prison by killing 'defenseless' guards, but we take exception to abuse victims doing the same.

My point is really that you need to step away from what you believe is reasonable behavior when dealing with abuse. Nothing about the circumstance is reasonable and people in abusive relationships don't act or respond in a normal way. I would rather see the courts liken it to a form of insanity or extreme depression. You can say whatever you want about violent women offenders getting lesser sentences simply because they're women -- but I'll certainly stand up when you start grouping abused women in the same category.

 

[This turned into a WALLOFTEXT, sorry.]

Got to give credit where credit is due ... this is pretty much spot-on, imo. Women want stability and excitement, but it's rare to find both in one person. The guy who provides stability is more likley to be a beta-male type, since he's sacrificing for others and not putting himself first, while the guy who provides excitement is more likely to be an alpha-male type, since he puts his own needs first (and possibly exclusively) and does not particularly make any sacrifices or concessions. It's easy to see why the alpha type would include abusers, but it also includes anybody who hasn't conventionally 'grown up' and accepted some degree of responsibility.

That women want both* is indeed a paradox and speaks to their own lack of maturity and resignation to the realities of life. You can't have stability with a roving stud, so if you want stability, don't get a roving stud. You can't have 'danger' with a provider, because that's just not his nature, so if what you really value is a day-to-day thrill ride, don't pursue a course in life where you need stability. Seems simple, and yet many many women do become deeply resentful toward their beta-male partners who don't thrill them, as well as their alpha male partners who don't provide.

I guess there are a few guys out there who have some of both traits, and I suspect this person would be the holy grail for women - they are stable non-rovers who provide what men are supposed to provide yet they do not take sh*t off of women, so they are sort of edgy (oooh! ). But they're probably never as dangerous as the a-hole rover guy (how dangerous can you really be if you're home every night?), nor as reliable as the stable provider guy (how reliable can you be if you sometimes get pissed and run off to the bar without permission?)

It's also interesting that women* often actively attempt to force their partners into taking on the traits they don't have. They 'test' beta males to see if they'll stand up for themselves and try to push them out of their comfort zone, which actually just makes them get more ass-kissy, since that's their nature, which only makes the woman more contemptuous and dissatisfied. And they try to get alpha-males to settle down, which only makes them distance themselves and resist more, since that's their nature, which only makes the woman more drawn to them yet still angry that they're not falling in line. (But if they fell in line they would no longer be alpha-ish and women would start to resent them, lol.)

It's a vicious, evil cycle that ends up doing great harm to a lot of people. The betas often end up getting 'rock-starred' to the curb for going to the trouble of accomodating their partners while having the gall to be unexciting, while the women who reject them never really prosper for chasing the alphas, since that's a losing proposition as far as stability and family-rearing go. And the aplhas tend to burn brightly and flame out, just like your local alley cat. This is the crux of the problem behind countless divorce/infidelity/even-worse-things scenarios. Sad-sad-sad, and there's fault to be had in every corner.

Beta provider guy: wake up and stand up for yourself! Being a doormat is ultimately your own fault.
Paradoxical woman: guess what? You can't always get what you want, and you're not so great as to transcend that general rule of existence.
Alpha rover guy: grow up. This isn't high school anymore. One day you're going to end up used up and washed out.

(*generalising for the sake of simplicity - not all women are this way.)

[/END DISSERTATION]

p.s. @T2, that's a moving story, as well as compelling insight into the mindset of abusers. I'd give anything to be able to go a round with guys like that during their reigns of terror.

 

T2, sharing that took cojones.

What you are talking about is a textbook case of abuse, and it is sobering in the extreme. Stories like yours make decent people nauseous, and rightfully so.

What I am arguing is that women who are NOT in such a position reference stories like yours and then use the righteous anger generated by the stories to fuel anger against men who do NOT deserve it, because their behaviour is NOT the same as that displayed by your step-father or anything like unto it.

It is the few who lie who totally disrepect the suffering felt by you and your family.

Mordea, while you are occasionally a little blunt for me, your general view of a lot of women mirrors my own. Good on you for telling the truth about the "free" pass that society is willing to give to women who don't really deserve it.

 

LKD, I am fairly sure that T2's stepfather could have said exactly what you did. Abuse is bad, I was not an abuser, just joking around a little, righteous punishment and a whole lotta lies. Everything is a matter of perspective and most abusers, just like bullies do not view what they do as abuse or bullying.

