Domestic violence

[paulige]

I don't think that's been the message.

"All men need to help" is the message I've seen. "Men need to do better" - as a group we do, even if individuals are doing their best.

Sorry, I left out the context, I was responding specifically to this suggestion from page 1 (which then got debated for a page or two):

Who would oppose "all men need to reduce their violence against women"? And why?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Bill Burr has a famous bit on why you cant ever hit a woman, but that doesnt mean you dont ever have a reason to hit a woman. Deconstructs how simple and stupid broad claims can be.

"Feeling like you want to" is maybe what he means.

This is wandering into the areas of provocation, not 'wanting'.

In fact I doubt anyone who would actually advocate to 'hitting the missus' would 'want' to, more like they're frustrated and provoked. Ok they're aholes who can't control their temper, but that doesn't mean they're not frustrated and provoked by their partner.

I didn't get much into that video, but ol Bill comes up with a scenario

Boy meets girl
Both fall in love
Get married
He comes home from work one day, she's bangin the neighbor
Argument ensues
Divorce
She takes everything
He still has to work to support the house that she's now living in.

This is obviously an extreme case, and rarely if ever happens that way.

But you can bet your house that there's a myriad of scenarios of provocation (this works both ways of course). Does that excuse DV?

Phek no!

I find it odd though that the message is ALL about ALL men behaving badly and NEVER EVER is provocation mentioned.

I've never heard anywhere 'don't provoke your partner'

I feel it's a two-way street but it's taboo to even think about it being a two-way street, coz that must be misogyny.

 

[Chief]

I find it odd though that the message is ALL about ALL men behaving badly and NEVER EVER is provocation mentioned.

I've never heard anywhere 'don't provoke your partner'

I feel it's a two-way street but it's taboo to even think about it being a two-way street, coz that must be misogyny.

Because provocation is (a) no longer a defence, or even a mitigating factor, and (b) bullshit.

 

[the_interloper]

Because provocation is (a) no longer a defence, or even a mitigating factor, and (b) bullshit.

What about if the wife attacks the husband with a weapon, would that count as provocation?

 

[Chief]

What about if the wife attacks the husband with a weapon, would that count as provocation?

Defence of self.

Law people can pull me up by all means, but my knowledge of it is...

In Qld:

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 271
Self-defence against unprovoked assault

271 Self-defence against unprovoked assault

(1) When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for the person to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault, if the force used is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for the person to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous bodily harm.

So, blocking and holding arms of a girl attacking you because you didn't do the dishes is reasonable. If she's just whacking you in the arm with little effect, you've got no real reason to hit her back full force. If she's attacking you with a knife you can defend yourself until she stops, then call the cops.

I can't recall the defences to killing a partner after years of abuse. I remember two cases a while ago that got some meninists hot under the collar. Two cases of extended abuse, one set her husband alight and ran away, the other killed his wife and tried to hide the body. Same up until after the act - difference being in the thought and actions afterwards as I recall.

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 268
Provocation
268 Provocation

(1) The term

"provocation" , used with reference to an offence of which an assault is an element, means and includes, except as hereinafter stated, any wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be likely, when done to an ordinary person, or in the presence of an ordinary person to another person who is under the person’s immediate care, or to whom the person stands in a conjugal, parental, filial, or fraternal, relation, or in the relation of master or servant, to deprive the person of the power of self-control, and to induce the person to assault the person by whom the act or insult is done or offered.

(2) When such an act or insult is done or offered by one person to another, or in the presence of another to a person who is under the immediate care of that other, or to whom the latter stands in any such relation as aforesaid, the former is said to give to the latter provocation for an assault.

(3) A lawful act is not provocation to any person for an assault.

(4) An act which a person does in consequence of incitement given by another person in order to induce the person to do the act, and thereby to furnish an excuse for committing an assault, is not provocation to that other person for an assault.

(5) An arrest which is unlawful is not necessarily provocation for an assault, but it may be evidence of provocation to a person who knows of the illegality.

You break it down and compare it to the facts of the case.

