To think if a woman complains of domestic violence, our first response should not be calling her a liar.

[mrgrouper]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36403396

Amber Heard has been granted a restraining order against Johnny Depp. There are photos circulating on the Internet of her with a nasty bruise over her right eye which she states occurred Depp caused by throwing an iPhone at her.

Many comments on Twitter claim the photos are faked, (apparently there was a photo taken a day later which does not show a bruise), people calling her manipulative and others pointing out as she is an actress, this is probably just a Machiavellian piece of show acting.

I have been through DV on two occasions and each time was branded a liar. About time both male and female victims of DV are supported and not shamed.

If it's someone I don't personally know, then I don't "believe" either side initially. Either one of them could be lying and I don't know them well enough to be sure that they aren't. You need to investigate to find out who the liar is, not jump to conclusions.

OP you do realize that if you are saying you automatically believe the woman, that means your basically calling the man a liar when he denies it? If you were so willing to believe the woman on her word, why not believe the man when he gives his word? This is why it is not really right to assume anything or jump to conclusions.

I don't think it's up to us to believe her or not. The judge has granted her a restraining order. It is up to people who know all the facts to believe her or not. A lot of the vitriol against her is because he is the more famous and she is perceived to be a good digger and a social climber because she used Depp to further her career and profile. Thats hardly unknown in Hollywood. Agents deliberately set people up precisely for that purpose. She conveniently forgot she had a girlfriend when Depp came sniffing round, but he forgot he had a partner and 2 children. They both come across as unpleasant and unsympathetic. It doesn't mean she deserves to be assaulted or that she automatically is a liar about this.

"Yes, it's just as bad as coming out with the pious (and nauseatingly smug, for some reason) 'I believe you' at any and every declaration of abuse."

This.

I desperately wish this hasn't become A Thing. I don't think it's as positive and supportive as people think it is.

Mr.Depp will have the right to appear in court to ask that the restraining order be vacated. Both parties will have the opportunity to present their side of the story to a judge, with their attorney's present if they wish. Anyone can appear in a district court in the US to request a restraining order. The defendant does not have to be present for the restraint order to be granted. A restraining order is a civil matter, nothing to do with a criminal complaint.

The judge has granted her a restraining order. It is up to people who know all the facts to believe her or not.

I have no idea who is telling the truth. But as I said up thread, the USA has a (very good) system with regards to restraining orders. Basically when an initial application is made for a temporary restraining order very, very little evidence is required beyond an allegation. This works really well, because victims are not required to jump through hoops to gain protection or provide evidence which may not be immediately available or depend on the police investigating. Once an allegation is made an assumption of truth is made on the basis that provides the best protection for genuine victims and if victims are not genuine this can be established at a later stage and the order modified to reflect this. It works. It means genuine victims are almost always given the protection of a restraining order and the fact some may later be found to be dubious claims is a reasonable price to pay to ensure that protection isn't refused for those in danger.

BUT the flip side of this is that you can't extrapolate from a temporary restraining order that there is no smoke without fire because the proof needed to have one granted is so low.

I can't see how anyone can comment fairly on her situation without knowing either of them or both of them very well, even then not even those close to them will know what happens behind closed doors. I think passing comments without having hard facts or evidence and passing personal opinion can actually make it much harder for people to resolve these issues through proper channels because everyone else getting their ore in can cloud and confuse and already difficult situation.
I just hope they can resolve the issue properly with the right support without outsiders making it harder.

"Today 08:23 pinkdelight

I completely agree on the DV front. I wish she wasn't claiming spousal support though, after a year of marriage. It doesn't help her case (for sympathy, not legal case)."

I just don't understand this viewpoint. Have you stopped to wonder why you think she needs you ("the worlds") sympathy? Maybe she doesn't give a fuck what you all think. She has got her divorce, the judge has granted her restraining order, maybe that's what matters to her. If I were getting divorced I wouldn't give a fig what a complete stranger halfway across the world thinks

If I were getting divorced I wouldn't give a fig what a complete stranger halfway across the world thinks

Then you probably wouldn't be doing sad face press photo calls outside the court house either would you?

Sparkling. Best not to speculate at all

^ this

Before any of this happened though, I thought it was quite blatant that she had only married him as a career move which had gone spectacularly wrong as they both became untouchable laughing stock car crashes rather than bankable stars. And he was a deluded randy old goat who was arrogant enough to think she actually fancied his bloated plasticised old cadaver and loved him for himself when she obviously didn't.

