Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

AP Story about Abuse


Recommended Posts

Just now, ttribe said:

Read before you comment anymore. You're approach is terrible. It shows a complete lack of understanding and compassion for these situations.

My attitude comes from actually helping people in real life end abusing situations and recover from them. Your approach seems to be to read about it on the internet. 

Link to comment
Just now, ttribe said:

What...the....wow.

I'm enabling by trying to understand and have compassion for their trauma? That's downright absurd.

You are saying that someone suffering from abuse should not have to respond to their situation, should not have to act, should not have to do anything, let someone else take care of their problem. 

Sometime having compassion means doing something and sometimes it means helping people to do something for themselves.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Didn't really answer the question, did you?

What should the women in my real world scenarios have done?

 

 

The most dangerous time in an abused women's life, is after she tries to leave.  This is when the majority of women are killed (and this is true for those who have gone to the police as well). 

It's easy to say "you should leave" or "you should go to the police" but we aren't the ones risking our lives or our children by doing so.  

 

 

Link to comment

“The statistics are that women in abusive relationships are about 500 many times more at risk when they leave,” said Wendy Mahoney, executive director for the Mississippi Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “Domestic violence is all about power and control, and when a woman leaves, a man has lost his power and control.”
Source: Clarion Ledger

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So you think that the wife in the story we are commenting on should not be in jail? She was a victim after all.

The law draws the line generally at when abuse hurts others, at least minors.  For whatever reason the law typically does not interfere when someone’s behaviour hurts themselves unless their life is in immediate danger.

Psychologically and morally speaking, I think we as individuals should do what works to help get people to leave abusive situations and not just do what makes us feel good (tell victims what we think is important for them to understand rather than what will help them change).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think we’re communicating with each other. My wife’s abuse started when she was 3 years old when her brother returned from his mission, and it went on for years. At what age was she supposed to figure out she could stop it? Was she responsible for “protecting” him at age 3, 6, 10? 

I don’t know what motivated your example women, but I very much doubt they were acting rationally. 

And my wife's abuse started when she was seven.  There isn't anything any of our wives could have done at the time. They are not guilty of anything. I am not talking about assignment of guilt. There was likely nothing they could or were capable of doing at the time. There is nothing anyone can do to change the past.  However there are things that people can do in the present to improve their situation. That is what I mean by being responsible. Its not about assigning guilt. Its about improving the situation by focusing on what can be controlled, not on who should be blamed. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

My attitude comes from actually helping people in real life end abusing situations and recover from them. Your approach seems to be to read about it on the internet. 

My approach is to understand what research and qualified professionals have to say on the subject. I don't place much stock in the words of a black-and-white-thinking tax EA, self-appointed abuse vigilante, who thinks he knows better than everyone else what a victim should and shouldn't do.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You are saying that someone suffering from abuse should not have to respond to their situation, should not have to act, should not have to do anything, let someone else take care of their problem. 

Sometime having compassion means doing something and sometimes it means helping people to do something for themselves.

When you stop putting words into my mouth and jumping to completely erroneous conclusions maybe I'll discuss it with your further.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

And my wife's abuse started when she was seven.  There isn't anything any of our wives could have done at the time. They are not guilty of anything. I am not talking about assignment of guilt. There was likely nothing they could or were capable of doing at the time. There is nothing anyone can do to change the past.  However there are things that people can do in the present to improve their situation. That is what I mean by being responsible. Its not about assigning guilt. Its about improving the situation by focusing on what can be controlled, not on who should be blamed. 

I agree with trying to help people get out of abusive situations, but what you are doing is assigning responsibility when people are unable to do what you think they should do. That’s messed up. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The most dangerous time in an abused women's life, is after she tries to leave.  This is when the majority of women are killed (and this is true for those who have gone to the police as well). 

It's easy to say "you should leave" or "you should go to the police" but we aren't the ones risking our lives or our children by doing so.  

 

 

Perhaps its not Should you leave or not, but how you leave.

In a situation a few years back we talked to the woman about what is more dangerous. Her and her children's regular abuse for the rest of your (probably short lives) or suffering heightened danger by leaving.  In this case we got her to a shelter and the husband went to jail.  

According to many posters here, what we should have done is tell the woman that we feel bad for her, but there wasn't anything she could do without risk and the worst thing we could have done was risk hurting her feelings.  

That would have helped much much more. 

Link to comment
Just now, Danzo said:

Perhaps its not Should you leave or not, but how you leave.

