Veitch sentenced

[FJRider]

Passing judgment on either party without all the facts is impossible and only leads to a bigoted viewpoint.

All the facts were known to the courts... THEY passed judgment...

We are merely expressing our opinions.... and thoughts.... On the subject...

[Robbo]

What do you mean? I hope your not trying to suggest that Veitch got dealt with more harshly by the Judge because of who he is, if anything its the absolute opposite.

He deserves everything that hes got, he broke a womens back when he kicked her lying on the ground and then tried to buy his way out of it. Would people have the same level of sympathy towards the offender if it had been Mongrel Mob Member, at least the gang member might have the excuse of being bashed and abused as a child, what was Veitches?

Go back and read my post again and digest it properly this time before ranting off.

[discotex]

Oh dear.. Here we go.

I am playing devils advocate to provoke some thought but it's pretty clear you all have made up your mind long ago and are just looking to vent.

But I'll give it another go. See if you can play the ball not the man....

They don't have to be. Veitch pleaded guilty, was convicted and charged.

To which charges and which allegations? What did he actually plead guilty to in the end?

(I've been too busy working and having a life to pay super close attention to today's updates).

Your "average" person can't afford high-powered lawyers and would probably be doing jail time for such an offence. I'm not talking about what we do or don't know based on what's reported, just on the basis of the charge on which Veitch was convicted.

As I understand it the charge he's pled guilty to would normally be a similar sentence for the average person.

Happy to be proven wrong there.

Irrespective of what led him to viciously assault a former partner, Veitch is now a convicted criminal and should expect to carry the baggage that goes with that. Trying to shift the blame or to hound media who may have printed things he disagrees with does him no credit.

I totally agree.

1. They dont have to be, he has admitted them.

All of them? Which facts relating to which charges have been admitted to?

2. Some women in relationships are reduced to a helpless state, I agree they need to be empowered to fight back, the question is how when they simply cant see a way out of where they are.

I agree. However this notion that women are defenseless partially contributes to the disempowerement of women in that situation. It's like the constant "it's impossible to quit smoking" crap that stops smokers from even trying to quit. We need to promote taking positive steps for women to get out and back it up with support when they make the effort.

3. Either party "disengage" shows your lack of understanding of abusive relationships mate. The one who OWNS the relationship is not likely, even under threat of jail time, to give up the POWER, he will fight and manipulate and bully, and cry, and blubber and threaten suicide before giving up the control. As far as the non-owner goes, they will have to build a shit load of self esteem before they can begin to "disengage".

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about what I know and don't know if I were you Mom.

Firstly you are assuming it wasn't a bilateral abusive relationship which it appears to have been. E.g. they were both abusing each other mentally in a co-dependent manner.

Secondly I agree that in a unilateral abusive relationship the person being abused needs a shit load of guts to disengage from the situation. Unfortunately too many women wait too late. That's got to change as sadly too many women don't see a way out when there's often so many people waiting to help them at the drop of a hat (friends/family/agencies/etc).

4. Passing judgement is easy now in this instance, I personally have seen Veitch face a press conference and admit he "lashed out", he regrets his actions, and has paid for loss of earnings and medical treatment for his ex. Today we have had him plead guilty to assulting his ex. It happened, we dont need all the facts. The facts are he bashed his ex. You can not deny it happend surely?

No I don't deny he's assaulted his ex. What I'm saying is we don't have the full story.

Take for example the case of the Australian women who shot her husband and chopped him up with an axe. Should the book be thrown at her and face life imprisoned?

Now how do you change your opinion if I tell you she shot him because she feared his years of abuse was about to result in her being killed?


Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think that's anything like the case here. I do think placing all the blame at Tony's feet is a very black and white way to view the world. There's no doubt he's on the wrong. I have no doubt she's run a calculated PR campaign (her profession) to make us feel she's an angel and he's the devil when in reality they're both sad cases.

