PC David Rathbands Suicide.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

PercyBoleyn:

OriginalLadders:
That doesn't mean he wasn't getting worse. And yes, his wife leaving obviously had an effect on him, but what about the effect he was having on her?

Well yes it does actually. Why would he have waited so long to committ suicide if he was getting worse? Also, what effect could he have on her?

Depression does not exist in a binary state. The decision to commit suicide is a gradual one; you eventually reach a point where you decide that living is not worth the pain and effort. It doesn't happen at the drop of a hat.

OriginalLadders:
No, you don't know she could have helped. Once deciding to commit suicide people often seem happier, because knowing the pain will end is oddly comforting, she may well have thought he was getting better. And his chances of suicide are exactly that his why should she give up her life to give someone else a better chance of survival? (I don't mean dying for him)

I'm not saying she should have given up her life for him, I'm saying she was selfish for leaving him at a critical time in his life. That's what you don't seem to understand.

Thank you for proving my point about you ignoring my points. I have already said that her actions were selfish. This I agree on. What I disagree with is the idea that this is somehow damning, or that she should have stayed and been miserable herself.

OriginalLadders:
You have ignored a lot of what I said, you have made assumptions on things you could not have any knowledge of and you have called my knowledge into question. I have honestly tried to answer every point you raised, but they keep reappearing despite the lack of response to the points I raised against them.

Your "responses" were barely worthy of being called assumptions. You made no viable arguments, you simply said that she wasn't selfish because... well who knows? You never really elaborated on that point.

And yet more proof, I did not say that she was not selfish, but that your assumptions were unreasonable. Love all the ad hominem attack managed to squeeze in there by the way.

OriginalLadders:
At the end of the day I stand by this: He took his own life, he made that decision. He could have reached out for someone, his brother maybe. He could have gone to a doctor and gotten expert help and medication. Phones are made so that the blind can use them, but he didn't pick it up. he had other options, but he gave up and I cannot have sympathy for anyone who makes that decision, nor can I just let the blame fall on anyone else.

That fucking selfish piece of shit! How DARE he inconvenience his wife and kids like that by falling into a deep depression? In fact, how dare any sick person inconvenience society like that? We should just throw them all in a big hole and rid ourselves of such filth.

And again, evidence that you're ignoring my arguments and repeating yourself. I never said he was at fault for being depressed, but that he was at fault for not doing anything about it. Just as I would have no sympathy for someone dying of kidney failure who refused a donor kidney.

With that, I'm out. Have fun with your binary outlook and your selective blindness.

Oirish_Martin:
-SNIP-

Seeing as he didn't actually quote you in his response, I just thought you'd want some notification.

OriginalLadders:
Thank you for proving my point about you ignoring my points. I have already said that her actions were selfish. This I agree on. What I disagree with is the idea that this is somehow damning, or that she should have stayed and been miserable herself.

I'm not saying what she did was somehow damning and that she should have been forced to stick with him even if she was miserable. However, what she did was clearly selfish and any flack she gets is at least partially deserving. Considering we're in agreement, are we done?

PercyBoleyn:
Well, it would have kept one of them alive. That's a plus.

I can pretty much guarantee you that that blinded constable would be corpse with a depressed wife (whom he apparently also was beating up) as well as with one who pretty much left him. Depressed people (and I'm not talking about pussies who say that when they have a bad week, but clinical depression) are very draining to be around.

Imagine when doing that while also depressed yourself... Might as well save time, not delay the inevitable and put a rifle to one's head immediatly.

But is the rest of your judgemental post still relevant now that he's apparently been abusive and engaged in domestic violence? I wouldn't assume you to cling to condemning someone if it's shown she was saving herself and her children from beatings.

OriginalLadders:

Oirish_Martin:
-SNIP-

Seeing as he didn't actually quote you in his response, I just thought you'd want some notification.

It's fixed now.

Blablahb:

Imagine when doing that while also depressed yourself... Might as well save time, not delay the inevitable and put a rifle to one's head immediatly.

