19 yr old woman falls 26 stories in surrey

[Tugela]

Re: Tugela's post -

Extremely ignorant viewpoint. Typical of someone without knowledge to blame the victims.

The situation is as complex as the people involved and every situation has different reasons why it develops and continues and simplistic lecturing from someone without any understanding of what motivates people and how they deal with their lives isn't painting you in a particularly good light.

We are all sentient beings, and, unless you are mentally challenged, everyone knows what is going on in their relationships.

The CHOOSE to put up with things and situations in those relationships. They weigh up the plusses and minuses and do what they do. They are neither helpless nor are they children, they have made a CHOICE. Maybe not a good choice, or a wise choice, but a choice none the less. They are responsible for that choice and they share the blame for any consequences that stem from that.

The same thing applies to any addict or any similar "negative" situation. They balance the positive with the negative, and feel they are still in control, so go with the negative. They are not compelled to do it, they are not forced, they do not have no alternative. They choose. And until things get so bad that they have no option but to change their behaviour, they will not change. But even then, they are still CHOOSING their behaviour. In the end all it takes is to say no. That is all. It is very simple.

I understand perfectly what motivates the behaviour of these sorts of people. Unlike you I don't see it as black and white, but shades of grey. And within those shades of grey the "victims" are plotting their own path. We live in a society where bad things that happen are always blamed exclusively on someone or something else, it is never placed where half of it usually belongs: the choices made by the victim.

 

[cherise]

We are all sentient beings, and, unless you are mentally challenged, everyone knows what is going on in their relationships.

The CHOOSE to put up with things and situations in those relationships. They weigh up the plusses and minuses and do what they do. They are neither helpless nor are they children, they have made a CHOICE. Maybe not a good choice, or a wise choice, but a choice none the less. They are responsible for that choice and they share the blame for any consequences that stem from that.

The same thing applies to any addict or any similar "negative" situation. They balance the positive with the negative, and feel they are still in control, so go with the negative. They are not compelled to do it, they are not forced, they do not have no alternative. They choose. And until things get so bad that they have no option but to change their behaviour, they will not change. But even then, they are still CHOOSING their behaviour. In the end all it takes is to say no. That is all. It is very simple.

I understand perfectly what motivates the behaviour of these sorts of people. Unlike you I don't see it as black and white, but shades of grey. And within those shades of grey the "victims" are plotting their own path. We live in a society where bad things that happen are always blamed exclusively on someone or something else, it is never placed where half of it usually belongs: the choices made by the victim.

you know what happens when an abused woman says no ? she gets really abused....like maybe being tossed off of a 26th floors balcony!

and how is it that you have the power to " understand perfectly what motivates the behaviour of these sorts of people".? quite frankly ,you don't even see black and white ,let alone shades of grey! you are BLIND and see nothing other than the scenario you have concocted.

 

[Tugela]

But it's still wrong to smugly blame the victim.

It's like telling a depressive to, "just snap out of it."; or an alcoholic to "Just stop drinking"; or a junkie to "just say no"; or someone with learning difficulties to "just concentrate".

MOST women or girls with enough confidence, fortitude, strength, education, support and ability would leave with the first verbal insult.

That's not the point - the females in those situations are trapped by other issues and blaming them or telling them they deserve it for not leaving ignores issues beyond their control in that particular situation and at that particular time.

No one is blaming the victim for the actual event that leads to their demise. They do however have responsibility for placing themselves in that situation in the first place, particularly if they remain there once the circumstances of the situation become apparent.

Let me try to explain it in simpler terms. You decide to walk to the store. You decide to dash across the busy street because you don't want to wait. You are impatient, maybe in a hurry, maybe you just get a thrill doing that, maybe that is just how you roll. Then some semi-intoxicated driver runs you down. Who's fault is it? The semi-intoxicated driver? He would be deemed legally responsible because he should not have been behind the wheel semi-intoxicate. But he did not make you rush out into the traffic. He did not make you careless. There is responsibility that lies with you, the victim, because of the choices you made. Your being run down is in part due to the choices the driver made, but it is also in part due to the choices you made. The error in your logic is that you only look at the point of impact, then placing a black hat on the perpetrator and a white hat on the victim, when in fact it was poor choices on the part of both which lead to the impact. You made the assumption that all the drivers on the busy road were skilled, alert and vigilant, and maybe most of them were, but it was the one who wasn't that caught you. And the responsibility for that assumption is entirely yours.