The difference between them is he crossed a line that cannot be ignored. I think he's already suffered more than your average wife basher on the public humiliation alone. That's far worse than any prison sentence.

[discotex]

All the facts were known to the courts... THEY passed judgment...

Rightly so.

We are merely expressing our opinions.... and thoughts.... On the subject...

Some are. Most are making assumptions that the facts released to the media are proven or admitted to without being privy to the evidence before the court.

[ManDownUnder]

Today we have had him plead guilty to assulting his ex. It happened, we dont need all the facts. The facts are he bashed his ex. You can not deny it happend surely?

In this case I do believe it happened, but having recently seen some of the wheels that turn in legal circles... a guilty plea doesn't necessarilky mean the deed was done. It could well be the lesser admission they're willing to make in order to swap for other benefits... reduced legal fees and no more charges being pressed for example.

It's kind of shameful really. The actualy truth doesn't necessarily come out, more like the course of least resistance gets taken. The one that best suits both parties (prosecution and defense).

This discussion is about to get REAL interesting.

[ManDownUnder]

The post I wanted to make was made by Discotex (bling granted by the way).

First we need to understand. Why did he do it? Yes he's wrong for doing it, yes there's a bunch of stuff around it that abfuscates the story. But first and foremost - why did he do it? What drove him to that point where he took the course of action he did?

And will we ever actually know?

[98tls]

The post I wanted to make was made by Discotex (bling granted by the way).

First we need to understand. Why did he do it? Yes he's wrong for doing it, yes there's a bunch of stuff around it that abfuscates the story. But first and foremost - why did he do it? What drove him to that point where he took the course of action he did?

And will we ever actually know?

Some will excuse by saying maybe hes suffered that fate when a child,to me anyway that makes him more a loser than his old man,the only other reason hes got a temper he cant control,once again..loser.

[ital916]

How predictable was this thread? KB lynch mobs on both sides and very few moderate views that take into account it generally takes two to tango.

If only life was as black and white and the goodies and baddies were as easy to spot as they are in the movies.

I agree wholeheartedly. One partner or human being should never lay their hand on another unless in a situation where ones self preservation or well being is at risk. Partners should not use violence to solve situations, unfortunately many partners dont talk about problems until or boils over.

I must state though that there is more to this case than meets the eye, there is no black and white and mr veitchs former partner is no angel. No she does not deserve to have violence used against her but keep in mind the nz justice system has its flaws and a situation where there are two sides to a story can quickly become a one sided witch hunt.

I am not defending his actions but there is no way of knowing what went down exactly.

The problem I see is how men in domestic situations are naturally thought of as agressors. I find it funny how women sometimes talk about men as if they are some naturally enclined towards bashing their partners. Domestic violence is a problem but do not think for one second it is only the women who are victims. There is an alarmingly large percentage of husbands beaten and mentally abused by thier wives, who unlike women do no have an outlet to which they can seek comfort.

Men are not indestructable *though we may think it* and women are equally capable of being viscious. Take offence if you may but the nz justice system naturally leans in favour of female partners over men *here comes the reprisals for that statement*.

All im saying is domestic violence is not to be tolerated one bit, mr veitch has got his comeuppence and being publicy dragged through the mud, having all your earnings lost for a year, being fires, being publicly humiliated, having it all flimed, having your name and the name of your family rubbed in the mud plus out of pocket 160000 dollars and a criminal record plus 300 hours com service is a lot harsher than a quiet few months in jail.

Just dont say women are the only victims as that makes me really sick.

[MadDuck]

The post I wanted to make was made by Discotex (bling granted by the way).

First we need to understand. Why did he do it? Yes he's wrong for doing it, yes there's a bunch of stuff around it that abfuscates the story. But first and foremost - why did he do it? What drove him to that point where he took the course of action he did?

And will we ever actually know?

Why? Why do "we" need to know? He kicked his girlfriend in the back and made reparation to her. What drives a man to be so angry? Why does a man just not walk away and take his fingers out of his ears?