You should consider becoming a therapist.

PercyBoleyn:

PercyBoleyn:
You just compared child-rearing to rehabilitating someone after being shot in the eye while suffering from depression and pre-existing marital issues?

Why exactly do you think you should be taken seriously here, again?

You said a person who was shot in the face, lost his sight, friends and family is selfish. You tell me.

By your standards, when applied consistently, as opposed to selectively. Not my problem. I have declared all along that my actual stance is that neither of them should be decried for being selfish as both of them were put in an impossible situation.

But back on point - what exactly are the similarities between the completely everyday activities of child-rearing and the horrifically rare event of your spouse being shot in the face?

PercyBoleyn:
Actually, yes - it always tickles me when I come up against someone so inept with basic logical forms that they misclassify a remark as an ad hominem. Hint - it wasn't ;)

You did it again.

An ad hominem? Again, no. Look up what it actually means. It doesn't mean "personal insult". Maybe you should learn some Latin instead of fnarr-fnarring at it.

You do realize personal insults are not allowed on this site right? I've never directed any defamatory remarks at you, I see no reason why we can't be civil.

Bullshit. You just accused me of spitting on someone's grave after putting words in my mouth to justify that remark. If you're going to cite the rulebook at me, try not to trip over your own feet while doing so.

PercyBoleyn:
How about you? How do you feel about having bullied a woman who's already been through hell for three pages? I mean, it's bad enough having a painful incident like this reported in the press, but it must be excruciating when members of the knowitall brigade like you show up.;)

Oh yeah, I bet she's really losing sleep over a discussion she has no idea even exists.

Didn't stop you from accusing other people of spitting on PC Rathman's grave, did it, even though no-one involved is going to see any of the posts where we disagree with you.

You're right though, I'll bet she'll never ever hear anything like this even after having her story splashed across every newspaper in one of the most fraught crimes in recent British history. Sanctimonious knowitalls are just that rare and are in no way part of the problem in general here.

PercyBoleyn:
Perhaps not clinically, but you're hellbent on denying that she could be of any other mental state than sheer selfishness, which just isn't going to fly.

Of ourse not. And I bet a mother abandoning her child is anything but selfish, right? Your world view seems wholly inconsistent with reality.

The issue is one of consistency, and whether it's actually helpful to publicly decry someone as selfish when in an impossible situation. I'm not going to slate a mother for being selfish and abandoning someone and then practically sanctify someone who took an even more extreme response to their problems, and certainly not while there are people involved who are even more deserving of that ire who put them in that position in the first place.

You aren't even prepared to acknowledge that she may be finding it difficult, you've rubbished any suggestion that it was and made out that supporting someone is an easy task when most would argue it's not.

What about a dad abandoning his children, permanently? Selfish, again, by that standard of yours.

PercyBoleyn:
However, yet again you're still not reading posts. I didn't say it was an adequate solution to the problem - never have. Only that one shouldn't selectively and inconsistently accuse people of being selfish, i.e. what you're doing.

She left him at a critical time in his life. She was being selfish. How can you not see that?

By making the fucking blatantly obvious observation that it's not as simple as that and that there other factors involved, and it's a case where it's very difficult to know all the facts as it involves intensely personal matters? At the very least, it should cause pause for thought, but you go charging in with the judgementalism.

PercyBoleyn:
Do you want to respond to the point now instead of deflecting? It's already been pointed out multiple times that there are other issues that Rathband had that are in play here, and that there was a period of several months between divorce proceedings being initiated and his suicide, and that generally correlation isn't causation.

I bet the divorce had nothing to do with his suicide. Obviously when people go through a divorce they get over it quite fast, especially considering all the other stuff the PC had to go through.

Right, so you admit that there's all this other stuff causing issues for Rathman, but you've narrowed it specifically down to the wife's fault while knowing approximately nothing about their relationship history.

Do you usually find a way to blame the woman when things go wrong?

Oirish_Martin:
I have declared all along that my actual stance is that neither of them should be decried for being selfish as both of them were put in an impossible situation.