Someone with a learning disability cannot "just concentrate". If they have a disability they cannot fix that, they cannot choose to be otherwise.

Someone who is an alcoholic or an addict however is that way because they choose not to say no. The choose immediate gratification before long term consequences. When they balance one against another, the immediate is given far greater weight than the future, because the immediate is a lot more fun. But, sooner or later, the future arrives, and with that comes the tears. And then the sob stories that "I had no choice". BS. You always have a choice, unlike that guy with the learning disability who really does have no choice.

 

[Tugela]

you know what happens when an abused woman says no ? she gets really abused....like maybe being tossed off of a 26th floors balcony!

and how is it that you have the power to " understand perfectly what motivates the behaviour of these sorts of people".? quite frankly ,you don't even see black and white ,let alone shades of grey! you are BLIND and see nothing other than the scenario you have concocted.

Maybe not hang around to be abused in the first place? People rarely get thrown from the window on the first date, that sort of behaviour evolves over time. Radical antisocial behaviour does not spontaneously happen, it is incubated and grows over a long period of time. It is facilitated and nurtured by submissive behaviour, until things go to far. If you say no from the get go, or pretty close to the get go, your chances of being thrown out the window will be greatly reduced, since the perp will not have had the opportunity to become accustomed to and emboldened by the status quo.

 

[yazoo]

No one is blaming the victim for the actual event that leads to their demise. They do however have responsibility for placing themselves in that situation in the first place, particularly if they remain there once the circumstances of the situation become apparent.

Let me try to explain it in simpler terms. You decide to walk to the store. You decide to dash across the busy street because you don't want to wait. You are impatient, maybe in a hurry, maybe you just get a thrill doing that, maybe that is just how you roll. Then some semi-intoxicated driver runs you down. Who's fault is it? The semi-intoxicated driver? He would be deemed legally responsible because he should not have been behind the wheel semi-intoxicate. But he did not make you rush out into the traffic. He did not make you careless. There is responsibility that lies with you, the victim, because of the choices you made. Your being run down is in part due to the choices the driver made, but it is also in part due to the choices you made. The error in your logic is that you only look at the point of impact, then placing a black hat on the perpetrator and a white hat on the victim, when in fact it was poor choices on the part of both which lead to the impact. You made the assumption that all the drivers on the busy road were skilled, alert and vigilant, and maybe most of them were, but it was the one who wasn't that caught you. And the responsibility for that assumption is entirely yours.

Someone with a learning disability cannot "just concentrate". If they have a disability they cannot fix that, they cannot choose to be otherwise.

Someone who is an alcoholic or an addict however is that way because they choose not to say no. The choose immediate gratification before long term consequences. When they balance one against another, the immediate is given far greater weight than the future, because the immediate is a lot more fun. But, sooner or later, the future arrives, and with that comes the tears. And then the sob stories that "I had no choice". BS. You always have a choice, unlike that guy with the learning disability who really does have no choice.

Yes it is a choice, but not necessarily an irrational one. People choose to become cops, or firefighters who put themselves in harm's way. But when harm befalls them we don't blame them for stupidly picking such a dangerous job. We quite rightly blame the assailant or arsonist who kills them. People stay in abusive relationships for multiple reasons. Sometimes it's the kids - they may not be able to go to university if there is no breadwinner. Sometimes it is shame from family, from church, from co-workers. Sometimes it is an inaccurate assessment of the risk. But quite often a rational thought process results in a decision to stay - often defying the suggestions of close friends who care. But just like people in dangerous jobs - don't train your weapons on the victim. Save them for the perp.