In a situation a few years back we talked to the woman about what is more dangerous. Her and her children's regular abuse for the rest of your (probably short lives) or suffering heightened danger by leaving.  In this case we got her to a shelter and the husband went to jail.  

According to many posters here, what we should have done is tell the woman that we feel bad for her, but there wasn't anything she could do without risk and the worst thing we could have done was risk hurting her feelings.  

That would have helped much much more. 

No one here has said anything like that. As Tim said, do not put words in our mouths. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Perhaps its not Should you leave or not, but how you leave.

In a situation a few years back we talked to the woman about what is more dangerous. Her and her children's regular abuse for the rest of your (probably short lives) or suffering heightened danger by leaving.  In this case we got her to a shelter and the husband went to jail.  

According to many posters here, what we should have done is tell the woman that we feel bad for her, but there wasn't anything she could do without risk and the worst thing we could have done was risk hurting her feelings.  

That would have helped much much more. 

Literally NO ONE is saying that. No one.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

As far as her behavior in badly coping with the abuse is causing harm to others, then yes, she is responsible for that.

Legally this is often true.  But I am not sure it is always true morally.  We likely can understand, even if horrified at times, how someone growing up centuries ago in a culture that saw nothing of beating or even killing one’s wives and children and any man who was under one’s control might not be able to comprehend how they could stop their husband or leader from abusing others or even why they should.  It is harder to see someone might have the same level of understanding about their own abuser when you see them as surrounded by teachings and examples of the opposite.  But we are not logical beings no matter what we like to tell ourselves, we are emotional ones pretending to be rational (not an original thought, having a slightly similar conversation elsewhere about irrational choices and someone used this phrase and I think it is practically perfect) .  Our emotional reasoning isn’t always reasonable.

However, since it is impossible to know what goes on inside someone’s head, we have to guess if someone is capable of forming an idea and judge on that basis.  Otherwise, our society could not function.  But I think rehabilitation might be more effective if we don’t assume that people make bad choices because they want to as they just might not be able to reason out how to make a good choice until they are taught and have a chance to practice such enough for it to penetrate which is the truly better choice for them.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree with trying to help people get out of abusive situations, but what you are doing is assigning responsibility when people are unable to do what you think they should do. That’s messed up. 

I think you and I may be operating on different definitions of what responsibility means.  Its not something you assign its something you engage in. 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You keep saying the person is not responsible, not able, capable or morally obligated to respond to their situation.

Being responsible isn't some sort of punishment or sentence or pronouncement of guilt or culpability.  Being responsible is choosing to act instead of being acted upon. 

 I never said that a person is not responsible in how they respond.  I said they are not responsible for the abuse.  The church appears to agree with me.  Do you?

A persons ability to respond in healthy, rational, and reasonable ways to protect themselves may itself be inhibited to some extent by trauma/fear/manipulation in some cases. Do you disagree?  A person is responsible in as far as they are able to respond in healthy ways.  Do you disagree?  

Sometimes outside help is required for self empowerment to be learned/understood/possible.  Sometimes all a person can do is ask for help from God who can empower them or professionals, but that is about all they can do and that is all they are responsible for.   They have to be responsible for the first step to seek help.   That can sometimes take awhile to build up the courage and trust in others.  they are in no way responsible for the abuse.

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

ccording to many posters here, what we should have done is tell the woman that we feel bad for her, but there wasn't anything she could do without risk and the worst thing we could have done was risk hurting her feelings.  

🙄 I’m not sure what board you are reading, but no one here has said anything close to that. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you and I may be operating on different definitions of what responsibility means.  Its not something you assign its something you engage in. 

And you have to be able to engage before you can be held responsible. Victims are not always able to do what you think they should do. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Perhaps its not Should you leave or not, but how you leave.

In a situation a few years back we talked to the woman about what is more dangerous. Her and her children's regular abuse for the rest of your (probably short lives) or suffering heightened danger by leaving.  In this case we got her to a shelter and the husband went to jail.  

According to many posters here, what we should have done is tell the woman that we feel bad for her, but there wasn't anything she could do without risk and the worst thing we could have done was risk hurting her feelings.  

That would have helped much much more. 

You don’t handle being disagreed with very well. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And you have to be able to engage before you can be held responsible. Victims are not always able to do what you think they should do. 