I wouldn't say supporting your spouse when they need you most is an impossible situation.

Oirish_Martin:
But back on point - what exactly are the similarities between the completely everyday activities of child-rearing and the horrifically rare event of your spouse being shot in the face?

I'd say the "stress" levels is equal.

Oirish_Martin:
An ad hominem? Again, no. Look up what it actually means. It doesn't mean "personal insult". Maybe you should learn some Latin instead of fnarr-fnarring at it.

You called me inept, probably to detract from your current inability to form a coherent argument. That is an ad hominem.

Oirish_Martin:
Bullshit. You just accused me of spitting on someone's grave after putting words in my mouth to justify that remark. If you're going to cite the rulebook at me, try not to trip over your own feet while doing so.

How is that an insult?

Oirish_Martin:
Didn't stop you from accusing other people of spitting on PC Rathman's grave, did it?

You're right though, I'll bet she'll never ever hear anything like this even after having her story splashed across every newspaper in one of the most fraught crimes in recent British history. Sanctimonious knowitalls are just that rare and are in no way part of the problem in general here.

She choose this. She should have been prepared to deal with the consequences of her actions. Besides, most of the stuff I've seen has been relatively mild.

Oirish_Martin:
By making the fucking blatantly obvious observation that it's not as simple as that and that there other factors involved, and it's a case where it's very difficult to know all the facts as it involves intensely personal matters? At the very least, it should cause pause for thought, but you go charging in with the judgementalism.

She made a vow, she should have kept it. She choose not to and that's her choice but the consequences of doing so are quite clear.

Oirish_Martin:
Right, so you admit that there's all this other stuff causing issues for Rathman, but you've narrowed it specifically down to the wife's fault.

His wife leaving him obviously had a very profound impact on his life and general well being. You can't deny that.

Oirish_Martin:
Do you usually find a way to blame the woman when things go wrong?

Of course I always blame woman for every single tragedy that happens in this world. It's obviously their fault. The holocaust, 9/11, it all makes sense if you blame women. After all, what other point of view could I hold for daring to criticize the actions of a person who clearly left their spouse when they needed them most.

PercyBoleyn:
You should consider becoming a therapist.

My sister with the same personality and even less patience for bullshit was, untill she resigned and took up a similar position whipping convicts into shape. From her example I learned I'd likely end up frustrated to the point where I'd eat my own arm if I did that.

Besides, hitting people over the head with the down-to-earth stick only gets you so far, and only works on certain people.

Still, I'm not going to blame someone for walking out of a situation at least twice as screwed as the one that occasionally had me wondering why I put up with it. And apparently there's also domestic abuse to add to the equasion.

I doubt anyone's willing to argue that a victim of domestic violence should have no right to bring themselves to safety, so I guess the discussion is going to end at that.

PercyBoleyn:

Oirish_Martin:
I have declared all along that my actual stance is that neither of them should be decried for being selfish as both of them were put in an impossible situation.

I wouldn't say supporting your spouse when they need you most is an impossible situation.

Having someone close being shot in the face is. Stop being obtuse.

Oirish_Martin:
But back on point - what exactly are the similarities between the completely everyday activities of child-rearing and the horrifically rare event of your spouse being shot in the face?

I'd say the "stress" levels is equal.

Then I'd say you don't have much of a clue about either and don't have much of value to say on this matter.

Oirish_Martin:
An ad hominem? Again, no. Look up what it actually means. It doesn't mean "personal insult". Maybe you should learn some Latin instead of fnarr-fnarring at it.

You called me inept, probably to detract from your current inability to form a coherent argument. That is an ad hominem.

No, it really isn't.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ad+hominem&l=1

Run along now.

Oirish_Martin:
Bullshit. You just accused me of spitting on someone's grave after putting words in my mouth to justify that remark. If you're going to cite the rulebook at me, try not to trip over your own feet while doing so.

How is that an insult?