 

[cherise]

Maybe not hang around to be abused in the first place? People rarely get thrown from the window on the first date, that sort of behaviour evolves over time. Radical antisocial behaviour does not spontaneously happen, it is incubated and grows over a long period of time. It is facilitated and nurtured by submissive behaviour, until things go to far. If you say no from the get go, or pretty close to the get go, your chances of being thrown out the window will be greatly reduced, since the perp will not have had the opportunity to become accustomed to and emboldened by the status quo.

however ,usually the control and aggression sneak up on the girl. in the beginning she lets him take charge because it makes her feel carefree and loved and protected . she feels lucky to have a big strong man to take care of her. an escape from her miserable homelife perhaps. so she sees him as her prince, there to rescue her.

not saying that is the scenario here ,because i DONT assume to know exactly what motivates ANYBODY ! however i have lived a crazy life and i have worked to empower many such women ,and i'll tell you --the stories rarely differ much.only difference being the names of the participants. and as i mentioned before ,there is also a strong possibility she flung herself over ,feeling that was the only way to truely be free! afterall ,they have released the suspect with no charges.

 

[UhOh]

Maybe not hang around to be abused in the first place? People rarely get thrown from the window on the first date, that sort of behaviour evolves over time. Radical antisocial behaviour does not spontaneously happen, it is incubated and grows over a long period of time. It is facilitated and nurtured by submissive behaviour, until things go to far. If you say no from the get go, or pretty close to the get go, your chances of being thrown out the window will be greatly reduced, since the perp will not have had the opportunity to become accustomed to and emboldened by the status quo.

Where's your passion and emotion? This is no place for deductive reasoning.

 

[yazoo]

Actually, I think it's inductive reasoning :happy:
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

 

[sdw]

Where's your passion and emotion? This is no place for deductive reasoning.

Since the abused person must agree to press charges and agree to testify in Court - - - not many cases of abuse make it through the court system.

Most abused people won't even ask the attending police officers to take them out of the residence and to a halfway house or hospital.

Especially people that think "they must love me, or they wouldn't beat the crap out me" They think that since the police are "aware" of their situation, the abuser will back off a little to avoid leaving marks. Since there must be witnesses for the police to lay charges and domestic disturbances are a crime that takes place between two people out of other people's sight - - - it is just about always "he said, she said" The neighbors can only testify they heard noises, they can't testify about who hit whom because they didn't see anything.

That's why it is all on the abused person to decide when the abuse stops. They have to lay a charge or ask for help getting out of there.

Everybody involved is a little cynical because the abused person is usually severely injured or killed before they realize it will never stop until they decide to stop it.

So, Tugela has it right. It is up to the abused person to stop the abuse.

 

[UhOh]

Actually, I think it's inductive reasoning :happy:
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

Take your pick.

But for those that seem to think this is a one sided problem, good luck finding a solution for those in need with that logic.

 

[cherise]

Actually, I think it's inductive reasoning :happy:
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

bravo yazoo:clap2:

 

[UhOh]

... she feels lucky to have a big strong man to take care of her. an escape from her miserable homelife perhaps. so she sees him as her prince, there to rescue her.

This is not the 1800's, maybe instead of counting on a man to take care of them they consider the benefits of independence. What a crazy thought that might be

 

[cherise]

This is not the 1800's, maybe instead of counting on a man to take care of them they consider the benefits of independence. What a crazy thought that might be

these are for the most part girls that weren't taught to be self sufficient were brought up believing that they werre stupid and worthless and they better hope they find a husband , or were kicked out and on their own and are looking for security (daddy issues)

 

[CJ Tylers]

You do realize that predators have a knack for finding and exploiting "damaged goods", right? Even healthy women can be taken in, swindled, and damn near destroyed. They sneak in under the wire, then exploit, isolate and manipulate. Once they've achieved the desired control, it becomes much more dangerous for their victim.

I'm sure you're well aware of Stockholm Syndrome? You're looking at much the same situation, where the victim starts to identify with the abuser... it's just a survival technique. Not until the direct control is broken, can that person start to feel safe enough to make a rational decision.

