Sullinger domestic violence update

[Roy H.]

maybe she was hitting him and he was restraining her till she calmed down.  Unless you were there you just don't know what happened, yet you are perfectly willing to speculate and cast dispersions.

So she made him do it?

What part of Moranis' "Unless you were there you just don't know what happened" are you confused about?

I mean this in the least offensive way possible, but you understand that your mentality is essentially the same mindset that led to lynch mobs back in the day, right?

So do you think she forced Sullinger to pin her to the bed or not?  This does not seem reasonable to me.

I will ignore the lynch mob comment.

Since I'm having a hard time accepting that somebody can not understand the phrase "Unless you were there you just don't know what happened", I'm going to assume you're trolling.

[celticdog]

Again, I'm just saying that I find it is unreasonable to believe that the woman forced Sullinger to behave this way.  This was another person's speculation.  I dont believe this. 

I'm not trolling.  This is a forum and I am responding to something another poster wrote. 

So in one post you paint me as a proto-lynch mob member and now I am being accused of trolling. I'm cool with people disagreeing with me, but I dont appreciate being called a troll.  But I wont cry about it either. 

Apparently speculating that a man would join a lynch mob based on his posts is more reasonable than speculating that a man is an abuser based on police reports and intimidated witnesses, and a womans abused chest. 

A troll is someone who tries to get others angry by being deliberately provocative.  I'm just trying to say that it is within possibility that Sullinger did commit the crime.  In my opinion a woman should never return to an abuser (assuming he is one). 

[fantankerous]

maybe she was hitting him and he was restraining her till she calmed down.  Unless you were there you just don't know what happened, yet you are perfectly willing to speculate and cast dispersions.

So she made him do it?

What part of Moranis' "Unless you were there you just don't know what happened" are you confused about?

I mean this in the least offensive way possible, but you understand that your mentality is essentially the same mindset that led to lynch mobs back in the day, right?

So do you think she forced Sullinger to pin her to the bed or not?  This does not seem reasonable to me.

I will ignore the lynch mob comment.

Since I'm having a hard time accepting that somebody can not understand the phrase "Unless you were there you just don't know what happened", I'm going to assume you're trolling.

You're seriously reducing the alternative to radical skepticism or a lynch mob?  Pathetic. 

And your trolling comment was out of line.  You should apologize immediately.

[Casperian]

I'm just trying to say that it is within possibility that Sullinger did commit the crime.

That´s not what you said, though.

Stockholm syndrome.

Not really that refers specifically to hostages/prisoners bonding with the captors.

Anyways best not to arm-chair diagnose when we have only the barest details of a single incident.

Many abused women stay with their abusers for years. 

I'd like to add that she may suffer from battered woman syndrome and some kind of codependency.

You made assumptions about his girlfriend´s mental state, which means you basically ignored the possibility that he´s innocent, and went right to assuming what this means for the people involved.

If it´s within the realm of possibility that he committed the crime, it´s just as possible that he didn´t, which you denied.

I guess she threw herself on the bed marking her chest and forced Sullinger to intimidate a witness and also asked him to destroy her phone.

Lets be real.

If both assumptions are reasonable, which one do you go with? Well, the law is pretty precise about this: you have to assume his innocence.

[cltc5]

It's getting disgusting the way some of you self righteous have crucified this guy.  Admins should force some of you to find  another place to post.

[BUTerrier]

You're seriously reducing the alternative to radical skepticism or a lynch mob?  Pathetic. 

And your trolling comment was out of line.  You should apologize immediately.

Right. Because Roy regularly speaks out of turn and demeans others without having any basis for doing so. After all, that's why he's one of the least respected posters on this site, right?

I agree with Roy. The poster's either:
(a) Looking to crucify Sullinger by taking the situation of a victim forgiving her alleged attacker (and I use the term "alleged" only in so far as we don't know the exact facts leading to the situation described, because police reports can very well be inaccurate since they are based on conclusions drawn by officers based on their experience with other cases) and trying to whip people into enough of a frenzy to join in his condemnation; or
(b) Deliberately attacking Sullinger here because he or she knows that doing so will result in anger and hostility by those who blindly support Sullinger or those who believe that all of the facts should come out before judgment is rendered (which, in simpler terms, WOULD be trolling). Oh, and by the way, the idea that you can't call it trolling when he tries to compare this situation to Kobe Bryant's rape case is ridiculous, and everyone on this forum knows that.