I didn't say what you accused me of saying, for one thing. And I wasn't saying that her response was ideal, which is what led you to accuse me of it, to say nothing of what you're implying by thinking that I'd spit on someone's grave in the first place.

This isn't rocket science.

She choose this. She should have been prepared to deal with the consequences of her actions. Besides, most of the stuff I've seen has been relatively mild.

It doesn't matter. It's none of your fucking business in the first place, and you don't get to decide what the consequences should be for her, just like you're not arbiter of how people cope or what marriage is for everyone.

Oirish_Martin:
By making the fucking blatantly obvious observation that it's not as simple as that and that there other factors involved, and it's a case where it's very difficult to know all the facts as it involves intensely personal matters? At the very least, it should cause pause for thought, but you go charging in with the judgementalism.

She made a vow, she should have kept it. She choose not to and that's her choice but the consequences of doing so are quite clear.

What, being judged by preachy types like you? The arrogance. I don't recall that being in the vows either!

His wife leaving him obviously had a very profound impact on his life and general well being. You can't deny that.

Sure, I just dispute that it definitely killed him.

Oirish_Martin:
Do you usually find a way to blame the woman when things go wrong?

Of course I always blame woman for every single tragedy that happens in this world. It's obviously their fault. The holocaust, 9/11, it all makes sense if you blame women. After all, what other point of view could I hold for daring to criticize the actions of a person who clearly left their spouse when they needed them most.

Here you're blaming the woman and letting Hitler (Moat) get off scot-free.

It just makes me wonder, is all.

Oirish_Martin:
Then I'd say you don't have much of a clue about either and don't have much of value to say on this matter.

I have enough experience with carying for disabled people to know that she could have at the very least stuck it out for the kids, not necessarily for him. He obviously needed her.

Oirish_Martin:
It doesn't matter. It's none of your fucking business in the first place.

Oh, and why not?

Oirish_Martin:
Sure, I just dispute that it definitely killed him.

It did kill him, it had a very profound impact on his life and it's most likely the thing that pushed him to committ suicide..

Danyal:
...Look at this part of the OP.

Sleekit:

the vow is "for better or worse".

a vow as serious as those of marriage

Marriage is a very serious vow/contract, Imperator.

I guess that's pretty subjective. It does have a bunch of serious objective legal ramifications to enter into a marriage, but the religious/emotional part of it is really only as serious as the people who enters into it want it to be.

You think it's sexual slavery? If you enter a marriage, with consent, out of your own free will, it's not slavery.

Not as long as you wish to remain in it, no.

However, no contract is ever both irrevocable and indefinite, and no one can sell their body and feelings to others for good. If one's husband/wife wants to call it quits on the romantic aspects, then that's entirely their choice; and then there's really not much marriage left, as the partner will then simply be a friend as happened here.

If you think it's normal to just break off a marriage at any moment, you should not vow "I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.". You shouldn't vow "until death do us part" if you're not planning to stay with your partner until death.

If you're serious, you should not vow before fictional gods at all. And again, such archaic words carry only the weight the parties are willing to impart on it (...as well as that imposed by the difficulty of having to go through the divorce procedure if you change your mind, I suppose).

I don't want to punish Mrs. Rathband, I don't want to force people to stick to their partner, I don't want to blame everything on Mrs. Rathband, but I do think you shouldn't vow "until death do us part" if you're not planning to do that, and just want to leave the moment it becomes a little harder.

Well, I don't think anyone should impose their own understanding of a contract on the parties who engaged in it.

It is every adult's inalienable right to marry with other willing adults, and how serious they are about their marriage is nobody's business but their own. That belongs to the sphere of their personal life.

If this guy wanted a wife who'd fanatically cling to the exact wording of the marriage vow, as originally understood by the catholic church, then he should've been a better judge of character when he chose a spouse.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
...
Thats the thing, theres far more to marriage than romance. The way people act today is fucking disgraceful. Its gone from "I will stay with you forever because I love you" to "I will stay with you as long as I can use you for my own personal gain. Once I can no longer do that, I will leave." Very selfish.

