There’s a lot of Amber’s behaviour I really don’t like and I really understand people believing him. It’s worth looking at the UK judge’s verdict from the UK trial, where an experienced judge tested the evidence and found he was abusive. There’s also Ellen Barkin saying he drugged her for sex, him dating Winona when she was 17 and he was 26, his friendship with multiple abusers, see here, here, and here (warning: Ginsberg was a supporter of NAMBLA). Then of course Manson who here shared awful texts with and many, many other things that make me believe her. However Amber’s behaviour was awful sometimes, she did a lot of attention seeking, and I really understand people disbelieving her.
And if they’re not, why are you defending a convicted abuser?
Law is not morality, courts are not really suited to deal with situations like this. They both needed help, not to fight and be convicted or whatever. It was an unhelpful show trial.
Restorative and transformative justice is what was needed so these clearly damaged people could heal.
The fact that she is also a victim doesn’t make her not an abuser though.
Yes, they both needed help decades ago, but that doesn’t excuse either of their abuse. He’s an abuser, she’s an abuser. Neither should be defended, and both need help.
But none of those things justify her abuse, and none of those things means anyone should defend her abuse.
The whole affair shows that the ‘justice’ system does not work. It was not fit for purpose to actually help these clearly damaged people and they needed something much better where neither side was going to ‘win’. It was all for a spectacle, a show. We hated it at the time and hate it now. There was little point and they would have been better served by a restorative and transformative justice system out of the public eye. They both just needed to be kept away from each other as a result of any true justice system, and mental health etc help, and he definitely needed to pay her back.
The attention, hate etc wasn’t useful for either of them and it shows a servere lack of actual justice in the current system because it is not at all built for it.
There’s a lot of Amber’s behaviour I really don’t like and I really understand people believing him. It’s worth looking at the UK judge’s verdict from the UK trial, where an experienced judge tested the evidence and found he was abusive. There’s also Ellen Barkin saying he drugged her for sex, him dating Winona when she was 17 and he was 26, his friendship with multiple abusers, see here, here, and here (warning: Ginsberg was a supporter of NAMBLA). Then of course Manson who here shared awful texts with and many, many other things that make me believe her. However Amber’s behaviour was awful sometimes, she did a lot of attention seeking, and I really understand people disbelieving her.
It is possible for two people to both be bad.
Yep exactly. And not every person in an abusive relationship is a nice person, especially when they’ve endured years of abuse
At which point in this list of yours are Ambers Heard’s abusive actions justified?
And if they’re not, why are you defending a convicted abuser?
Law is not morality, courts are not really suited to deal with situations like this. They both needed help, not to fight and be convicted or whatever. It was an unhelpful show trial.
Restorative and transformative justice is what was needed so these clearly damaged people could heal.
The fact that she is also a victim doesn’t make her not an abuser though.
Yes, they both needed help decades ago, but that doesn’t excuse either of their abuse. He’s an abuser, she’s an abuser. Neither should be defended, and both need help.
But none of those things justify her abuse, and none of those things means anyone should defend her abuse.
Sure, but neither deserve hate either, it isn’t useful or helpful. Sure, be wary. But hate doesn’t do anything useful.
The whole affair shows that the ‘justice’ system does not work. It was not fit for purpose to actually help these clearly damaged people and they needed something much better where neither side was going to ‘win’. It was all for a spectacle, a show. We hated it at the time and hate it now. There was little point and they would have been better served by a restorative and transformative justice system out of the public eye. They both just needed to be kept away from each other as a result of any true justice system, and mental health etc help, and he definitely needed to pay her back.
The attention, hate etc wasn’t useful for either of them and it shows a servere lack of actual justice in the current system because it is not at all built for it.
Absolutely. Nice court case should be decided by social media, it’s just wrong.
Well, yes, but that’s not really our point either. We’re saying the courts themselves aren’t fit for purpose in this either.
I agree
deleted by creator