Is this assault?

bestpud

coolcait wrote: »

Will telling him to leave stop him killing someone?

The OP is enabling him.

She has rose tinted specs welded to her face and cant really see the implications of her behaviour. Sure she says she does but then she makes more excuses for him. He also talks the talk and she falls for it.

This is a longstanding issue and he knows just how to keep his mother on side. Like most dangerous people, he has enough intelligence to manipulate and play on weak spots in others.


Staying at home is the absolute worst situation for him.

He is working part time and spending the rest of his week sat on his rear playing computer games. When the situation gets to him he lashes out at his parents, siblings, niece/nephew and partner but it's all ok.

He has no incentive to sort himself out and never will while he is living with his dysfunctional family. The guy needs to get onto the real world, where we face consequences and have to earn a living rather than beating it out of our family!

Dave101t

you know he doesnt even have to touch you, even through a drink for it to count as assault. if you believe he is going to assault you, that also counts.

Wickedkitten

bestpud wrote: »

The OP is enabling him.

She has rose tinted specs welded to her face and cant really see the implications of her behaviour. Sure she says she does but then she makes more excuses for him. He also talks the talk and she falls for it.

This is a longstanding issue and he knows just how to keep his mother on side. Like most dangerous people, he has enough intelligence to manipulate and play on weak spots in others.

Staying at home is the absolute worst situation for him.

He is working part time and spending the rest of his week sat on his rear playing computer games. When the situation gets to him he lashes out at his parents, siblings, niece/nephew and partner but it's all ok.

He has no incentive to sort himself out and never will while he is living with his dysfunctional family. The guy needs to get onto the real world, where we face consequences and have to earn a living rather than beating it out of our family!

I don't think he is even having to use any intelligence to manipulate her because she is on autopilot doing it herself.

jellyhead

*Robin* wrote: »

But the opportunity for learning is life-long, surely?

Isn't this thread really talking about how the relatives - particularly the mother who is the OP - can help her wayward adult son to learn self-control before something happens that can never be undone?

Yes, plenty of adults get counselling, and it seems to work for some people. Fingers crossed it can work for OP's son. Perhaps he can learn ways to calm himself down, and better ways to react rather than with violence. I don't think it's ever too late to try, and it sounds as if he's hasn't really explored this avenue before.

My eldest had some counselling in school when he was 13 after he had a violent outburst while he was being bullied. I think it worked - not really sure because it was an isolated incident and he doesn't have an anger problem. It's worth a try though, I reckon it's always worth trying to change bad behaviour, even in adults.

coolcait

Dunroamin wrote: »

More chance of bringing him to his senses than suggesting he's ill rather than bad!

Should a woman with a violent husband carry on living with him because if she kicks him out he might kill someone else?

Dunroamin, I know you as an intelligent poster - from a long time back - who is perfectly capable of following and understanding nuances.

I didn't think that my posts on this thread were all that nuanced, yet you have consistently misunderstood and/or misrepresented them.

To recap. I suggested that the OP should be doing a number of things to deal with this situation. Starting with ensuring the safety of her baby grandchild.

The OP - not I - suggested that her son may be ill, yet she appears to have done nothing to address this possibility. I suggested that she get her son checked out medically, so that it can be ruled in or ruled out.

If he is ill rather than bad, how capable is he of being 'brought to his senses'?

In this particular scenario, 'kicking him out' holds a very high chance of increasing the risk to his baby. While the OP's son stays with her - and she makes the attempt to redress the damage caused by her years of inaction and enabling - the baby is relatively safe. Not living in the best of environments, it has to be said, but at least not in the same house, day in and day out, as a man who is prone to violence.

If the OP simply 'kicks him out', it is likely that he will go to live with his GF, isolated from even the OP and her family's fairly ineffectual attempts to protect the baby. That creates a significantly increased risk to the baby's safety - as a number of posters have pointed out.

Your question ("Should a woman with a violent husband carry on living with him because if she kicks him out he might kill someone else?") is really a straw man argument in the context of this thread. Again.