True, but sometimes they are able. And when they do, they often have more power to stop the abuse than anyone else. Often it's the only way to stop the abuse.  I hope we can agree that the victim is not at fault is not condemned by us, God or the state. At the same time we can encourage the victim to do whatever they are capable of doing to take control of their lives and stop the abuse as well as the cycle of abuse.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Danzo said:

True, but sometimes they are able. And when they do, they often have more power to stop the abuse than anyone else. Often it's the only way to stop the abuse.  I hope we can agree that the victim is not at fault is not condemned by us, God or the state. At the same time we can encourage the victim to do whatever they are capable of doing to take control of their lives and stop the abuse as well as the cycle of abuse.

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And you have to be able to engage before you can be held responsible. Victims are not always able to do what you think they should do. 

jkwilliams is correct in saying victims are not always able to do what you think they should do. That implies that perhaps sometimes they might be able to do more. Problem is, we mortals will never be able to reliably tell the difference. The default position must always be to lay no blame on the victim and only help them without adding any degree of guilt or burden on an already horrible situation by suggesting there might be some small culpability on their part. If there is partial blame to be had only God will judge that. Think of it as the abuse version of Blackstone's Ratio. To repeat, never blame the victim in any degree or imply that the victim may in any degree be partially responsible. Leave any possibility of that only to God.

Link to comment

A call to publicly release the Herrod interview and other documents.
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/associated-press-interview-documents-public/

Quote

These factual concerns raised by the Church’s statement are serious and deserve a correspondingly serious response from the journalists involved. As part of that, the AP should also release the 12,000 documents related to the West Virginia case. In the absence of such transparency, the AP’s reporting assigns blame, implies particular motives, and implicitly calls for public action based on essentially inscrutable evidence. The kind of heated rhetoric that this report has evoked should be supported by more than conjectures drawn from isolated pieces of information and references to hidden documents. Allowing others to access this interview and these documents will help us move this important conversation forward—countering the impression of selectively reporting that advances a particular narrative.

 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Nofear said:

A call to publicly release the Herrod interview and other documents.
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/associated-press-interview-documents-public/

 

I believe the Herrod interview is already publicly available through the Arizona district court case files.  You can access the files at https://www.azcourts.gov/eaccess.  The case number is S0200CV202000599.  It costs $10 per document, that's why I haven't gathered them.

On 5/11/2022 and 5/12/2022, a bunch of "Miscellaneous: Attachments" were posted.  If you click on the "preview" button you can see the first page.  The main page doesn't show their number but they do have ones and I'll reference their documentId.  The documentId is in the url for the preview button and it also becomes the page title when you open the preview.

In documentId 2028904, it gives an index for the attachments.  It looks like just one page so I'm uploading it here.  But the relevant one appears to be attachment 9: "Transcript June 12, 2018 conversation between Dr. Herrod and Agent Edwards".  That one is documentId 2028903.

2028904_attachment_index.pdf

Edited by webbles
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Nofear said:

A call to publicly release the Herrod interview and other documents.
https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/sexual-abuse/associated-press-interview-documents-public/

 

From your article: “Update: We have learned the interview transcripts have been released only a short time before we published this request. Since the questions and concerns are still relevant, and the documents are still inaccessible, our article will remain, with critical updates”

 

Anyone have a link?

Link to comment

This podcast has the reporter that wrote the AP article discussing what he found. And what he said verified what I saw yesterday on an unmentionable youtube with hundreds of written in instances of bishops not reporting even when it wasn't a priest/penitent situation. Or bishops advising not to report for fear the perpetrator would have their lives ruined and needing to just go through the repentance process. Well, what about the victims, and they rarely get the counseling the perps get. Hundreds of Instagram posts were sent to the people putting on the youtube. They only put up a small percentage and read them off. Just today I read on my Faith Journey FB group that someone had a very faithful member reach out to them saying she was having issues now because her daughter was sexually assaulted and the bishop didn't want her to report, she wasn't even aware of the AZ situation. And this was last week! So this is an ongoing current problem the church is having. Not in the past as if it's an old problem that's been fixed. 

https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From your article: “Update: We have learned the interview transcripts have been released only a short time before we published this request. Since the questions and concerns are still relevant, and the documents are still inaccessible, our article will remain, with critical updates”

 

Anyone have a link?

I went ahead and got it from the eaccess site.  It is 18 pages long and I haven't read it yet but it is the interview transcript.

 

2028903_herrod_interview.pdf

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...