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?

@Everanewbie

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.

I'm really not. If there was a direct threat to the British Isles, I can assure you that I'd be the first to sign up. I would be there in the trenches, as would many decent people.

But bombing Afghanistan or Syria or wading into the Sierra Leone conflict, or whatever other recent intervention you care to mention, does not make you or I any safer in our beds. if anything, it makes us a target for terrorism. We are waging war on these people, however you cut it.

And, again, I didn't introduce the armed forces into this discussion. It was someone else who mentioned their overseas actions as examples of legitimate killing.

@SupermanWithTheGreyHair

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.

No. This doesn't happen. It's other people's armed forces that are the psychopathic baddies. Even though it's us going into their countries, bombing their cities, killing their teenagers, and not the reverse.

So much shitty pro militaristic jingoism.

My brother and two friends were killed when their car was hit by someone who was drink driving. It's been 20 years and the driver is now married with 2 or 3 children (my family is from a small town and he's still there). I wish him nothing but the best. He was 20 and did an incredibly stupid thing but I don't think he deserves to spend the rest of his life paying for it.

Gosh, we'll leave the armed robbers and terrorists to it then! We'll make the navy, the army and airforce redundant. Sure you'll sleep soundly!

Maybe you have a point with some of the campaigns over the last few years, you have a legitimate grievance there shared by many. Its the demonisation of the individuals that put themselves in the firing line with the expressed purpose of protecting us that i object to.

I hate what the police have been forced to do. Knocking on doors to arrest people visiting granny or whatever through the pandemic. In my opinion many officers have been all too quick to enjoy the draconian powers they've been given. I've had moments when I've seen officers taking the knee to one set of protesters, while baton-charging another, presumably based on the perceived validity of the cause, and i've lamented our cowardly and politicised police force. But on reflection, I wouldn't want to be where we would be without them.

Maybe you have a point with some of the campaigns over the last few years, you have a legitimate grievance there shared by many. Its the demonisation of the individuals that put themselves in the firing line with the expressed purpose of protecting us that i object to.

I think the problem with that is that anyone who knows anything about British foreign policy over the centuries should be able to see that our conduct has more often than not, been shit. We have, for the larger part of our history, been the invader, the aggressor, the conqueror, and I don't think there's been such a sea change in our outlook post-WWII as some would like to think.

It therefore seems to follow that, if you sign up, you know there's a good chance (in the last analysis) be shooting at or bombing people based on some pretty dubious premises. I think some people don't do these calculations, or don't understand the history, and their is a lesser guilt of omission.

The lads who ' join... to blow up some ', are, to put it bluntly, murdering scum. They do not make us safe at night. They make the world a much worse place. And I think it is a conceit to think that these are outliers in our own armed forces, but that their overseas counterparts are packed with these types.

@54321nought

| think it is extremely disrespectful to the victim to be celebrating your happy life on social media.

I don't think that shows and genuine sorrow, empathy or remorse.

Move on with your life by all means, but you have forfeited the right to use of social media

Except if used to raise awareness, etc.

Definitely not for personal celebrations

That's where I'm coming from too

@54321nought and @Monty27

The OP said the posts were on social media but it doesn't specify that it was the offender who posted them, it could have been their partner and therefore they would have had no control over who saw it.

Should the partner never be allowed to post on social media either? What about friends and family, should they never post pictures from their events in case the offender is in them and looking happy and celebrating? What if the offender has family/friends etc who have moved away, should they not be allowed to share pictures etc via social media with them?

My ExDH never uses social media, but through our relationship I added pictures/posts about significant events for both of us - when we got engaged, when we got married, when we had DD etc - on my social media because I wanted to share my news with my friends and family, which I am allowed to do.

If you don't want to see someone's social media you can choose not to view it or even go as far as to actively block/hide it. That is an option open to anyone so if you don't want to see someone - who has been to prison, served their time and been released - post about themselves getting on with their life and becoming a stable, functioning member of society then it is up to you to stop looking.

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

This is strawman garbage frankly.