Ohhh and why do "we" have to know?
Actually "we" dont because it is up to the courts who get all the facts as opposed to the media to understand not "we".

[discotex]

Have just managed to catch up on all the latest shakedown and obviously some more detail has come out since what I saw this in the news this morning.

Looks like I was off on a tangent about what is now considered fact so ignore anything I said about that I see he's now admitted that it was a kick in the back as a result of that argument rather than any other circumstance that led to that injury.

Am keen to continue the discussion about how to stop this shit from happening though.

[discotex]

It's kind of shameful really. The actualy truth doesn't necessarily come out, more like the course of least resistance gets taken. The one that best suits both parties (prosecution and defense).

I agree it's sad. I for one would much rather no plea bargain and let him stand or fall on all the charges.

If he is the wife beater from hell and it wasn't just a one-off "crime of passion" so to speak then he deserves to be sentenced for a guilty verdict of each an every charge he's found guilty of.

To be able to plead to one charge and never know if the rest were valid is the true travesty of justice. Not the sentence for the crime he was convicted of.

What drives a man to be so angry?

Temporary insanity potentially caused by emotional abuse from the other party?

Dunno... There's lots of reasons. Hell he might just be a full blown wife basher (seems fairly likely given he's a small man with small man syndrome). We'll never know the full story now.

Why does a man just not walk away and take his fingers out of his ears?

It's quite possibly equally hard for men to break the cycle of violence as it is for women to leave abusive relationships.

No child grows up thinking "when I grow up I want to be a wife beater".

Until we get some empathy with abusive (mentally and physically) partners (mainly men but also women) and get inside their heads we can't defuse the bomb.

Ohhh and why do "we" have to know?
Actually "we" dont because it is up to the courts who get all the facts as opposed to the media to understand not "we".

Totally agree. We and the media don't need to know. It's not our business. Ideally the courts would operate with automatic name suppression for all parties until proven guilty to prevent trial by media (or trial by KB ) It would certainly prevent cases like this becoming the circus that it has been.

[discotex]

Men are not indestructable *though we may think it* and women are equally capable of being viscious.

I've been assaulted by women more times in my life than by men. I'm just glad I had the restraint not to fight back and just take the blows until other people stepped in.

I tell you it's a hard spot to be in when someone is smacking you around and you know the second you so much as restrain them you could be charged with assault even though you never threw a punch.

How come as a male in NZ society it's ok to defend yourself (not retaliate) against a male attacker but not a female?

(clearly nothing to do with this case btw just an interesting tangent)

[MadDuck]

How come as a male in NZ society it's ok to defend yourself (not retaliate) against a male attacker but not a female?

Who says it is?

[jrandom]

How come as a male in NZ society it's ok to defend yourself (not retaliate) against a male attacker but not a female?

Difference in physical capabilities, innit.

Most men can kick most women's arses with one hand tied behind their back, etc. S'just the way homo sapiens is built. 99% of the time, a woman going nuts and 'assaulting' a male is annoying, rather than something that can result in serious injury.

And, conversely, a male assaulting a female generally means that there's no chance she'll be able to realistically defend herself. Which is why 'male assaults female' is legally recognised as a more naughty form of violence.

I don't personally know of any cases in which a man's whined about a woman 'assaulting' him where the man couldn't have just walked away. 'Self-defence' in those circumstances tends to be a euphemism for 'I was really annoyed and didn't want to back down, and the bitch swung at me first so I let her have it'.

[discotex]

Who says it is?

Go into any pub in NZ and ask the patrons "is it ok to use reasonable force as a man defending himself from a women attacker?" I guarantee the majority of responses will be along the lines of "he should HTFU a women can't hurt a man" or "a man should never touch a women even if she starts it" etc etc.

You might be surprised and shocked at what you hear.

EDIT: Note exhibit 1 above....