And then there's the quite reasonable middle ground of "I'll stay with you as long as I love you".

Staying out of pity is hardly desirable for anyone.

To the "for better or for worse, til death do us part" crowd:

I have two older half-sisters. One got married at 17 to a man whom she loved, and who loved her. Ten years later, they had three children. After another ten years or so, their relationship was in trouble. She tried to take her own life. They got a divorce. The children's father no longer has any contact with them, by his own choice. He has a new partner and step-children.

My other half-sister met a man when she was in her 20's, while receiving treatment for depression. They never got married. They had two children. They are still together and have a healthy relationship thirty years later. (Only when he once got a short-term contract to work in Saudi Arabia, they had to get a marriage to comply with Saudi law.)

So I'm afraid I just don't understand what marriage is for. What purpose does it serve, except to provide an obstacle to leaving a dysfunctional relationship? Why should a healthy relationship need a legal contract to keep it together?

PercyBoleyn:
I have enough experience with carying for disabled people to know that she could have at the very least stuck it out for the kids, not necessarily for him. He obviously needed her.

You mean in the same way that he should have stuck it out with his kids, because they needed him?

When will you stop with the double standards?

PercyBoleyn:
Oh, and why not?

Uhm...because it's their marriage, not yours? You have no right whatsoever to pass judgment on either of them.

PercyBoleyn:
It did kill him, it had a very profound impact on his life and it's most likely the thing that pushed him to committ suicide..

I didn't know that we had statistically significant, quantifiable probabilities to work with here. How do you know for sure that it's "most likely the thing that pushed him to commit suicide", especially since you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about what their relationship, or his mental status, was like?

Maybe you think that being around loved ones is enough to stop you from committing suicide? Think again.

PercyBoleyn:
I have enough experience with carying for disabled people to know that she could have at the very least stuck it out for the kids, not necessarily for him. He obviously needed her.

So basically what you're saying is because he felt bad, she should have subjected herself and her children to more domestic violence?

And that on top of the fact that even without the violence, it would still be a threat to her mental wellbeing. You can't demand someone to undergo either of those things.

Elcarsh:
You mean in the same way that he should have stuck it out with his kids, because they needed him?

Sure, why not. He was selfish... for providing for his family and getting shot. For trying to survive an accident and having his selfish wife leave him. For trying to cope with depression but being unable to because no one helped him. Yeah, sure, he was totally selfish.

Elcarsh:
Uhm...because it's their marriage, not yours? You have no right whatsoever to pass judgment on either of them.

I don't have the "right" to pass judgement on them? Really? Says who?

Elcarsh:
I didn't know that we had statistically significant, quantifiable probabilities to work with here. How do you know for sure that it's "most likely the thing that pushed him to commit suicide", especially since you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about what their relationship, or his mental status, was like?

He was fine the year and a half preceeding his suicide, obviously the troubles started right after his wife left him. But please, do defend her. It's not like she killed someone.

PercyBoleyn:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Read my link. She may well have suffered physical abuse from him, in which case she's under no obligation whatsoever to stay with him.

If that's the case then it's understandable that she left him. I did read your link but it never specifically talked about the guy being abusive and such but if he was then honestly, his behaviour is justified considering what he went through. That doesn't mean his wife had to put up with it.

Seriously?

Seriously?

Being disabled means that someone can be justified in committing domestic abuse? I hope to God that it's simply an error of syntax, otherwise you have some very disturbing views. It doesn't matter if the man was shot in the face, lashing out and causing physical harm to others is never justified.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Seriously?

Seriously?

Being disabled means that someone can be justified in committing domestic abuse? I hope to God that it's simply an error of syntax, otherwise you have some very disturbing views. It doesn't matter if the man was shot in the face, lashing out and causing physical harm to others is never justified.

He was not mentally sound. I'm not saying his actions were right or that he shouldn't be punished for them but what he did was definitely justified considering what he went through and how severely it affected his life and mental stability.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked