Just had a blazing row with my OH

coolcait

PhoebeBuffay wrote: »

...
... he confronted the lad who turned down the music. Not enough for DH, oh no, he had to start effin and blinding at the lad.

I tried to drag him away, the young lad even said sorry. As soon as I thought DH had calmed down. He picks up a rock and smashes the back window of the car.

...

JReacher1 wrote: »

I did read the original post. He asked for the loud music to be turned down and the guy made a token effort to turn it down slightly but not enough.
....

This is a classic example of how people can read the same phrase in different ways - and why it's a good idea for OPs to spell out what they mean!

"Not enough for DH".

Does that mean that the lad didn't turn the music down enough? That's the way you've taken it - you've interpreted it as 'a token effort to turn it down slightly'.

Does it mean that the lad did turn down the music 'enough' for the OP - and perhaps for some/many/most other people - but not for her husband? That's another interpretation.

Does it mean that nothing the lad did to make amends - including turning the music down - was 'enough' for the OP's husband? That's how it reads to me, especially in the context of the OP's next paragraph.

Not to mention the fact that the husband appeared to have clamed down / been calmed down - but picked up the rock and smashed the window at that point.

As for your alternative story, I think most people would have been critical of the husband's actions. Some would have expressed concerns about his emotional and mental wellbeing - especially if the behaviour was out of character. Others would have expressed concerns for the OP's emotional, mental and physical safety - especially if the behaviour was typical of her husband. You might have one or two who could see some justification for the husband's behaviour.

All in all, pretty much the same reaction as the OP's version has received!

suki1964

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you class a broken window as a serious crime?

I would class a fella lifting up a stone/brick/rock and putting the window in of a car where someone was sitting as pretty bloody serious

Wouldn't you?

JReacher1

suki1964 wrote: »

I would class a fella lifting up a stone/brick/rock and putting the window in of a car where someone was sitting as pretty bloody serious

Wouldn't you?

Not really no. If you're sat in a car and someone smashes your back window do you honestly think the police will put all their resources to trying to find the culprit?

I also don't think someone who commits a "serious crime" would just get a caution and be home a couple of hours later.

Gavin83

JReacher1 wrote: »

Every day for say five years you had irritatingly loud music outside your house for five minutes. Are you sure that wouldn't make you snap?

Then say after five years you finally go out and confront the guy and instead of turning the music off he gives him a smug grin and turns it down literally a notch.

I could see myself snapping in this situation.

I'm not saying the smug grin, five years or turning it down a notch happened but I could certainly see myself snapping.

It's a totally different situation though. Everyone has their breaking point but it shouldn't have been reached here.

Kynthia

JReacher1 wrote: »

Not really no. If you're sat in a car and someone smashes your back window do you honestly think the police will put all their resources to trying to find the culprit?

I also don't think someone who commits a "serious crime" would just get a caution and be home a couple of hours later.

You have interpreted the story very different to everyone else. Most see it that the OP did believe the lad turned down the music enough and genuinely apologised. Yet the OP's husband starts swearing, picks up a rock and causes criminal damage to a vehicle that has someone inside it who would have been fearful and potentially could have hurt by flying glass. No wonder the OP is shocked by her husbands actions and their own neighbours called the police.

Getting home quickly is because of how quick it was to get witness statements from the many witnesses, the victim not wanting to take it further and the husband willing to accept a caution. The purpose of cautions is to deliver swift justice in these situations and not because it's not a big deal to the police. A caution is you admitting guilt to a crime and it has implications. Where I work it would probably cause you to be suspended and probably lose your job and it has ramifications in many 'professional' roles. I believe they are disclosed in DBS checks for 6 years and can prevent you working with vulnerable adults or children or any role where it is declared. It goes on your criminal record and might prevent you entering or residing in some countries.

duchy

If my OH made an absolute idiot of himself by overreacting the way the OP's husband did I wouldn't be making any excuses for them either. If he then had a go at me for not supporting his stupidity I'd probably have done what the OP did .....got him removed somewhere he could calm down, sleep on it and reflect........rather than shout at me half the night and odds are as the neighbours saw what happened they'd call the police back again claiming they were concerned for me as they'd seen what he had done earlier and was now sounding aggressive towards me too.

The OP needed to defuse the situation ...and did so. She probably saved him from a night in the cells.

duchy

JReacher1 wrote: »

Husband has learnt he can't trust his wife.

Or wife has learned her husband can't be trusted to not behave like a thug

warby68

Utterly gobsmacked at those who think the husband was justified and that OP should have stood by him.

But probably not as gobsmacked as the young lad's dad or older brothers when they get to hear about it

For OP, I really hope he recognises a big line crossed here and gets whatever issues he has addressed sharpish.

FBaby

Unfortunately, people are becoming worse and worse dealing with stress but letting it build up and build up rather than dealing with it earlier on until it explodes and end up doing harm.

What should have happened is that OP's OH should have gone to the lad the first time his music was loud and calmly and pleasantly said that he understood that at his age, loud music is great, but that when you get his age, you don't tolerate it as well and therefore would he mind that when he sats in his car waiting for his girlfriend, he turned it down. If the lad has decent manners (as clearly seemed to be the case) he would probably have said of course, sorry about that, and how knows, maybe they would have exchanged names and pleasantries and have become friendly.

Instead, OP's OH said nothing the first, second, third time, each time seething inside, growing more and more resentful, convincing himself that the kid was a thug, to the point when he felt he deserved a lesson, which he gave when he finally exploded.

Brits need to learn to express their feelings! Telling someone you disagree with them is ok. Reminding youngsters to be considerate is ok.....if all done politely and certainly much much better than thinking it and doing nothing about it until it is blown out of proportion.

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

I did read the original post. He asked for the loud music to be turned down and the guy made a token effort to turn it down slightly but not enough.

A normal person if told that they were annoying people with their music while they were waiting to pick someone up would just turn it off. This person didn't do it.

I'm not condoning the actions of the OP's husband but what I would say is if this thread was posted as the following...

"Every night some car turns up outside my house and plays loud music out of his car. Today I asked him to turn it off and he use turned it down slightly so I snapped and smashed his window"

I don't think they would receive too many critical posts.

Like a couple of other posters, I read the original post differently to you.

When the OP wrote this:

PhoebeBuffay wrote: »

Off he went on his high horse to confront the young lad. I went after him - he confronted the lad who turned down the music. Not enough for DH, oh no, he had to start effin and blinding at the lad.

I read it as the action of turning down the music was not sufficient for the OP's OH because he was in such a towering rage that nothing would have been enough for him.

I guess we're unlikely to get clarification of what was really meant by 'not enough'.