Latest DV response
The police shooting and killing of a man in Christchurch last night appears to be another tragic example of the DVA’s principles in action. The police were called to a domestic indicent and no doubt followed their current guidelines as demanded by feminist groups including Wimmin’s Refuge. They will have treated him immediately as a criminal rather than a distressed person and ganged up against him with the woman, ignoring any violence or provocation from her, encouraging her to use the DVA to shut him out of her life and the lives of any children, disregarding the issues and frustrations to which the man was reacting, forcing the man out of his home and generally depriving him of any sense of security, future or hope. Following this enlightened intervention by the police, the man left the house highly threatened, angry and feeling he had little left to lose. Never mind, Heather Henare will be happy to know the police then murdered him, better than most men deserve and sadly wasting four bullets in the process. They did have the decency though to apologize to the public for the inconvenience it caused to traffic flow.
Sandra Manderson means it when she states “we are going to get real tough on domestic violence .”
Men of New Zealand , move to another country before you are killed by the feminist cult cops !!
Comment by dad4justice — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 12:33 pm
I am disappointed that you have both chosen to attack the police with your anger at feminsism, rather than focussing on what, to me, is the greater question – If the news reports are to be believed, the man did not die for 25 minutes, yet he was left on the road without medical aid. I gather an ambulance was present so the questions I want answered are 1. Why was no aid given to him by the ambos and 2 why was he not transported to hospital?
It is time to stop sniping at femists and ask the real questions.
Comment by DavidB — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 2:39 pm
I seem to remember Stephen wallace (Waitara was left to bleed to death rather than receive any form of medical attention also. Well Mr Abbott.
David I see you are a victim of feminist propaganda. 99% of all family violence can be resolved without violence. This is not what the refuge industry (Whose income after all is derived from incidents such as this)would have us believe.
Also spare a thought for the children who watched their father shot by some misguided cops.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 4:13 pm
DavidB – So many men have told their stories about how the police handle domestic violence callouts. If a man phones the police because his female partner has assaulted him, the police will routinely force the man to leave the home under threat of arrest, they will usually refer the woman to Wimmin’s Refuge and encourage her to apply for a protection order, and the man will be lucky to get away without being charged for domestic violence for anything in the slightest he did to protect himself or even for speaking his mind. It is clear that police policy in responding to domestic violence callouts has been captured by feminist propaganda, i.e. always blame the man, always see the woman as victim, always believe everything the woman says, always make the man leave the home. Such attitudes will provoke many men in the complex situations of relationship conflict. And you think the real questions concern the actions of the ambulance officers who were unable to undo what 4 police bullets had done?
Don’t get me wrong, the shooting may (or may not) have been justified at that moment in time. The real questions for me are “Would the shooting have been necessary if the police had not applied feminist ideology in handling the callout initially?” and “How many serious crimes are provoked by the Domestic Violence Act and its underlying anti-male ideology in practice?” Surely they are questions someone needs to ask and we deserve answers.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Alistair, you know nothing of me, so how can you claim I am
?
As a child I saw my mother beat my father with a chain, pour boiling water over him and throw him out of the house, so don’t tell me how I think!
Hans, I am sad you are unable to see this as anything other than a chance to beat up on feminists, and show no concern for the man who lay dying, without assistance being rendered. Are you so full of bile that you have no humanity?
Comment by DavidB — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Mr Brindley,
Your two questions are very pertinent.
Also there should be no disputing that the New Zealand Police is driven predominantly by feminist ideology into policies.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09)940 6236
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Both issues deserve our attention.
1 Were the Police justified in shooting the man, or did they have other options available?
2 Is this an example of the normal sexism of the Police at DV callouts?
3 Was a man left to die, where immediate help should have been provided?
Let’s watch and listen, find out the facts first.
Spare a thought for the poor feminists- growing old and alone- cold in their beds at night- with no families, no young followers- Soon enough they will be dead and unmourned, poisoned by their inner bitterness. (Just don’t expect me to invite any home for a family Christmas dinner though!)
Comment by John Brett — Thu 27th September 2007 @ 4:46 pm
DavidB. Yes of course, if there was any inadequacy in the way the shot man was assisted medically, then that will be important to investigate and fix. From the news reports, it doesn’t sound like the ambulance people were at fault; the ambulance arrived quickly and I’m confident the officers made appropriate decisions. I was somewhat concerned that the police were seen to leave him lying there without offering any direct assistance, but I guess that’s probably their policy to avoid being attacked by an offender who is feigning disability or who suddenly gains a burst of strength when he sees an officer near him.
