AIBU to think being in a relationship with a convicted drink driver who killed a person is not 'couple goals'

[lovedayAlleys]

On social media I've seen a couple who have gone public with their relationship with a post on social media.
One half of the couple was the perpetrator in a drink driving incident where the victim that was involved was killed. The perpetrator served a few years in prison for said crime and the situation was well publicised in the media.
Lots of gushing comments under the post on social media congratulating the happy couple, including the comment 'couple goals'.
AIBU that nobody in their right mind could ever aspire to or have a goal of being half of a relationship with someone found guilty of killing another person?
The quantity of likes and positive comments really flummoxed me. Is there anyone here who would date a person they knew to have been guilty of killing another person?

@Dreamstate

I bet lots of people have done lots of stupid things except they are just lucky it didn't end up with terrible consequences but it could have as it did with this guy.

So I find it a bit hard to understand all these comments saying I couldn't be with a person who did that, well your probably eith a person who did drink n drive that one time but lucky to get away with not harming anyone. Or something equally bad.

I find this a bizarre comment. I am absolutely certain that neither me nor DH has ever driven over the limit.

All the friends I socialise are equally strict, I don't think any of us even have one drink if we're driving.

So honestly I think this comment is a poor reflection of you and/or the company you keep if you think this is true.

wheresmymojo

I absolutely agree. Neither me or my partner have ever done this. If we’re driving, we don’t drink, ever. We have 2 family members that do and we don’t have anything to do with them. It’s very much looked on as something completely unacceptable by people we mix with.

I also find it kind of bizarre that according to several people on this thread we're not supposed to judge someone who was convicted of drunk driving twice and who killed someone the second time.

I'm not a hugely judgemental person but yes, I absolutely would judge someone like that.

It's not always wrong to judge people.

I mean where do people draw the line with this 'being non-judgemental is the absolute goal' nonsense?

For me - criminal activity absolutely falls into the ' totally acceptable to judge' category.

Being non-judgemental is about not judging people for personal choices, quirks and life decisions that don't impact on other people.

It's not about pretending any range of criminal behaviour is okay...

@thedancingbear

The revelation that he did it before also came into play when the thread was going heavily in the opposite direction that the OP expected…

In fairness, it seems highly likely that anyone caught drink driving has done it very many times before they're actually caught, and certainly before the end up killing someone. It's the kind of 'one off mistake' that people overwhelmingly make multiple times. In which event, it's not a mistake, it's a conscious decision to be a scumbag.

What way was I expecting the thread to go? From what I have said Is it implausible to think that I may have asked my question as I'm simply interested in what other people would do?

I gave the update as posters were assuming it was a one off.
I don't want to give more detail as it will quite identifiable to the case but what's happened in the aftermath, after the release from prison gives me no indication that it's not a possibility it won't happen again in the future.

@SupermanWithTheGreyHair

wheresmymojo

I absolutely agree. Neither me or my partner have ever done this. If we’re driving, we don’t drink, ever. We have 2 family members that do and we don’t have anything to do with them. It’s very much looked on as something completely unacceptable by people we mix with.

I've actually finished a friendship over this. She drove 30-40 mins after drinking quite heavily.

I wasn't with her at the time, she told me about it because she decided to cut her friend off who was with her and was worried enough to call her sister and parents and tell them she was driving home completely drunk and she was worried and didn't know what to do (they'd been friends for a long time, since childhood)

According to ex-friend her friend was out of line to tell her family.

I think she was lucky - I would have called the Police even though we'd been close friends for 10 years.

My father killed someone drink driving in the 1970's and then moved to Saudi to avoid prosecution. He was never charged. Came back in the 80's and drove regularly including after drinking and always without a licence or insurance because he didn't dare flag up that he was in the country.

My stepfather also drove regularly after drinking, once a week at least. I judge him as much as if he'd killed someone because it's luck, not judgement that he didn't.

And yes, my lovely DM has absolutely terrible taste in men

[quote Fromablokespoint]@thedancingbear

"Tell me the last time a member of the armed forces did that in the UK. I'm around all day."

Poster actually said Police Office - do you put them in the same category?[/quote]
No. I draw a distinction between-

(i) someone joining the police, and finding themselves in the highly unlikely position that they need to tackle a terrorist to protect life and limb of themselves and others

(ii) someone joining the forces with the express intention of travelling to places thousands of miles away, to shoot and blow up people, many of them conscripts and/or teenagers, who are not a material threat to us at all.

That said, regarding (i), I would be suspicious of someone who was too keen to take on a role that involved firearms. I would have serious doubts about their psyche. There are ways of protecting and helping people that don't involve automatic weapons.

Yes I could as long as they were remorseful. All of us do stupid things sometimes.

I think there's a difference between getting into a car blind drunk than not realising you are still over the limit the next day after drinking too. So it really depends on the circumstances like other posters he said.

I think if I were convicted of killing someone I would very much keep my head down and get on with my life and not be on social media (not least because I would feel absolutely ashamed and also not want to be targeted by anyone linked to the victim). I think what pisses you off is not that he or she is pictured on there but that people are fawning all over them as a perfect couple. That would piss me off too. But then all 'couple goals' things are bollocks anyway. There are no perfect couples and no amount of tan and gloss will convince me otherwise

@thedancingbear you are incredibly naive if you think people ‘thousands of miles away’ aren’t a threat to people in this country.

Sorry to derail the thread!

No. I draw a distinction between-

(i) someone joining the police, and finding themselves in the highly unlikely position that they need to tackle a terrorist to protect life and limb of themselves and others

Not highly unlikely?

2017, 22 March: 2017 Westminster attack
2017, 3 June: 2017 London Bridge attack
2019, 29 November: 2019 London Bridge stabbing
2020, 2 February: 2020 Streatham stabbing
All involved the Police using lethal force to stop an ongoing attack.

(ii) someone joining the forces with the express intention of travelling to places thousands of miles away, to shoot and blow up people, many of them conscripts and/or teenagers, who are not a material threat to us at all.

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

Not a material threat?

Whatever your thoughts on UK Military operating in other countries there is unequivable evidence that disrupting terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world has a clear impact on the number of terrorist attacks in the UK.

That said, regarding (i), I would be suspicious of someone who was too keen to take on a role that involved firearms. I would have serious doubts about their psyche. There are ways of protecting and helping people that don't involve automatic weapons.

Unfortunately, when other people are using “automatic weapons” there is little way of protecting them by being nice and kind. The world is a shit dangerous place, there are some very nasty people who do not operate with compassion and understanding. How do you deal with those?
Helping people – UK Military and Government Organisations have deployed on numerous operations with the express aim of providing aid, peacekeeping and disaster relief in recent times.

[quote 21Bee]@thedancingbear you are incredibly naive if you think people ‘thousands of miles away’ aren’t a threat to people in this country.[/quote]
I'm not going to bore you with my background and credentials - anyone can claim to be anything on the internet - but I am anything but naive in the field of international relations.

Are these people a threat to our energy supply/standard of living? Absolutely.

Are they a significant threat to our life and limb, such that it's morally justified shooting a teenager who has been brainwashed and given a rifle by his uncle? Probably not.

It all depends on what circumstances you think it's okay to kill or blow someone up. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It wasn't me who introduced the armed forces to the thread as an example of those who are entitled legitimately to kill people.

^2017, 22 March: 2017 Westminster attack
2017, 3 June: 2017 London Bridge attack
2019, 29 November: 2019 London Bridge stabbing
2020, 2 February: 2020 Streatham stabbing
All involved the Police using lethal force to stop an ongoing attack.^

There are c150000 police officers in the UK. They have to use lethal force to kill a terrorist, on average, less than once a year. How do you understand the expression 'highly unlikely'?

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

Yes.

Whatever your thoughts on UK Military operating in other countries there is unequivable evidence that disrupting terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world has a clear impact on the number of terrorist attacks in the UK.

Where? I disagree.

UK Military and Government Organisations have deployed on numerous operations with the express aim of providing aid, peacekeeping and disaster relief in recent times.

But it's not their reason for being. Provision of aid, and disaster relief can be provided without weapons. 'Peacekeeping' is a horrible euphemism.

(ii) someone joining the forces with the express intention of travelling to places thousands of miles away, to shoot and blow up people, many of them conscripts and/or teenagers, who are not a material threat to us at all.

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

Not a material threat?

Whatever your thoughts on UK Military operating in other countries there is unequivable evidence that disrupting terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world has a clear impact on the number of terrorist attacks in the UK.

That said, regarding (i), I would be suspicious of someone who was too keen to take on a role that involved firearms. I would have serious doubts about their psyche. There are ways of protecting and helping people that don't involve automatic weapons.

Unfortunately, when other people are using “automatic weapons” there is little way of protecting them by being nice and kind. The world is a shit dangerous place, there are some very nasty people who do not operate with compassion and understanding. How do you deal with those?
Helping people – UK Military and Government Organisations have deployed on numerous operations with the express aim of providing aid, peacekeeping and disaster relief in recent times.

There are c150000 police officers in the UK. They have to use lethal force to kill a terrorist, on average, less than once a year. How do you understand the expression 'highly unlikely'?

There are C6500 Authorised Armed Police in the UK. They were deployed on about 18,000 “Authorised Firearm Operations” in 2019.
Each armed police operation in the UK is authorised.
Fortunately very few resulted in the use of force. But when deploying the officer had no idea what the outcome would be. So the use of firearms, whether fatal or not, is not highly unlikely.

Whatever your thoughts on UK Military operating in other countries there is unequivable evidence that disrupting terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world has a clear impact on the number of terrorist attacks in the UK.

Where? I disagree.
Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and many we do not know about:
Disruption of “safe haven” training and planning camps
Disruption of financial networks
Direct action against known terrorists
Intelligence gathering
Do you honestly believe that UK Military & Government Agencies involvement outside of the UK has no effect on actual attacks?

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

Yes.

As per the Police the vast majority of UK Military will never be involved in direct action, involving as said by another poster there are accountants, chefs, doctors, vets, etc. I presume the vast majority did not join with the express intent to travel the world and “shoot and blow up people”
But…. You have a sweeping opinion about all of them?

And you did not answer this one:
Unfortunately, when other people are using “automatic weapons” there is little way of protecting them by being nice and kind. The world is a shit dangerous place, there are some very nasty people who do not operate with compassion and understanding.

How do you deal with those?

'Peacekeeping' is a horrible euphemism.

Why. You have two factions, tribes, etc who are intent on wiping each out. Genocide, terrible human rights abuses. Negotiations have failed – You sometimes have to “Force the peace” when all else fails.

@mewkins

I think if I were convicted of killing someone I would very much keep my head down and get on with my life and not be on social media (not least because I would feel absolutely ashamed and also not want to be targeted by anyone linked to the victim). I think what pisses you off is not that he or she is pictured on there but that people are fawning all over them as a perfect couple. That would piss me off too. But then all 'couple goals' things are bollocks anyway. There are no perfect couples and no amount of tan and gloss will convince me otherwise

Yes this gushing over them and holding them up as something to aspire to is to me utterly baffling, considering every one of those commenting will be aware of the situation.

@Fromablokespoint

There are c150000 police officers in the UK. They have to use lethal force to kill a terrorist, on average, less than once a year. How do you understand the expression 'highly unlikely'?

There are C6500 Authorised Armed Police in the UK. They were deployed on about 18,000 “Authorised Firearm Operations” in 2019.
Each armed police operation in the UK is authorised.
Fortunately very few resulted in the use of force. But when deploying the officer had no idea what the outcome would be. So the use of firearms, whether fatal or not, is not highly unlikely.

Whatever your thoughts on UK Military operating in other countries there is unequivable evidence that disrupting terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world has a clear impact on the number of terrorist attacks in the UK.

Where? I disagree.
Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and many we do not know about:
Disruption of “safe haven” training and planning camps
Disruption of financial networks
Direct action against known terrorists
Intelligence gathering
Do you honestly believe that UK Military & Government Agencies involvement outside of the UK has no effect on actual attacks?

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

Yes.

As per the Police the vast majority of UK Military will never be involved in direct action, involving as said by another poster there are accountants, chefs, doctors, vets, etc. I presume the vast majority did not join with the express intent to travel the world and “shoot and blow up people”
But…. You have a sweeping opinion about all of them?

And you did not answer this one:
Unfortunately, when other people are using “automatic weapons” there is little way of protecting them by being nice and kind. The world is a shit dangerous place, there are some very nasty people who do not operate with compassion and understanding.

How do you deal with those?

I'm not going to argue the toss with you on each of these points.

However a man coming onto a women's forum and defending at length the rights of men to commit male violence is a pretty bad look.

What I will say is that stating a list of countries that have appeared in the news does not constitute 'evidence' that our overseas sorties have had any positive effect whatsoever. All we've done is go into these places, blow them up a bit, and pay arms companies through the nose for the equipment to do so.

Really? Myabe your OH has bmnever told you because he did it when he was younger. You won't know.

BTW are you that perfect you never broken any laws? I suppose you don't drive not even 1mph over the limits etc...

There was a pp who mentioned someone she is with drank deove once but there were no consequences...well lucky then isnt it so its okay to date or be married to someone who did that and got away with it but not okay if they didn't

Bit hypocritical

I am not defending the right to male violence - you have forgotten female police officer and Armed forces who actually along with their male counterparts do an unsavory job whilst trying to avoid violence at all costs.
And I thought males were allowed on here?

Despite your proclaimed credentials and knowledge of World Affairs your last statement was very naïve.

I thought we were having a good debate!

Most people who have murdered someone regret it. Many have PTSD about it. Myth to believe otherwise. Humans are complicated.