How dare that poster suggest that there can be no legitimate reason for the victim in this case to try to rebuild her relationship with Sullinger? How dare he minimize her pain and struggle and recovery by suggesting she is doing so purely because of "battered woman's syndrome," a phrase that implies a continued pattern of abuse and a helplessness on the victim's part to resist? I'm not offended that he thinks the worst of Sullinger; I'm offended that he thinks the worst of the victim. It's basically saying "Poor fragile woman; you don't know what you're supposed to do, do you?" THAT is the real reason domestic violence is so under-reported in this country: it's because the victims are well aware that we live in a culture that assumes they must be protected from their attacker long after the abuse is done, as if they can't make a conscious choice to stay away or not. I fully support the court system giving victims any and all help they want, and I fully support requiring the attackers to pay for therapy and support and whatever else the victim needs. But to suggest that all victims are repeatedly battered women only makes women less likely to report it for fear of the condescending pity they receive.

I don't blindly support Sullinger just because he wears a Celtics jersey. I don't blindly support anyone for anything. If he did something legally wrong -- which is the point others have tried to make: that moral wrongness and legal wrongness are two different things, particularly since there are affirmative defenses to battery and assault -- then he should be punished for it. But the bigger issue is people assuming that this action defines him when there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't an isolated incident. People make mistakes, and they shouldn't be let off the hook for them, but that doesn't mean that Sullinger should be known for the rest of his life as a woman-beater and a terrible person. If you really can't see how someone can be redeemed over time for one bad action . . . well, then I hope you've never done anything wrong in your life, small or big. Not to get all biblical, but there's a reason "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged" is still a popular verse to quote.

[indeedproceed]

Again, I'm just saying that I find it is unreasonable to believe that the woman forced Sullinger to behave this way.  This was another person's speculation.  I dont believe this. 

I'm not trolling.  This is a forum and I am responding to something another poster wrote. 

So in one post you paint me as a proto-lynch mob member and now I am being accused of trolling. I'm cool with people disagreeing with me, but I dont appreciate being called a troll.  But I wont cry about it either. 

Apparently speculating that a man would join a lynch mob based on his posts is more reasonable than speculating that a man is an abuser based on police reports and intimidated witnesses, and a womans abused chest. 

A troll is someone who tries to get others angry by being deliberately provocative.  I'm just trying to say that it is within possibility that Sullinger did commit the crime.  In my opinion a woman should never return to an abuser (assuming he is one).

Casperian nailed the fundemental inconsistency of what's you're saying beautifully, but to add on some more:

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is advocating the alternative to this position:

Again, I'm just saying that I find it is unreasonable to believe that the woman forced Sullinger to behave this way.  This was another person's speculation.  I dont believe this. 

That's a reductive strawman to the basic objection to your initial post, "Stockholm syndrome". Nobody's saying for certain he didn't do it. Nobody's saying its out of the realm of possibility that Sullinger did it, or that its even improbable that he did it.

What everyone who disagrees with you seems to be saying is basically boiling down to: 'Since we don't know for certain that he did do it, maybe it's best to no speculate on the mental state of his girlfriend, that seems to be too much.' Everything has kind of spiraled from that.

[Donoghus]

You're seriously reducing the alternative to radical skepticism or a lynch mob?  Pathetic. 

And your trolling comment was out of line.  You should apologize immediately.

Right. Because Roy regularly speaks out of turn and demeans others without having any basis for doing so. After all, that's why he's one of the least respected posters on this site, right?

I agree with Roy. The poster's either:
(a) Looking to crucify Sullinger by taking the situation of a victim forgiving her alleged attacker (and I use the term "alleged" only in so far as we don't know the exact facts leading to the situation described, because police reports can very well be inaccurate since they are based on conclusions drawn by officers based on their experience with other cases) and trying to whip people into enough of a frenzy to join in his condemnation; or
(b) Deliberately attacking Sullinger here because he or she knows that doing so will result in anger and hostility by those who blindly support Sullinger or those who believe that all of the facts should come out before judgment is rendered (which, in simpler terms, WOULD be trolling). Oh, and by the way, the idea that you can't call it trolling when he tries to compare this situation to Kobe Bryant's rape case is ridiculous, and everyone on this forum knows that.