The idea that there is any scenario whereby clerks in Adjutant's Corps (for example) are ever going to be expected to fulfil a combat function is fantastical nonsense. I never made any point about how military personnel are trained on entry, since that is a triflingly short and largely irrelevant (in many cases) aspect of their careers. The point is, a large proportion of military personnel are not trained to carry out any sort of combat role, and would never be expected or asked to. There is no scenario where the UK would still be fighting at such a desperate stage that they'd be slapping helmets and bayonets on electricians and lawyers and expecting them charge the enemy, It doesn't matter what the law says, every member of the military is well aware of their legal obligations, heaven knows they don't hold back with drumming it into you, but the fact remains that they are never going to be in a position whereby they will be expected to perform a combat role.

Honestly, the way some people carry on in here.

1st date - 'tell me a bit about yourself?'

"oh well, when I left school I joined the army and spent years as an electrical engineer fixing industrial laundry equipment"

"OMG, you psychopathic murderous bastard, HOW COULD YOU!!!!"

flounces out

It's ridiculous.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

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

This is strawman garbage frankly.

The idea that there is any scenario whereby clerks in Adjutant's Corps (for example) are ever going to be expected to fulfil a combat function is fantastical nonsense. I never made any point about how military personnel are trained on entry, since that is a triflingly short and largely irrelevant (in many cases) aspect of their careers. The point is, a large proportion of military personnel are not trained to carry out any sort of combat role, and would never be expected or asked to. There is no scenario where the UK would still be fighting at such a desperate stage that they'd be slapping helmets and bayonets on electricians and lawyers and expecting them charge the enemy, It doesn't matter what the law says, every member of the military is well aware of their legal obligations, heaven knows they don't hold back with drumming it into you, but the fact remains that they are never going to be in a position whereby they will be expected to perform a combat role.

Honestly, the way some people carry on in here.

1st date - 'tell me a bit about yourself?'

"oh well, when I left school I joined the army and spent years as an electrical engineer fixing industrial laundry equipment"

"OMG, you psychopathic murderous bastard, HOW COULD YOU!!!!"

flounces out

It's ridiculous.

I made this point because what you’ve said is EXACTLY the way previous posters had carried on - saying they wouldn’t date anyone who had previously joined the military or trying to separate men and women in the Forces into “good” and “ bad” types. About the only people who can guarantee they may not fulfill a combat role when they sign a military contract are individuals who are already doctors or solicitors. Otherwise, they happen to get trained as certain specialities or accepted as certain specialities. Some of the previous comments on here just struck me as totally bizarre.

I suppose remorse is the thing which really matters. No one sets out one evening intending to kill someone while drunk, so if the person genuinely regrets what happened, I may be able to see past it.

To be honest though, I reckon that the more gushy the social media posts, the more rocky the relationship.

@thedancingbear

“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.

No.

I said nothing about other countries’ militaries. Who exactly is it that you think we’re always fighting? Or that we’ve been fighting? Because in Afghanistan, for example, they were in a state of civil war and a majority of the country was controlled by the Taliban who killed Afghan civilians and refused to allow humanitarian aid to reach them. Once organized, the Afghan Army worked with us, many of them at great personal cost, and it contained a lot of heroes, men who went home to houses without security, to families threatened by the Taliban, who knew their villages would be targeted. And the Taliban did burn whole villages to the ground if they chose to work with the Afghan Army, or us, or the Americans.

I mentioned the Status of Forces agreement so you’d understand that there are a lot of serious rules before you can just “shoot people and blow things up,” and in fact, I married a man who was in a combat role but believed that if you did everything right, you would usually be able to avoid doing either of those things. He used those beliefs to defuse a riot and save lives, and he also used them to make sure a lot of trainees who joined up wanting to “shoot people” were disqualified before they even broke in their first pair of boots.

He came home safely and I’m grateful. But his Afghani interpreter, a true friend who saved his life several times, was killed in a situation where UK forces couldn’t shoot under the Status of Forces agreement. And yet, even knowing how shite that was, I still believe the rules are necessary, because no military should be in combat without checks and balances.

Should we have gotten involved in the first place? Different argument. I think there are a lot of places slaughtering civilians and denying them humanitarian aid, and I don’t know why that one required such urgent commitment more so than many others (I’ve heard the reasoning about terrorism). But it’s gone now.

Get a bit of perspective? I’ve got mine already, it cost me more than a bit, and if you choose to belittle my ability to use it to think rationally, well, I respect that’s completely your right.

I’m sorry, but I can’t respond again. It’s just not healthy for me.

@Ellmau

My DPs know someone who killed his own wife through careless (rather than drunk) driving. He escaped a prison sentence and less than a year later he was remarried.

Fucking hell