^^ this

YANBU. If she was the "right type" of victim you know, looking subdued and miserable hiding herself away +non-famous its far more likely she'd be believed. I hope she doesn't give a fuck what other people think, actually. Misandry-Net is really getting out of hand lately

I don't know what to think but the bruises that she has seem to be in a different place in different pictures. I thought it was a bit

Anyone else read that Jessica Valenti article in the Guardian today? Almost all the comments accuse her of either asking for it or lying. I have spent the day enraged by the Guardian readers of Great Britain.

The first instinct should NEVER be to victim blame. It's wrong when the Police do it, and it's just as wrong when we do it as individuals who are part of our society.

Trust then verify is fine. Assume everyone is lying, isnt.

Trial by jury not by media. It's not our place to comment. I don't believe most of what is in the papers so I try not to form opinions based on bits of a story that's nothing to do with me. If she was posting and asking for help then usual help would be given but I'm not getting into the middle of a media gunfight I'm ill informed about.

Nope i'm not in the automatic 'i believe you' camp when it comes to hollywood types - both sexes, all and any claims. Too many narcissists, egos, liars, and of course trained actors and actresses.

Exactly this.

Lupo what do you mean by "trust then verify"?

Well - I'm waxing lyrical there. It's short hand for "retain a critical mind"/be open to new data as it emerges.

As a member of the public, we're very rarely in a position to verify anything firsthand ourselves.

That said, the natural human instinct to support the victim, whilst proof of what happened is being gathered, rather than to mistrust them, is a good one.

I believe it causes the least possible harm to take that approach.

It's not so long ago when no-one wanted to come forward about DV and such like for fear of a negative response from the Police (i.e. assumed to be lying or suchlike by default).

I'm not saying it's being handled perfectly in 2016 and there's still many miles to go on improving it, but the trajectory seems positive decade to decade.

I believe it causes the least possible harm to take that approach.

Well, not really. Not if the person being accused isn't guilty but is being treated as such. The whole 'no smoke without fire' thing can be very, very dangerous. The case which springs immediately to mind is Colin Stagg and the accusation that he murdered Rachel Nickell. He was hounded for years by the 'he must have done it, no smoke without fire' brigade and had his life destroyed before someone else who was already in jail for a double murder eventually admired he'd killed Rachel too 16 years later.

Surely the best way is to assume nothing rather than supporting one 'side' or another. I don't really see why it's important for support to be offered to victims by anybody outside professional agencies and people known to them anyway. The right not to be blamed or attacked for making allegations when the full facts are not known, yes. But support, no, I don't think so. Not when so much is unclear.

There is a big difference between not offering support and calling the person a liar amd accusing them of doctoring photos

You're merging two things into one there. You say the natural instinct is to support a victim rather than mistrusting them - But supporting doesn't mean trusting. I don't trust anyone who makes an allegation. Why should I? There's another person who is alleging they are innocent of that crime, so I know someone is lying. Based on that, I'm not going to trust anyone. I agree people who want to make an allegation should be given support to do so, but that's very different to trusting them. I don't think it would be helpful for society to believe the victim by default because that effectively removes the assumption of innocence from the accused, which is one of the key protections we have in society. If everyone believes whatever the victim says, it becomes a case of the accused having to prove they didn't commit the crime, rather than the way it should be: the accuser having to prove they did.

Yes, sock, agreed. But they're not the only two options are they? There's also the option of just admitting we have no idea what went on so not making any assumption of truth/lies on either side? Neither offering support nor making assumptions of lies/guilt? But perhaps letting justice run it's course and having people with access to far better information decide guilt or innocence?

But then that also overlooks the fact that no criminal complaint has been made so nobody is doing that anyway.

I think between the two of them, I would go with the one who has the judge on their side. Court of law is not stupid in general and I think they can sort through the pile of lies objectively.
I have this intuitive feeling that he did it though. I can't explain it. I think calling her s gold digger is just one more smear campaign from his publicists mainly. The words used in the statement issued by his PR team are telling too. I would wait for the court to act further and ten I will decide which side to take. Right now that bruise on her face made my blood boil. I liked her. If she is a gold digger, Depp is no Saint either. He was an adult when he started dating her. If anything, his age could make him utterly controlling and we won't know. So I would wait and watch. I think his 450million PR machine is in full drive though.