Prison can and does rehabilitate people.

I'm an alcoholic 5 years in recovery and never drink drove but know a lot of people who did. I also have met someone who killed his mother with an axe and is now in a relationship with an older woman that gets plastered over Facebook a lot and there is similar - lots of comments about how happy they are and likes. I wouldn't choose to be in a relationship with someone who has killed someone but I do know a lot of people who have drunk driven and now sober are lovely people and horrified and remorseful for their previous actions. So in terms of friendships being relationships I do have relationships with people who have drunk driven but only the ones who wouldn't do it again and who are actively making sure that they never drink again. I think if I had killed someone I wouldn't have been able to live with myself so find it hard to put myself in the shoes of someone who has to live with this.

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?
Yes.

I’m not sure how a drunk driving thread got so far off topic, and I know this will probably do no good and probably just serve to raise my blood pressure but…

I do believe it’s possible you know people like that. I’m sure there are idiots in every country, joining their militaries with this thought. However, I don’t know if it will make you feel better but one of three thing happens here.

1. They don’t even make it through training because they are mentally unfit. “Shooting people and blowing things up” is the purpose of the people the military is usually trying to fight. People who join the military with this goal may have antisocial issues, violence issues, etc., and they will be discovered and sent home on a psychiatric basis.

1. If they’re on the borderline and they make it through training, they will quickly learn that war isn’t a game and there are MANY rules of engagement in the Status of Forces Agreement to the point that it can sometimes make it impossible to kill someone even if you witness them killing someone else with your own eyes. If you violate the Status of Forces, then anything you do is a crime. And they’re very clear. And provide more protection for those you are “fighting” against than for the military following them.

OR

1. They will somehow make it through training hiding that they’re unfit, they will make it into a war zone in a deployed combat capacity (versus the other 80-90% of individuals in the military) with their desire to cause mayhem still intact somehow, they will violate the Status of Forces, and they will end up being tried by the government of the nation where they are fighting (if they’re very fortunate, they may be able to come back to the UK for some reason). And yes, it definitely does happen.

But whoever said this,
A huge proportion of 'military' personnel have no combat function, don't interact with weapons, and would go nowhere near any sort of conflict zone. There are accountants, cooks, surgeons, doctors, etc etc in the military. They're no more complicit in 'murder' that the people in the M.O.D., the politicians that take decisions to get involved in conflicts, or the tax payers who pay for the military that represents them.

No. Every cook and accountant received the same firearms training. And signed a contract. And is legally forced to serve in the military until that contract’s time period is complete. And regardless of whether they are “mainly” a cook or accountant, if they are ordered to kill someone in a situation not against the Queen’s rules for the army (not illegally), they must do it. Or they will find themselves in military prison for defying orders. So every person who has joined the military must be willing to kill, if so ordered. I know quite a few people who are ex-Forces at this point, and they all believe strongly in the right of others to disapprove of the military, but don’t bury your head in the sand and say, “Oh, it’s only some of the military; only the ‘bad’ ones would kill. Most of them are decent.” That’s incredibly disingenuous and a very strange idea. All of them knew they had to be willing to kill when they signed up. None of them are “bad.”

“Shooting people and blowing things up” is the purpose of the people the military is usually trying to fight. People who join the military with this goal may have antisocial issues, violence issues, etc., and they will be discovered and sent home on a psychiatric basis.

Sorry, but this is fucking laughable. Other countries' militaries are murderous psychopaths, but ours are good guys just trying to keep us safe (by going into their countries and blowing them up?).

I think you need to get a bit of perspective. Recent wars have been fought many, many miles from the UK in countries in which we have no legitimate business. We are the aggressors. We are not automatically the good guys, however much you'd like to think otherwise.

thedancingbear you are extremely lucky that there are people out there that are willing to do the things you are not so that you, me, and millions of others can sleep safely in their beds at night. I'm sure there are some that sign up for the wrong reasons, but on the whole I salute our armed forces and those police officers that run towards danger as we run away. But if your little utopia doesn't have room for a relationship with these extraordinarily brave women that's your choice, and possibly also your loss. Not sure what its got to do with the OP beyond a tenuous link to your hobby horse maybe!

OP - I see what you're saying. In my view the man in question has paid the price and is entitled to seek happiness with someone willing to look past his past. But the facebook gushing is maybe a touch nauseating, I can see that too.

You actually think that people join the armed forces with the express intent of “shooting and blowing up people?

I know 2 young men who said that they joined to blow up some . Absolute idiots, but they exist unfortunately. I thought the Army might be good for them, but I still know one of them and they’re still a racist thug years later.