Why don't they figure it out sooner than later? Some do, most don't. The bad guys are *very* good at deceiving you. Very. Good. They make your friends and family think that they are great, loving people. They know how to cut you down so that your own natural instincts to rebel are shattered.

It doesn't typically happen to guys, so we have a hell of a time understanding it. We externalize, we get violent. It doesn't mean we can be bullied, cowed or otherwise manipulated by an abuser... merely that the situations are far more isolated. Unless you've been there and experienced those things, you really can't judge them too harshly.

For us on the sidelines, our anger stems from hind sight. It comes from our own inability to correct the situation as we see it. It comes from being ashamed that we didn't see it in the first place, and did not save them when we had the chance. It's only human nature to turn that shame and anger against someone else, because it's too hard to deal with it on our own. But there it is... and that's how it goes.

If you can't understand that, then there's not much point in carrying on any discussion.

 

[Unpossible]

I didn't say she deserves what happened or that she's to blame (your word).

You said "she does have some responsibility for the outcome" I said "shares the blame"

blame (blm)
tr.v. blamed, blam·ing, blames
1. To hold responsible.
2. To find fault with; censure.
3. To place responsibility for (something): blamed the crisis on poor planning.

Since you like to rewrite other people's posts

I quoted your exact words.

You say I'm putting 100% blame on her

Nope, I never said that.

 

[cherise]

You do realize that predators have a knack for finding and exploiting "damaged goods", right? Even healthy women can be taken in, swindled, and damn near destroyed. They sneak in under the wire, then exploit, isolate and manipulate. Once they've achieved the desired control, it becomes much more dangerous for their victim.

I'm sure you're well aware of Stockholm Syndrome? You're looking at much the same situation, where the victim starts to identify with the abuser... it's just a survival technique. Not until the direct control is broken, can that person start to feel safe enough to make a rational decision.

Why don't they figure it out sooner than later? Some do, most don't. The bad guys are *very* good at deceiving you. Very. Good. They make your friends and family think that they are great, loving people. They know how to cut you down so that your own natural instincts to rebel are shattered.

It doesn't typically happen to guys, so we have a hell of a time understanding it. We externalize, we get violent. It doesn't mean we can be bullied, cowed or otherwise manipulated by an abuser... merely that the situations are far more isolated. Unless you've been there and experienced those things, you really can't judge them too harshly.

For us on the sidelines, our anger stems from hind sight. It comes from our own inability to correct the situation as we see it. It comes from being ashamed that we didn't see it in the first place, and did not save them when we had the chance. It's only human nature to turn that shame and anger against someone else, because it's too hard to deal with it on our own. But there it is... and that's how it goes.

If you can't understand that, then there's not much point in carrying on any discussion.

absolutely bang-on! very nicely done ,sir

 

[PlayfulAlex]

You do realize that predators have a knack for finding and exploiting "damaged goods", right? Even healthy women can be taken in, swindled, and damn near destroyed. They sneak in under the wire, then exploit, isolate and manipulate. Once they've achieved the desired control, it becomes much more dangerous for their victim.

I'm sure you're well aware of Stockholm Syndrome? You're looking at much the same situation, where the victim starts to identify with the abuser... it's just a survival technique. Not until the direct control is broken, can that person start to feel safe enough to make a rational decision.

Why don't they figure it out sooner than later? Some do, most don't. The bad guys are *very* good at deceiving you. Very. Good. They make your friends and family think that they are great, loving people. They know how to cut you down so that your own natural instincts to rebel are shattered.

It doesn't typically happen to guys, so we have a hell of a time understanding it. We externalize, we get violent. It doesn't mean we can be bullied, cowed or otherwise manipulated by an abuser... merely that the situations are far more isolated. Unless you've been there and experienced those things, you really can't judge them too harshly.

For us on the sidelines, our anger stems from hind sight. It comes from our own inability to correct the situation as we see it. It comes from being ashamed that we didn't see it in the first place, and did not save them when we had the chance. It's only human nature to turn that shame and anger against someone else, because it's too hard to deal with it on our own. But there it is... and that's how it goes.