However, taking it at face value, if the woman just 'kicks him out', she and any children involved may still end up being the person(s) he kills. The 'leaving/kicking out' period is often the period of greatest risk to the victim(s) of the domestic violence.

So, in any domestic violence situation, any advice to 'kick out [the abuser]' should also be tempered with a recognition that this can bring its own risks to the victim and to any children involved. Hence the need to have a plan, to do a number of things in tandem with the preparations to 'kick out the abuser'.

Simply saying 'Kick him out! That'll larn him" misses all of those points.

Just as it misses the point that you still have a potential killer on the loose.

In this case, the advice to simply 'kick him out' is likely to send the potential killer to live with a vulnerable baby. And the potential killer already has a history of becoming violent when that baby acts as babies do.

Leave everything else aside. In the specific circumstances of this case, I believe that 'just kick him out' is dangerous advice. It transfers the risk of being a victim of violence, or being killed, from an adult - who has already demonstrated that she is capable of calling the police, when she chooses to do so - to a baby. A defenceless - and apparently undefended - baby.

Dunroamin

coolcait wrote: »

Dunroamin, I know you as an intelligent poster - from a long time back - who is perfectly capable of following and understanding nuances.

I didn't think that my posts on this thread were all that nuanced, yet you have consistently misunderstood and/or misrepresented them.

To recap. I suggested that the OP should be doing a number of things to deal with this situation. Starting with ensuring the safety of her baby grandchild.

The OP - not I - suggested that her son may be ill, yet she appears to have done nothing to address this possibility. I suggested that she get her son checked out medically, so that it can be ruled in or ruled out.

If he is ill rather than bad, how capable is he of being 'brought to his senses'?

In this particular scenario, 'kicking him out' holds a very high chance of increasing the risk to his baby. While the OP's son stays with her - and she makes the attempt to redress the damage caused by her years of inaction and enabling - the baby is relatively safe. Not living in the best of environments, it has to be said, but at least not in the same house, day in and day out, as a man who is prone to violence.

If the OP simply 'kicks him out', it is likely that he will go to live with his GF, isolated from even the OP and her family's fairly ineffectual attempts to protect the baby. That creates a significantly increased risk to the baby's safety - as a number of posters have pointed out.

Your question ("Should a woman with a violent husband carry on living with him because if she kicks him out he might kill someone else?") is really a straw man argument in the context of this thread. Again.

However, taking it at face value, if the woman just 'kicks him out', she and any children involved may still end up being the person(s) he kills. The 'leaving/kicking out' period is often the period of greatest risk to the victim(s) of the domestic violence.

So, in any domestic violence situation, any advice to 'kick out [the abuser]' should also be tempered with a recognition that this can bring its own risks to the victim and to any children involved. Hence the need to have a plan, to do a number of things in tandem with the preparations to 'kick out the abuser'.

Simply saying 'Kick him out! That'll larn him" misses all of those points.

Just as it misses the point that you still have a potential killer on the loose.

In this case, the advice to simply 'kick him out' is likely to send the potential killer to live with a vulnerable baby. And the potential killer already has a history of becoming violent when that baby acts as babies do.

Leave everything else aside. In the specific circumstances of this case, I believe that 'just kick him out' is dangerous advice. It transfers the risk of being a victim of violence, or being killed, from an adult - who has already demonstrated that she is capable of calling the police, when she chooses to do so - to a baby. A defenceless - and apparently undefended - baby.

Thank you for taking the the time to make a thoughtful reply (and the compliment!) even if I disagree with you.

My views are based on my experience of domestic violence, both from partners (long in the past) and from a teenage/adult child (not so long ago).

It may seem to you to be a strawman argument but, believe me, being attacked by an adult "child" is exactly the same as being attacked by a partner and no woman should have to put up with either situation. Neither should any woman ( or her husband ) have to be made to feel guilty for making themselves safe or to be made to feel responsible for the future acts of the perpetrator.

Personally, I feel that I should have pressed charges on the many occasions when we called the police in, but at least there was a record of his violence if things had gone further, which would have been better than nothing.

In all my experience, when the perpetrator has been removed from the home (or when I left) the problem has been solved and I/we have been able to live life free from fear. Perhaps I'm a bad person but my personal safety (and that of my husband) has to be my only concern and responsibility.

I don't think that I have any less value than anybody else ( no more, for that matter) and I see no reason why I should have to put up with abuse just in case somebody else should suffer when I free myself.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Good night.

michelle2008

I think his behaviour is completely unacceptable and he needs to talk to someone about his mental health before things go very wrong.

He may not have mental health issues and just be a nasty piece of work. If that is the case you need to accept that, ask him to leave and put very clear rules in place for his contact with the family.

Either way this problem will not fix itself.

However I do not think this specific incident is a police matter.

coolcait

Dunroamin wrote: »

Thank you for taking the the time to make a thoughtful reply (and the compliment!) even if I disagree with you.

My views are based on my experience of domestic violence, both from partners (long in the past) and from a teenage/adult child (not so long ago).

It may seem to you to be a strawman argument but, believe me, being attacked by an adult "child" is exactly the same as being attacked by a partner and no woman should have to put up with either situation. Neither should any woman ( or her husband ) have to be made to feel guilty for making themselves safe or to be made to feel responsible for the future acts of the perpetrator.

Personally, I feel that I should have pressed charges on the many occasions when we called the police in, but at least there was a record of his violence if things had gone further, which would have been better than nothing.

In all my experience, when the perpetrator has been removed from the home (or when I left) the problem has been solved and I/we have been able to live life free from fear. Perhaps I'm a bad person but my personal safety (and that of my husband) has to be my only concern and responsibility.

I don't think that I have any less value than anybody else ( no more, for that matter) and I see no reason why I should have to put up with abuse just in case somebody else should suffer when I free myself.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Good night.

Thank you, also, for such an honest and thoughtful reply. I did suspect that the subject might be very close to your own experiences, and I'm truly sorry for what you've been through in your life.

We do have very different viewpoints on this particular thread, (plus the many other viewpoints which have been posted here)but I don't see that as being necessarily a bad thing.

It means that anyone who is affected by domestic violence, and who reads this thread, can take all of that information into account when deciding what is the best thing for them to do.

That, for me, is one of the most valuable things about fora like this.

I wish you a good, and peaceful, night too.

leamingtonspaceman

Dunroamin wrote: »

I don't think that I have any less value than anybody else ( no more, for that matter) and I see no reason why I should have to put up with abuse just in case somebody else should suffer when I free myself.

And yet, you tried to bully, undermine, mislead and manipulate someone with autism only a short time ago. So much so that comments you made were quickly removed by moderators:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4110425

All of these actions and your motives toward a vulnerable person...and a vulnerable section of society equate to passive abuse that, in many quarters, is seen as much as a weapon of control as physical abuse.

You are not covering yourself in glory on this forum. You are in danger of becoming completely bereft of any integrity and thus your comments and associated motives will now be questioned and put in doubt.

I have empathy for the events that have transpired in your life. However, learn from them and direct this learning in a positive direction. This will hopefully lessen the embittered attitude that permeates much of your activity on this forum.

Wickedkitten

leamingtonspaceman wrote: »

And yet, you tried to bully, undermine, mislead and manipulate someone with autism only a short time ago. So much so that comments you made were quickly removed by moderators:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4110425

All of these actions and your motives toward a vulnerable person...and a vulnerable section of society equate to passive abuse that, in many quarters, is seen as much as a weapon of control as physical abuse.

You are not covering yourself in glory on this forum. You are in danger of becoming completely bereft of any integrity and thus your comments and associated motives will now be questioned and put in doubt.

I have empathy for the events that have transpired in your life. However, learn from them and direct this learning in a positive direction. This will hopefully lessen the embittered attitude that permeates much of your activity on this forum.

What a load of nonsense