Agreed. Some things never need to be typed.
The police didn't need to visit, the daughter wasn't there, and if she'd been willing to swear out a complaint about the allegations of drugs and abuse I'd think the law would get involved as stand by at least, I've seen them do it for less. The pastor went with the daughter and another person to get the truck, she wouldn't have been near the husband and the shooting wouldn't have happened if they hadn't went there.
Even though I feel like the decisions the pastor made were very teenagerish... This quote above makes me angry. Of course a woman who is abused is going to have sex with the man that was abusive towards her. Have these prosecutors had any Psychology lessons. Geeze...
Is that a subjective opinion or a quantifiable scientific fact? She had been out of the home for 9 months and continued to see the husband while apparently no allegations of abuse had been filed in court, reported to police or mentioned until after the shooting happened and the recorded jail conversation with her dad about "telling the same story".
I'm not saying that the woman is/is not lying. What I am saying is the way the prosecutors worded that is not okay. "They also argued that Davidson was conveniently scary to April. The two had sex after she claimed he abused her..." I'm not saying that 100 % of the time women have sex with people that are abusive. What I am saying is that when a woman is fearful of an abuser, they will do anything to avoid a conflict that would result in abuse. They will try to cater to the abuser to avoid the abuse. This could mean having dinner on the table the minute the abuser gets home, it could mean sex at the abusers request, various other needs/wants of the abuser.
I'm not saying this case isn't fishy. It is... Just from a psychological perspective, a woman having sex with a man after he has abused her does not mean abuse was not present in the relationship.
On the other hand psychology is not a "hard science" and since there was no proof or even allegations of abuse until after the shooting maybe we should consider the prosecutor's statement as possibly "calling a spade a spade" since we know human nature(considered in psychology) will sometimes lead a person to lie to get out of trouble/avoid the consequences of their actions, or just get their way. She was away from him for 9 months what did she have to fear?
Allowing the word abuse without any proof or even prior statements of it to automatically change the legal issues in a situation sets a dangerous precedent.
Allowing the word abuse without any proof or even prior statements of it to automatically change the legal issues in a situation sets a dangerous precedent.
You speak the truth Billybob. I'm not arguing with what you are saying. She could very well be lying. I myself have crafted some zingers to avoid consequences before. All that I am saying is that this statement: "They also argued that Davidson was conveniently scary to April. The two had sex after she claimed he abused her...", is not a good reason to say that someone was not abused or in an abusive relationship. I'm not saying he was an abuser. I'm not saying she isn't a liar. I'm just saying that I believe that particular statement is a dangerous statement to use to say someone is not being abused.
That statement was not used to question whether she was abused or not, it was a statement, (although maybe crude or not PC to some) to define the prosecutor's findings based on the results of an investigation.
Similar threads