 

Fair enough, joaqin, which is why there must be an impartial observer judging, not a macho ******* of a jockstrap who doesn't see anything wrong with punching 6 year olds in the face, and not a whining feminist piece of **** who calls abuse when a man loads the dishwasher differently than she does.

I find that today people are all too quick to call abuse. I'm not saying that about T2s case, of course, but I've seen it happen.

 

can anyone post a link to anything regarding this? this attitude is new to me, simply because people who falsely claim abuse are easy to spot.

 

I would refer you to a book I read, if I can remember the title correctly. Aha, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/1594200432

Written by an evolutionary psychologist. It covers a lot of topics, but among them is women killing in mating relationships (husbands, lovers, children) and how society responds. Typically, if the woman can portray an abusive relationship in which they're the victim, they get light sentences, but that's awefully hard to do with children, and anything that breaks the 'good mother/wife' image (including killing a husband if there's not enough pity) tends to be much harsher.

In an intimate relationship, screaming (of the kind mentioned here, at least) is abuse. Emotional abuse. And yes, it's employed by women as often, if not more often, than it is by men.

All of these are likewise with screaming. Emotional abuse is still abuse, but it is a two-way street.

Yes, they're talking about physical abuse here. The screaming, humiliating, insulting, and offending are 'emotional hurt'.

No, the meaning is that an abused woman is ripe for the stealing (i.e. you're making her disloyal). Unfortunately, that's a false statement. Most abused women are sort of 'spell-bound' by their abusers, both too afraid to leave and rationalizing the abuse (He didn't mean it, really, he's sorry).

Do you have any idea how many women in the US are murdered by their husbands/boyfriends every year? "Many" may be a numerical statement (i.e. hundreds), but not a relative statement (i.e. "most").

Mordea, now you just need to stop posting. Besides breaking the rules, you're making gross and inaccurate assumptions. Either that or portraying your own abusive nature. I'm being charitable and assuming the former.

Care to cite any sources? My primary is above, in my response to LKD.

Umm, you may want to take a second look at lion prides.

Just because you don't take it seriously... shows you're way out of touch.

Actually, perfectly legitimate psycho-babble. And distinctly gender-neutral.

 

So if a woman were to walk away from an abusive household, she would be relinquishing custody of her children?

So joint custody is not default, it is something that fathers have to spend legal fees to have a chance of obtaining? Sexist.

I've been over this. He was an idiot for not spotting the abuse. To be fair though, many partners are very reluctant to believe that the other parent is abusing the children, even when there is evidence to contrary. And he was not living at the site of abuse.

Perhaps if Child Services had have liasoned with the father, shown him the evidence of abuse, and granted him custody of the child (ya know, did the job that they were paid to do), things might have turned out different. But then again, that would have required the man to be treated with equality, which as we know, doesn't happen in the West. Men are treated like trash, second class citizens who come last in their child's life. A foster family and an abusive ***** mother and her sex offender boyfriend were chosen over an ignorant but non-abusive father.

I re-iterate, men are treated like trash.

That's right, blame the man. Men are trash. Man are second-class citizens. Men are always at fault. Why is a father responsible for the behaviour of the woman, even when he isn't living with her?

The guy payed his taxes to the government, why couldn't Child Services, the organisation which is funded by his taxes, do their job?

Yeah, women have hands to beat the living **** out of their children.

Custody should be decided on parenting ability, not sexist assumptions. Children need a strong male role model (ie. a father) in their life. Not having one is of a huge detriment.

None which are taken seriously, unlike for women with the ***** pass.

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 48 seconds later... ----------

No, and honestly, I don't care. For all we know, those husbands/boyfriends could have been on the end of years of systematic abuse, and simply snappped.

No.

What about them? Do the weak, supplicant male lions get all the *****?

Freudian nonsense.

 

You're veering away from fair treatment of sexes into a purely men vs women "who has it worse" superficial debate. Men may not always be treated fairly when it comes to children, but I would hardly call them second class citizens or trash because of that. Nor would I say they're always treated unfairly; there are many cases, even from people I know in my life, where the father has won full custody of his children. When the child goes to an abusive household instead of a caring one, no matter which parent is which, there is a flaw in how the case was handled. Perhaps the abusive parent has a better job, perhaps they're simply better at rhetoric; this may be influenced by gender, but I highly doubt that the sole unifying reason behind these sad cases relies on it.

Children should have a strong mother AND father figure; not one or the other. I agree, however, that anatomical concepts shouldn't determine who is the best parent. Breastfeeding means nothing when it's a choice between an abusive mother and a caring father; likewise it means nothing when it's a choice between an abusive father and a caring mother.


On a side note, yes, weak/old male lions who know how to 'woo' female lions "get all the ass," as you so eloquently put it. I can't recall the particular lion's name from the case study, but there was a pretty in-depth one preformed.

 

So, basically, you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about and are just spewing hateful for the sake of it? Ok. At least you're being honest.

Actually, I was thinking about some new studies showing how, in many ways, the lionesses rule the pride, even with a strong lion.

 

That is correct.

 

When it comes to child abuse a man is far more likely to be an offender than a woman. That's just fact. Children are far more likely to be killed by a step-father (or male live in partner) than by a biological father -- by a factor of nearly one hundred.

Men are not treated like trash or second class citizens unless they allow it (by either doing something stupid, hiring a poor attorney, or simply not fighting the claims). I had custody of my kids and most judges are inclined to give full joint custody in the US. There are an increased number of cases where the father is given custody. The problem we have in divorce is that family members usually influence the father and convince him the mother is the best to take care of the children -- the fight is lost before it even starts. Often men associate the child too much with the mother that has just emotionally hurt him and when the mother rejects him, he in turn pulls back from the child. All of these things work against men.

These issues are rather complex and not really related at all with the issue that women are treated preferentially when they commit a crime. What goes on in divorce court has more to do with which side plays the best political game and the losers are always the children.

 

T2 has hit the nail on the head brilliantly once again.

Lol, no, joint custody is default, unless a father walks away and abandons his child, it is the same in reverse, A friend of mines mother walked out on her and her 2 brothers when she was 8, her father raised them until the mother tried to walk back into their lives 2 years ago, the father has won sole custody of his children.

we dont know if they did or didnt, all we know is that there wasnt sufficient cause at the time to keep the child in care.

we have no information regarding the father's involvement in the investigation, for all we know he's a deadbeat who refuses to pay child support and when asked to participate in peter's care he told them to shove it.

has he?

severe underfunding

arent they? a security named sam joshua bowden was recently found not guilty of manslaughter of a man who he strangled to death while attempting to restrain him when he was not trained in restraint techniques. his excuse was "I thought he was trying to escape"

yeah... another good thing to add while your busy bashing women.... it was men in the 2 cases mentioned above who carried out terrible abuse to these children.

 

Just a minor point here. Step-mothers are actually more likely to kill step-children than step-fathers are (by a noticable degree). This lends some validity to the cultural default of letting the mother take the children. The average child is more at risk with a biological father and step-mother than with a biological mother and step-father.

 

I would question the source of that statistic NOG. Men are 10 to 20 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a woman. Male parents are nearly 100 times more likely to kill a child which is not their biological child. This would put step-mothers as the epitome of evil and far outside the normal violent range of women in general. I simply don't think that's reasonable.

 

I agree, what statistic have you got for that NOG and whare did it come from?

 

Again, I'm pulling from the book I mentioned: The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill by Dr. David M. Buss, who got his data from the FBI crime statistics over (I think) several decades. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I think it said something like biological mothers and fathers are about as likely to kill their children (relative to the scale of the others), step-fathers are about 10X more likely, and step-mothers are something like 30X more likely. Of course, they're still pretty rare. The numbers started at something like 1/600,000, so step-fathers would be 1/60,000 and step mothers would be about 1/20,000. Don't quote me on those numbers, though. I'm pulling from memory. The really scary thing is when a child has two step parents. That's gotta be a crappy life to begin with, but they've also got something like a 30X higher probability of murder than the next highest, meaning 30X more likely than step-mothers, or something like 1/666.666!

Odds also increase after the step-parent has had a biological child with the biological parent.

The book is a fascinating read all-in-all, and step-parent murders are only one chapter. It also goes into sociopaths and how most people have a 'creepy-feeling' defense around them, which the author reasons is an evolutionary response to their existince in a social species. The final analysis is that the human mind is designed to be capable of killing, while also designed to be capable of protecting itself from killers.

 

I would believe a step-mother is 30 times more likely to kill than the birth mother. That would put the step-mother on par with the birth father (maybe 2 times more likely).