However, you dismiss my concerns claiming they are no more than cheap shots at feminism, and you insult my motivation and character. I don’t like that. I’m not sure what’s motivating you to attack me personally. I realise that I sometimes state things strongly and I used some sarcasm in my initial post, reflecting my disdain for fashionable, feminist-derived formulations of relationship conflict. Nevertheless, I would prefer you show some respect, then consider my concerns properly because if we as a society don’t recognize and address what’s going on here we will have many more unnecessary tragedies provoked by the way we manage relationship conflict (from the police callout to the Family Court to the District Court). Certainly, your insults won’t stop me from highlighting such tragedies as they occur.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 9:57 am
I notice the NZ Women’s Daily is at it again. The headline is ‘Witness – I saw man charge at Police with Hammer’.
Even though two other witnesses have stated that the man was standing still with his hands at his side.
The choice of headlines could just as well have been ‘Witnesses – Man shot for no reason’ or ‘Shooting witnesses differ’.
Why go with one witness’s account, against of that of two?
And since when did a hammer become such a threatening weapon? All you have to do is keep out of the guy’s reach.
And if he was such a danger, why are there no accounts of any injury to anyone else before the police dispatched him, even though he clearly had ample opportunity?
This has a smell. People take to things with hammers to destroy them, to render them worthless. To deny someone else their utility. We know he was smashing up a flat and the windows of cars. Sounds like the stuff that would normally be used by a couple.
Here’s the scenario that comes to mind. The woman tells the guy to get, and taunts him with ‘and I’m going to get all your stuff, this place and your car’. Then she rings the cops. He gets a hammer and smashes up everything that he now figures he’s lost. Then the cops shoot him for ‘brandishing a weapon’.
If that is what happenned, and I admit it’s only one possibility of many, would it be told?
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 10:02 am
So far, all I have heard is that it was a domestic incident. The meaning of the word domestic is very broad. It includes people living in the same house. If there was no relationship between male or female, or children born of or dependent upon that cohabitation of these circumstances should it so prove to be then the conversation above is entirely self generated and quite sobering.
The level of unconnected anger centres between paranoia and extreme victimhood. Both conditions require the direct attention of the advocates if they in fact are to be better prepared to handle the facts as they are realised. Arguing a point because it is a point to be argued is like holding a two way conversation in the mirror. Boiling water on skin is very damaging and unpleasant. Male alienation grouping all men into one kind of chain gang is just as bad. Judge what you see not see what you judge is the stronger instrument to determine a truth.
I agree with David that it seems the guy was left wounded and lying without being attended and to me tending a wounded victim of a police shooting is as much a demand to proceedure as dotting any i or crossing any t. Not showing compassion for the individual you have just felled out of apparent necessity makes a complete mockery of teh need to fell any individual. They simply didn’t care. How can it be argued that they showed care in the event of pulling the trigger? it makes no sense.
The men’z movement of New Zealand complain about “wommin” getting affidavits without facts. Here we are in a slanging match when there are independent inquiries going on to get facts. What is the point? There are much better points relevant to what we need to achieve rather than engaging in debate around the same old point where noone has ever yet conjured the balancing as remedial answer. We comprehend that there is a distinct class structure prevalent in society that protects women and blames men. This condition directly hurts many families where society capitalises on its adversity, encouraging and exploiting its existence. The responsible questions we should be asking are what are we going to do collectively to bring the damage in to heel?
Respectfully,
Benajmin Easton,
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 10:09 am
David B , so you are disappointed with my comments regarding this latest police assassination incident .
A five year old lad asked a officer at the incident , “why did you shoot my friend .”
He replied ; ” Us cops don’t get paid enough to go home in a box.”
God help the sick,sick,sick police culture , however , no doubts DavidB you’ll find the callous comment appropriate . Corrupt government = corrupt police .
Simple as abc !!
Comment by dad4justice — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 11:30 am
Benjamin, congratulations for getting this right.
I wonder if Hans will ahve the good grace to retract someof his more abusive comments aimed at the females in our society now we know a little more; such as it wasn’t a feminist who called the police, the guy was simply a flat mate, not a husband, lover, partner, etc of the woman in the flat and he hadn’t slept for 3 days, supercharging himself on drugs.
Of course, that does not excuse his behaviour, nor does it excuse the police. But as you say, let’s wait for a few more facts before running off at the mouth about feminist controlled policing.
Comment by DavidB — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I’m sorry, if you want to go round with a hammer smashing up cars and then moving in a threatening manner at an armed policeman you are clearly a danger and as such should be treated with abrupt and firm measures. To try and blame this on some feminist conspiracy in any direction is farcical. If you are unable to control yourself when emotionally challenged, get help, dont get a hammer! It’s idiots like this person in ChCh who assist feminists and the government in their view that men are a danger.
