News Josh Reynolds DV accusation (charges dropped 26/2/20)

[nick87]

Police have way too much on their plate already. Stop being so black and white about it. If he is being abused prior to this then he does have rights short of going the stupid route of getting the police involved every time he is unhappy. One thing he isn’t allowed to do is be violent.

In the example given by the previous poster, whereby this woman is in Reynold's house, and she is not on the lease/mortage, and he's asked her to leave, and she wont... that is quite literally the police's job to deal with that. Him escalating things to that level isnt acceptable IMO.

And AFAIC, it is black and white. I dont care the context, i dont care what happened prior. He is responsible for his actions and reactions.
As i tell my son, retaliation isnt an acceptable excuse.

There are any number of options available to him in this scenario that dont evolve that level of abuse towards anyone, least of all a woman. How i was brought up, and how ill raise my son will be to know that behaviour is never acceptable.

And as i said, the venn diagram of this kind of behaviour and those who escalate it a level of DV would be pretty close to perfect circle, so Reynolds has lost the BOTD for me on his DV charge. Maybe he's bucking the trend, i dont dont know, but that behaviour is very typical of men who abuse their partners.

 

[Frailty]

The behaviour is a bad look but it shows one side of the story, not the lead up to the video or anything. It’s very possible his reaction is the cause of a traumatic event

The bolded part is where the sentence should end. There is no excuse for the behaviour.

I'm not making any other judgements about anyone else's behaviour there. It is possible that the woman's behaviour is bad - but that does not absolve Reynolds from any responsibility or make his reaction OK.

That's my point - you can't look at the video and go 'well, there is some justification to his behaviour if a,b,c, happened.' There is no part where any of this is acceptable.

 

[Perth Red]

The bolded part is where the sentence should end. There is no excuse for the behaviour.

I'm not making any other judgements about anyone else's behaviour there. It is possible that the woman's behaviour is bad - but that does not absolve Reynolds from any responsibility or make his reaction OK.

That's my point - you can't look at the video and go 'well, there is some justification to his behaviour if a,b,c, happened.' There is no part where any of this is acceptable.

The fact so many can and are trying to justify it is probably why the country has such an issue still with DV and why one woman a week is being killed by their partner. I was brought up to never speak to a woman in that way and to never be a bully or threaten anyone smaller or weaker than yourself, and in fact to stand up for them if I saw anyone in that situation. I wonder where the real men have gone that we need to instill this message into their sons and grandsons? If you're start point is well its ok if she is misbehaving then its screwed.

 

[franklin2323]

The bolded part is where the sentence should end. There is no excuse for the behaviour.

I'm not making any other judgements about anyone else's behaviour there. It is possible that the woman's behaviour is bad - but that does not absolve Reynolds from any responsibility or make his reaction OK.

That's my point - you can't look at the video and go 'well, there is some justification to his behaviour if a,b,c, happened.' There is no part where any of this is acceptable.

Everyone has a breaking point though. There wouldn't be a single person that hasn't yelled at someone at some stage

 

[franklin2323]

The fact so many can and are trying to justify it is probably why the country has such an issue still with DV and why one woman a week is being killed by their partner. I was brought up to never speak to a woman in that way and to never be a bully or threaten anyone smaller or weaker than yourself, and in fact to stand up for them if I saw anyone in that situation. I wonder where the real men have gone that we need to instill this message into their sons and grandsons? If you're start point is well its ok if she is misbehaving then its screwed.

Not crucifying is different then justifying though

 

[Timmah]

Everyone has a breaking point though. There wouldn't be a single person that hasn't yelled at someone at some stage

I don't think he's suggesting nobody yell at anyone ever, that's not what this is about.

 

[Frailty]

Everyone has a breaking point though. There wouldn't be a single person that hasn't yelled at someone at some stage

This isn't just yelling though. That would be dramatically minimalising Reynolds actions.

 

[franklin2323]

I don't think he's suggesting nobody yell at anyone ever, that's not what this is about.

It is though. There is 30 sec video of someone losing their temper and yelling.

 

[franklin2323]

This isn't just yelling though. That would be dramatically minimalising Reynolds actions.

What if he was calling the actual dog a dog and not the woman like people are just assuming

 

[Timmah]

It is though. There is 30 sec video of someone losing their temper and yelling.

What's in the video is verbal abuse. Whether it's provoked, whether anybody thinks it's justified, it's verbal abuse. By calling it "losing temper" and "yelling" you are minimising those actions.

None of it is suggesting he's guilty of a crime, I think most people who are criticising it are trying to point out it isn't a normal way for someone to speak to their significant other.

 

[franklin2323]

What's in the video is verbal abuse. Whether it's provoked, whether anybody thinks it's justified, it's verbal abuse. By calling it "losing temper" and "yelling" you are minimising those actions.

None of it is suggesting he's guilty of a crime, I think most people who are criticising it are trying to point out it isn't a normal way for someone to speak to their significant other.

So you have never sworn at a person before?

 

[Tigers1986]

Significant other who has suggested he has committed domestic violence and then willingly was in the household, and had a phone to film the encounter? Grub is perfectly justified in his response. All of the offended SJWs need to get a dose of reality.

 

[franklin2323]

Significant other who has suggested he has committed domestic violence and then willingly was in the household, and had a phone to film the encounter? Grub is perfectly justified in his response. All of the offended SJWs need to get a dose of reality.

I wonder how many of the said offended SJW's have said lost it at people in the past. I imagine if someone was there to film it at that exact time it paints a different picture of those people

 

[Frailty]

Significant other who has suggested he has committed domestic violence and then willingly was in the household, and had a phone to film the encounter? Grub is perfectly justified in his response. All of the offended SJWs need to get a dose of reality.

Definitely reads like someone who has no idea about how domestic violence works or the effects on victims. I thought we'd be past the "Why don't they just leave?" attitude by now. Guess not.

This has nothing to do with 'social justice warrior'. Don't be so obtuse to throw out a simplistic catchphrase of dimwits.

 

[Frailty]

What if he was calling the actual dog a dog and not the woman like people are just assuming

This is really what you're going with now?

 

[franklin2323]

This is really what you're going with now?

Better then judging someone off a 30 sec video.

 

[Perth Red]

Not crucifying is different then justifying though

You seem to be doing both.

 

[franklin2323]

You seem to be doing both.

So you can say you have never sworn at anyone? Including the TV watching sport before?

 

[Frailty]

Better then judging someone off a 30 sec video.

I've said the behaviour in the video is not acceptable and should not be attempted to justified in any matter.

I haven't judged him as guilty of his charges. I haven't made any claims about him personally. Just that it is not an acceptable behaviour that should be justified in any way at all. Stop attempting to create a strawman.

 

[franklin2323]

I've said the behaviour in the video is not acceptable and should not be attempted to justified in any matter.

I haven't judged him as guilty of his charges. I haven't made any claims about him personally. Just that it is not an acceptable behaviour that should be justified in any way at all. Stop attempting to create a strawman.

So someone shouldn't get angry?