How dare that poster suggest that there can be no legitimate reason for the victim in this case to try to rebuild her relationship with Sullinger? How dare he minimize her pain and struggle and recovery by suggesting she is doing so purely because of "battered woman's syndrome," a phrase that implies a continued pattern of abuse and a helplessness on the victim's part to resist? I'm not offended that he thinks the worst of Sullinger; I'm offended that he thinks the worst of the victim. It's basically saying "Poor fragile woman; you don't know what you're supposed to do, do you?" THAT is the real reason domestic violence is so under-reported in this country: it's because the victims are well aware that we live in a culture that assumes they must be protected from their attacker long after the abuse is done, as if they can't make a conscious choice to stay away or not. I fully support the court system giving victims any and all help they want, and I fully support requiring the attackers to pay for therapy and support and whatever else the victim needs. But to suggest that all victims are repeatedly battered women only makes women less likely to report it for fear of the condescending pity they receive.

I don't blindly support Sullinger just because he wears a Celtics jersey. I don't blindly support anyone for anything. If he did something legally wrong -- which is the point others have tried to make: that moral wrongness and legal wrongness are two different things, particularly since there are affirmative defenses to battery and assault -- then he should be punished for it. But the bigger issue is people assuming that this action defines him when there's no evidence to suggest it wasn't an isolated incident. People make mistakes, and they shouldn't be let off the hook for them, but that doesn't mean that Sullinger should be known for the rest of his life as a woman-beater and a terrible person. If you really can't see how someone can be redeemed over time for one bad action . . . well, then I hope you've never done anything wrong in your life, small or big. Not to get all biblical, but there's a reason "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged" is still a popular verse to quote.

That's a heckuva post.  Well written.

[Roy H.]

How dare that poster suggest that there can be no legitimate reason for the victim in this case to try to rebuild her relationship with Sullinger? How dare he minimize her pain and struggle and recovery by suggesting she is doing so purely because of "battered woman's syndrome," a phrase that implies a continued pattern of abuse and a helplessness on the victim's part to resist? I'm not offended that he thinks the worst of Sullinger; I'm offended that he thinks the worst of the victim. It's basically saying "Poor fragile woman; you don't know what you're supposed to do, do you?"

This.

[celticdog]

How dare that poster suggest that there can be no legitimate reason for the victim in this case to try to rebuild her relationship with Sullinger? How dare he minimize her pain and struggle and recovery by suggesting she is doing so purely because of "battered woman's syndrome," a phrase that implies a continued pattern of abuse and a helplessness on the victim's part to resist? I'm not offended that he thinks the worst of Sullinger; I'm offended that he thinks the worst of the victim. It's basically saying "Poor fragile woman; you don't know what you're supposed to do, do you?"

This.

Roy, simply replying "This".  Is against forum rules.  From the Read Me First Forum Rules Post:

No useless posts or comments, i.e., one liners/thread bumping, drive-bys, quotations of others without commentary, "+1" or especially "-1" without commentary, etc., etc.


It's also against forum rules to call me a troll and tell me I have lynch mob mentality.

I'd appreciate if other moderators could sort this out.

I respect everyone's general differences with my opinion but dont like being mis-characterized.  Here I will concede that Sullinger's current alleged behavior may not ultimately define him and other posters have opened me up to that.   

I have said what I wanted to say, however imperfectly, and will leave it at that.  I dont want to instigate unnecessary division where debate was my intention. I respect and thoroughly enjoy this blog.   

I regret the "Finally a post that can make laugh" snarky comment.

Could some other moderators step in here. 

[Roy H.]

It's also against forum rules to call me a troll and tell me I have lynch mob mentality.

No, it's not.  Or rather, no it's not in these circumstances.

How is your position different than that of a lynch mob?  You're willing to convict without anything more than accusations.  You're willing to label the alleged victim as mentally ill without any evidence. 

That's what lynch mobs do.  You've decide that you're judge, jury and executioner of Sullinger, and apparently his girlfriend, too, who you've metaphorically lynched with your unfounded diagnosis of mental illness.

It baffles me that you object to being mis-characterized, when you've done nothing but that in this thread, both with others posters and with Sullinger and his girlfriend.  You've put words into others mouths, when they've done nothing but said "we don't know what happened".

You're entitled to your opinion, when it's offered in good faith.  When you intentionally ignore people's statements, though (i.e., "Unless you were there you just don't know what happened"), it makes it look you're pursuing an agenda.  Whether that agenda is your own misguided worldview about alleged victims of domestic violence, or whether that agenda is intentionally attempting to troll others, it's probably fair for others to point it out.

I dont want to instigate unnecessary division where debate was my intention.

Clearly, which is why you made your last off-topic comments.

Anyway, the thread is headed nowhere good at the moment, so it's locked.