If you can't understand that, then there's not much point in carrying on any discussion.

Nicely put, thank you. With everything that's been said in this thread, some people still stick to their opinion that, "if she had said no in the first place, she wouldn't be in the trouble she's in." It doesn't get any more ignorant than that, so my work here is done. :doh:

 

[myselftheother]

Of course, this is all conjecture since none of us were there prior to the young girl falling to her death. They let the guy they arrested go, whether until there's more evidence gathered that would enable them to press charges, or reveals the circumstances that led to her death. Do we know what happened? No we don't...we have no idea what she was doing, what he was doing, what sort of partying was going on....did he toss her over, did she jump? Or fall because she was wasted and doing something really dumb on the balcony....we have no idea. It may come out eventually, but for now, who knows?

 

[rockinbods35]

You do realize that predators have a knack for finding and exploiting "damaged goods", right? Even healthy women can be taken in, swindled, and damn near destroyed. They sneak in under the wire, then exploit, isolate and manipulate. Once they've achieved the desired control, it becomes much more dangerous for their victim.

I'm sure you're well aware of Stockholm Syndrome? You're looking at much the same situation, where the victim starts to identify with the abuser... it's just a survival technique. Not until the direct control is broken, can that person start to feel safe enough to make a rational decision.

Why don't they figure it out sooner than later? Some do, most don't. The bad guys are *very* good at deceiving you. Very. Good. They make your friends and family think that they are great, loving people. They know how to cut you down so that your own natural instincts to rebel are shattered.

It doesn't typically happen to guys, so we have a hell of a time understanding it. We externalize, we get violent. It doesn't mean we can be bullied, cowed or otherwise manipulated by an abuser... merely that the situations are far more isolated. Unless you've been there and experienced those things, you really can't judge them too harshly.

For us on the sidelines, our anger stems from hind sight. It comes from our own inability to correct the situation as we see it. It comes from being ashamed that we didn't see it in the first place, and did not save them when we had the chance. It's only human nature to turn that shame and anger against someone else, because it's too hard to deal with it on our own. But there it is... and that's how it goes.

If you can't understand that, then there's not much point in carrying on any discussion.

I think this is an excellent topic and one long overdue for discussion, you make some very salient points here and I agree this is a very complicated issue. I don't think we can just simply say< "If he is abusing you why not just leave?!!"
It may seem logical to us, but it may be lethal to the person trying to leave such a relationship...as strange as it sounds sometimes staying in is safer than leaving..at least initially..But what do you do when as the victim of abuse you want to leave but if you do your life may be in real danger? Contact the police?..they can't do anything unless threats have been uttered or a crime has been committed..and if you involve them your life will only get worse after...so what do you do?..without support you are trapped..the abuser is very skillful at isolating his victim away from all avenues of help..and the legal system is hardly in a position to provide the remedy you need.

Unless we who are aware of the situation are willing to say something..to put pressure on such individuals to change their behaviour, that is is simply not socially acceptable, and won't be tolerated in society what will change?..Nothing..."Nothing changes if nothing changes"

I find the abuse of women in all its forms to be repugnant to me, I find myself wanting to physically lash out at the abuser..to "Kick the shit out of him" to put it mildly..but what does that accomplish?..I get charged with assault the victim gets pissed at me or suffer the consequences and the abuser likely keeps doing what he is doing. So that's not the answer...will social pressure or speaking out when we hear derogatory or demeaning comments about women help?..does social pressure make a difference and deter unwanted behaviour?...how do you make an abuser realize his abuse of women won't be tolerated in society?..tougher laws?..zero tolerance?..charges being laid without the testimony of victims (often central to the case)?

I wish I knew the answers..that's why this discussion is important..it raises the profile of this issue and perhaps stimulates some constructive ideas on what can be done about it

 

[CJ Tylers]

It's precisely why so many cases end up as:

A) The victim in hospital & held in psych for their own good
B) The victim dead
C) The abuser dead (once the victim snaps completely)

It's just that tough to break an ingrained cycle.