Wrongful act - Judgements over the years have taken away things like "gay panic" as a basis of provocation defence.

Or insult - I'm not up on the meaning, but it's not "**** off idiot" or anything simple like that.

"Ordinary person" - There's a big list of things of what an ordinary person is. Drunkenness and mental illness don't make you less of an ordinary person in the eyes of the law. "he was shitting me all day, and later on when I was drunk he did it again" isn't an excuse to punch someone.

"deprive of self-control" - You'd have to look at the courts interpretations of this - but I don't think it's "I caught her snogging another bloke outside the pub so I lashed out".


Lawyer web site sez:

Defences To Assault Charges - Brisbane's Best Law Firm | Aitken Whyte Lawyers

Our criminal lawyers can assist you to defend against assault charges. We have successfully had clients acquitted at trial. Contact us for legal advice.

www.awbrisbanelawyers.com.au

In this event, they may legally use as much force as is reasonably required to defend themselves.

However, they must not intend the force used and it must not be likely:

• to cause death to their assailant; or
• to cause grievous bodily harm to their assailant.

The exception to this is where the nature of the attack causes the person to reasonably:

• fear for their life; or
• believe they will suffer grievous bodily harm.

In this situation, if the person reasonably believes there is no alternative, they may:

• use any force necessary to defend themselves from death; or
• use whatever force necessary to defend themselves from grievous bodily harm.

This is the case even if the force is likely to cause the attacker grievous bodily harm or death.


I've had too much coffee again....

 

[the_interloper]

Defence of self.

Law people can pull me up by all means, but my knowledge of it is...

In Qld:



So, blocking and holding arms of a girl attacking you because you didn't do the dishes is reasonable. If she's just whacking you in the arm with little effect, you've got no real reason to hit her back full force. If she's attacking you with a knife you can defend yourself until she stops, then call the cops.

I can't recall the defences to killing a partner after years of abuse. I remember two cases a while ago that got some meninists hot under the collar. Two cases of extended abuse, one set her husband alight and ran away, the other killed his wife and tried to hide the body. Same up until after the act - difference being in the thought and actions afterwards as I recall.



You break it down and compare it to the facts of the case.

Wrongful act - Judgements over the years have taken away things like "gay panic" as a basis of provocation defence.

Or insult - I'm not up on the meaning, but it's not "heck off idiot" or anything simple like that.

"Ordinary person" - There's a big list of things of what an ordinary person is. Drunkenness and mental illness don't make you less of an ordinary person in the eyes of the law. "he was shitting me all day, and later on when I was drunk he did it again" isn't an excuse to punch someone.

"deprive of self-control" - You'd have to look at the courts interpretations of this - but I don't think it's "I caught her snogging another bloke outside the pub so I lashed out".



I've had too much coffee again....

Yeah that's pretty much how I would play it too. I mean if a bloke took a swing at me I'd probably respond in kind, but if it was a woman I would try and subdue unless a weapon was involved.

I'm not convinced my wife would be able to find where the kitchen knives are anyway though, not sure she's ever used one!

 

[Chief]

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because provocation is (a) no longer a defence, or even a mitigating factor, and (b) bullshit.

I never said it was a 'defence' I clearly alluded that provocation must be a factor.

Unless of course you think humans are robots and are not emotionally effected by provocation.

If you don't want to recognize that provocation maybe a causal factor, then you're part of the problem.

Dumb reply, but not surprising you jump the shark with this reactive post, I should've known better.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What about if the wife attacks the husband with a weapon, would that count as provocation?

Of course it would, but some want to stick their fingers in their ears and 'la la la la' trying to ignore that.

This is really disappointing from our resident admin. I should've expected that abhorrent reply though.

 

[Chief]

Of course it would, but some want to stick their fingers in their ears and 'la la la la' trying to ignore that.

This is really disappointing from our resident admin. I should've expected that abhorrent reply though.

Read the response that talks a bit about the law. Or have a meninist whinge.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Read the response that talks a bit about the law. Or have a meninist whinge.

