I don't know where to post this without being flamed?

[rhondajean]

I am truly sorry for pc rathband and what happened to him. It should not have happened.

However in making him a hero, have the press etc forgotten his marraige ended becau he assaulted his wife? Or is that now okay if you have been the victim of a serious assault yourself?

you're taking serious life changing events and lumping all together
unpack it
blinded at work.doing job.by volatile violent man as a result his life fundamentally changed. resulting in mood swings, unprovoked violence, breakdown oc rathbone marriage

you need to really look at mental and physical impact moat actions had,upon pc rathbone,his wife,and family

before you're so quick to condemn, have a think, a deep think about the mental health and social impact of this

you see it's not so clear cut

pc rathbone was by circumstance flawed and acted violently in assaulting the wife. that's not disputed.but can you take on board dreadful life changing
events. thats not excuse.it is an undisputed fact he was never same man after the moat shooting

and a liberal society finds a way to think about and deal with deviancy,rather than black & white he's a bad un

I agree to some extent...I am not condemning...I am saying its a bt much to claim him as hero and support zero tolerance at the same time?

Not all men who go through awful things assault their wife's.

It should not have happened to him, but is it an excuse worth ignoring the actions he then took? And if so, where do we draw the line? What is a socially acceptable excuse?

I find the fact that now he is dead its not up for debate strange.

I've not heard anyone excuse the assault on wife
but cannot ignore other circumstantial significant events
events in no way excuse assault wife,but it adds a resonance and background.no excuses but would hope a degree of recognition for life changing events

in same way,I'd hope a potential female act of dysfunction,violence would be looked at wholly Inc all significant factors.not to excuse but to understand

Ty - I agree - I am trying to open it for debate as I haven't seen it debates yet, only that he has been feted so far. It's been ignored and I think that's a dangerous precedent.

I think that's a pile of poo tbh. He didn't assault his wife because he was blinded. Assaulting wife would be bugger all to d owith his sudden disability. It's quite possible he has been hitting her for years - but in any case I'd doubt it has the v. short time scale involved here.

For her to publically leave a 'national hero' would have took a lot of reason and motivation.

you're not debating
you have a stated position,and you're asserting the assault has been minimised. you lack objectivity,as you clearly feel v strongly

of course one can have strongly held opinion
but to profess you want debate.well clearly not really
given i have contested your pov,and you're pursuing the assaulted wife,no excuses.and humming and oohing about the hero label

Emm I posed questions, I don't see my opinion on there yet?

carbonara that's sheer conjecture that you can't substantiate
to support your tittle tattle pov

sm, is there any more a patronising manner you could possibly post in? Has drink been taken?

for me it isn't a 'strongly held opinion', it's what we know about human behaviour. And I'm positing that assaulting his wife wasn't new. It's difficult to envisage a non-violent man suddenly beating his wife in a freshly-blinded state.

lordy, night sm. No point in posting with you.

so on what basis you reckon to know of prior dv
wife accounts?
media?
or made uppicus

unfortunately,life changing medical /social events alter behaviours
this well documented phenomena
not unique to pc rathbone

General,stats suggest I think 40 incidents before a report.

I wouldn't accuse him but stats are in the favour ofit not being the first incident.

one can't know or infer that
what is known is significant life event altered his mood and behaviors

rhonda, for her to not go to the memorial service when the rest of the family did today seems to suggest there was a very deep divide between them, and pretty quickly developed. I think her staying away undermined the question of 'hero status'.

I'd just like an open debate rather than the status quo that a horrific experience excused his behaviour.

If it was even mentioned inthe biography I'd be happy.

And part of,it is recognising the effect of an awful experience.

thought you chucked rattle out pram
with a is you drunk.. cheerio

So a debate purely on guesswork and assumptions with no basis other than general statistics? because you know statistics represents all situations all the time....... even when there was clearly an obvious event which could have caused him to change something which can/does happen to people who experience traumatic events....

the dv is in public domain
it's not subverted or hidden
but one can't discuss pc rathbone without acknowledging the impact of moats actions

I'm not reading anywhere of excuses being made (but I don't read papers often) - more of a silence about it all - if he was a 'wrong-un' in the public view, then every detail would be splashed across the front page.

I think it's wrong to make any suppositions about previous dv.

He was completely f**ked up. Who knows what he felt after his experience. How can anyone possibly try to explain the guy away as a 'hero' or a 'villian'?

there's no silence the dv is known and acknowledged
it's not hidden or secret

I am pretty sure every event of violence is preceded by an event that is traumatic to the perpetrator - name calling, redundancy, disobedience, physical hurt...where spis the line then??

a life changing medical/social trauma impacted upon rathbone
resulting in suicide
that is significant

Cheddars, I don't think it's wrong at all to suppose about previous dv, at all.

I think the OP was suggesting a restraint in attaching a 'hero' tag to someone who beat up their wife, no more than that.