No Bond: Man Shot Daughter's B'Friend

I'm speaking as a person who grew up in an abusive home. You never know when the abuser's rage is going to explode in to violence. Any attempt to appease the abuser is futile. It's the unpredictable nature of the violence that gives the abuser power. He alone gets to decide when to release it. Once the abuser freaks out about small things, he has the power to scare victims about other bigger things. The victims walk on eggshells trying not to set the abuser off. The victims become brainwashed and have Stockholm Syndrome. Then you can't get the victims out until they hit bottom, if ever at all.
 
Whoa..I opened a can of worms there! I could go into explicit detail about my past and present sex life if it makes you feel better, RR, but I doubt that it will. Each to his own beliefs, but come on, shooting someone four times??? I think that is overblown to say the least. I worry about why you find this justifiable.

You make a big assumption when I say 'ex boyfriend'- yes, I have had other partners, but it's possible I just had the one boyfriend. Had I had 'the benefit of matrimony' with the ex (my first boyfriend) I would now be married to an abuser, so I'm pretty glad I'm not with him anymore.

Yes, my parents did allow it. And as far as we know from the article, the people had been going out for a year, so if the stepfather wanted to make it clear that there was to be no sex in the house, why didn't he say so? Of course, we don't know all the details.

Jillio, yes, I'm quite sure my parents would rather I have sexual activity in the privacy of my own bedroom versus the back of a car or hotel or goodness knows where else. As I said, each to their own moral values and standards, but I'm shocked that anyone would feel that shooting someone, chasing after him to continue shooting him, then lying to the police, is justifiable in this context.
 
sallylou said:
I'm speaking as a person who grew up in an abusive home. You never know when the abuser's rage is going to explode in to violence. Any attempt to appease the abuser is futile. It's the unpredictable nature of the violence that gives the abuser power. He alone gets to decide when to release it. Once the abuser freaks out about small things, he has the power to scare victims about other bigger things. The victims walk on eggshells trying not to set the abuser off. The victims become brainwashed and have Stockholm Syndrome. Then you can't get the victims out until they hit bottom, if ever at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is unpredictable, and that is what gives the victim that constantly walking on eggshells feeling. But what I was referring to was not necessarily a pattern of violence, but a history of such.
 
melissa said:
Whoa..I opened a can of worms there! I could go into explicit detail about my past and present sex life if it makes you feel better, RR, but I doubt that it will. Each to his own beliefs, but come on, shooting someone four times??? I think that is overblown to say the least. I worry about why you find this justifiable.

You make a big assumption when I say 'ex boyfriend'- yes, I have had other partners, but it's possible I just had the one boyfriend. Had I had 'the benefit of matrimony' with the ex (my first boyfriend) I would now be married to an abuser, so I'm pretty glad I'm not with him anymore.

Yes, my parents did allow it. And as far as we know from the article, the people had been going out for a year, so if the stepfather wanted to make it clear that there was to be no sex in the house, why didn't he say so? Of course, we don't know all the details.

Jillio, yes, I'm quite sure my parents would rather I have sexual activity in the privacy of my own bedroom versus the back of a car or hotel or goodness knows where else. As I said, each to their own moral values and standards, but I'm shocked that anyone would feel that shooting someone, chasing after him to continue shooting him, then lying to the police, is justifiable in this context.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not justifiable in any case, and certainly not a demonstration of love and affection for the step daughter.
 
melissa said:
Whoa..I opened a can of worms there! I could go into explicit detail about my past and present sex life if it makes you feel better, RR, but I doubt that it will. Each to his own beliefs, but come on, shooting someone four times??? I think that is overblown to say the least. I worry about why you find this justifiable.

You make a big assumption when I say 'ex boyfriend'- yes, I have had other partners, but it's possible I just had the one boyfriend. Had I had 'the benefit of matrimony' with the ex (my first boyfriend) I would now be married to an abuser, so I'm pretty glad I'm not with him anymore.

Yes, my parents did allow it. And as far as we know from the article, the people had been going out for a year, so if the stepfather wanted to make it clear that there was to be no sex in the house, why didn't he say so? Of course, we don't know all the details.

Jillio, yes, I'm quite sure my parents would rather I have sexual activity in the privacy of my own bedroom versus the back of a car or hotel or goodness knows where else. As I said, each to their own moral values and standards, but I'm shocked that anyone would feel that shooting someone, chasing after him to continue shooting him, then lying to the police, is justifiable in this context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this post got blown all out of proportion. I agreed to disagree earlier, but....it keeps coming back! If ur parents are OK with it, then I've no qualms with it, Melissa. I'm not questioning ur sex life or ur parents rules.

As I've stated, the man should not have shot the 18 yr. old. But I've also stated, the 16 yr. old girl should have not brought him home for sex if her father forbid it. Teenagers will do sneaky things and break the rules, unfortunately these bad consequences happened.
 
Well, yes, but there's no mention that the father had forbid it, and two wrongs don't make a right. I think shooting would be acceptable if you were being shot at, or someone was trying to kill you, but when there's no risk to your own life it's unnecessary.
 
Jillio, I don't understand the difference between pattern and history? Can you explain?

I'm guessing that pattern is a consistent mode of behavior over time, like Lundy Bancroft describes. Is history a incident in the past?

TIA. I'm not familiar with these concepts.
 
sallylou said:
Jillio, I don't understand the difference between pattern and history? Can you explain?

I'm guessing that pattern is a consistent mode of behavior over time, like Lundy Bancroft describes. Is history a incident in the past?

TIA. I'm not familiar with these concepts.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is it basically. A pattern of violence would be the same level of violence occurring over time. Like a pattern of slapping during an argument. The abuser doesn't vary from that particular type of violence. Any time they abuse, it will be through slapping. And the trigger will always be an argument. A history of violence could be a past history beginning with verbal abuse that has escalated over time. This is more unpredictable, because you can never be certain when the abuser will take it to the next level, and the triggers are often varied and you never know what will incite the violence.
 
Thanks, that's interesting. I experienced the escalating type of violence. It eventually lead to pulling out weapons on a couple of occasions. :eek3: I thought that all violent people are like this. :(
 
sallylou said:
Thanks, that's interesting. I experienced the escalating type of violence. It eventually lead to pulling out weapons on a couple of occasions. :eek3: I thought that all violent people are like this. :(
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, most are. I always tell my DV victims: "It's a push today, a slap tomorrow, and a gun to your head the day after."
 
Back
Top