Typical dismissive comeback 'meninest whinge'

You just don't wanna acknowledge what should be acknowledged, but nah I'm the 'meninest'

 

[Carringbush2010]

So, blocking and holding arms of a girl attacking you because you didn't do the dishes is reasonable. If she's just whacking you in the arm with little effect, you've got no real reason to hit her back full force.

There's never ever a justifiable reason.

If she's attacking you with a knife you can defend yourself until she stops, then call the cops.

Or she manages to kill you, all good then

I remember two cases a while ago that got some meninists hot under the collar

There you go using inciteful language again.

one set her husband alight and ran away,

She was probably provoked, doesn't excuse it, but if you put yourself in her shoes she was probably provoked.

 

[Chief]

She was probably provoked, doesn't excuse it, but if you put yourself in her shoes she was probably provoked.

From what I remember, in both cases I mentioned the person was the victim of extended DV, so it was judged basically self defence but some blame for the nature of the act. The male got a heavy sentence, but it was for hiding the body afterwards, the female got a lighter sentence because she didn't hide it.

 

[Chief]

Typical dismissive comeback 'meninest whinge'

You just don't wanna acknowledge what should be acknowledged, but nah I'm the 'meninest'

Yes it was unlawful provocation, being extended domestic violence and defence of self.

 

[the_interloper]

Of course it would, but some want to stick their fingers in their ears and 'la la la la' trying to ignore that.

This is really disappointing from our resident admin. I should've expected that abhorrent reply though.

To be fair to Chief I believe he did acknowledge that it would be provocation in that case.

Of course you might also end up discussing that a woman shouldn’t be violent to her male partner either, you don’t hear that much though.

 

[Chief]

To be fair to Chief I believe he did acknowledge that it would be provocation in that case.

Of course you might also end up discussing that a woman shouldn’t be violent to her male partner either, you don’t hear that much though.

Nobody should be.

But males do it more, cause more deaths and injuries when they do.

 

[Carringbush2010]

To be fair to Chief I believe he did acknowledge that it would be provocation in that case.

Of course you might also end up discussing that a woman shouldn’t be violent to her male partner either, you don’t hear that much though.

Yeah, took him a while.

Nobody should be.

But males do it more, cause more deaths and injuries when they do.

Yes, males do, in other news water is wet. Every dog and its bowl knows this already.

The problem though is the narrative from the advertising campaign or any campaigning DOES NOT mention whatsoever that provocation maybe a factor.

Like I said earlier, I get the impression that mentioning provocation will be labelled an excuse and therefore taboo.

That is a big part of the problem.

 

[Carringbush2010]

From what I remember, in both cases I mentioned the person was the victim of extended DV, so it was judged basically self defence but some blame for the nature of the act. The male got a heavy sentence, but it was for hiding the body afterwards, the female got a lighter sentence because she didn't hide it.

I replied about the women who set her fella alight, no excuses, but clearly provocation was a factor.

 

[Chief]

I replied about the women who set her fella alight, no excuses, but clearly provocation was a factor.

Yes in response to the extended DV she acted in self defence.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yes in response to the extended DV she acted in self defence.

And maybe I shouldn't be, but good on her I say < that may not be a popular opinion.

Meh, if anyone has a problem with that, come at me.

 

[Chief]

And maybe I shouldn't be, but good on her I say < that may not be a popular opinion.

Meh, if anyone has a problem with that, come at me.

The great shame is that there isn't more support. She would have been able to get out and get on with her life instead of facing murder charges. The husband might even have been able to get his own help and survived. Whatever the type of person he was, these things cost the public millions and millions of dollars.

 

[burge13]

All men need to reduce violence against women.

Stupid comment

How does one reduce zero violence?

 

[the_interloper]

All men need to reduce violence against women.

How about the ones who are never violent to women?

 

[peetoo]

Stupid comment

How does one reduce zero violence?

While the commentary always goes the ridiculous, serious distraction from the key issues. Which have been covered already

 

[Chief]

All men need to reduce violence against women.

You kind of already know how that will be interpreted.