Comment by adriank — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 2:26 pm
It is the feminists fault. No doubt about it. The feminists are training these police officers to do what ever is necessary to protect the women.
One time my boyfriend got angry because I was allowing my son to do any thing he pleased and he needed discipline. But I argued back that it was none of his business.
It was really for it was his house and my son really was a handful.
So he started throwing my stuff out of the house. I phoned the police alright. “Arsehole, how dare he think this is OK behaviour” BTW, he is one of my best and dearest friends. This was a real life tiff we had.
But the cops did nothing . They stood far enough distance and let him get it out of him. Mind you he was a great rugby player and so were the cops. They were friends really. We all were. But the system has made sure that cops and civilians are not friends by making sure that the cops move districts often so as not to become friendly to the locals.
If the cops had of shot him, I would be looking to shoot them myself.
They knew my boyfriend was too big to take on when he was angry but he really was a sweet caring man. When my son and I watched this on the news my son said to me, “That woman is going to feel really bad now. She has to live with that” It was a domestic problem. You don’t expect that your man is going to get killed over an argument. If he had hurt her we would have heard of it by now.
This is way over the top.
But if you want to know what happened to us. I took off. He cooled down and put everything back in the house. It lasted a couple of hours. I am so grateful he wasn’t killed for it. He is a best firend. We were just young.
Comment by julie — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 3:39 pm
DavidB. You continue your abuse towards me, and I really must object. You have now accused me of making abusive comments aimed at “the females in our society”, in fact you imply that I have made many and suggest I retract “some of” my “more abusive comments”. Could you back up your claim by pointing to any such comments, and perhaps the many that include less abusive and more abusive ones? If not, then will you retract your allegations?
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Hans, if you think criticising your writing is personal abuse, you have very serious problems.
But, i suppose you’ll see this as more personal abuse.
Your entire opening post was in poor taste, showed anger directed at women and, as we have now seen, was totally off the mark as to what really happened. But, I guess that’s what happens when prejudice blinds you.
Oh, I hope you don’t take that as personal abuse too,
Comment by DavidB — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 6:18 pm
DavidB. You are a waste of all of our time. Sorry Babe but this is the way it is. We are way past caring if you care for your own gender or not.
But if you want to discuss this with people who may take the time to care that you are a late visitor check this site out and join. They are nice men and women.
http://www.antimisandry.com
You may know that misandry is the HATRED OF MEN
Comment by julie — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Mr Brindley,
Please keep within your safety zone, unless advocating that you have a recognised experience to be able to provide proper advocacy in this field.
Should you wish to correspond rather than usurp Hans upon radical feminism and the destruction created in New Zealand I am only to happy to accomodate dialogue.
Bearing in mind, I am at the coal face daily, I faced more than anguish through feminised policy than most, and now I do have an enviable position that I was ethical, moral and right, so the System does listen to me.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families (09) 940 6236
Comment by Paul Catton — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Good call Bevan.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 28th September 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Paul, if you re wrote that in plain English, I may be able to respond.
Comment by DavidB — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 12:45 am
Well done DavidB. 20 Comments and 5 of them are yours alone. You’re quite determined.
It’s a rare and valiant thing to see a man so undaunted in his defence of the good name of ladies.
Except this is the 21st century and they can do that well enough for themselves now.
Comment by Rob Case — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 7:42 am
Good call again Bevan,
I agree, at some stage these dads will figure it out – you just have to be persisant.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 8:46 am
What I am saying,
for those who cannot recognise that i am not talking in plain English, and trying to urge every father into a place they can call responsible to their sons and daughters is move it along.
We are dogged with this bitching. Move it along we are being discriminated against. It is plain. David B pops up with one sour comment against the grain and then our world jumps into proactive and defensive dialogue. If you didn’t get my point before, if in fact you read it; hold teh argument you want to have on this site with the mirror first and see how long it takes you to find a common thread with other men.
Do it now it may save another dad’s life before he commits suicide. He needs people like you to stand up and protect him before he needs you/us all to be in an argument with ourselves.
Whatever…
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 8:56 am
Benjamin. I know I commented on this case before knowing many details of it. I do so immediately such cases are in the media “while the iron is hot”. We know what the police policy is for dealing with domestic incidents; they have publicised it and many men have been on the receiving end of it. When a man is shot by police attending a domestic incident, I want to people to consider to what extent the police approach may have provoked the situation unnecessarily. Not one other person in the media so far has asked this question or sees such situations in their broader context of male-demonizing feminist ideology.
David Brindley: I have tried to consider respectfully what I could make of your challeges and I have acknowledged your points and tried to give reasoned answers in good faith. You have not shown the courtesy to acknowledge that any of my points might have validity or might be worthy of consideration. Most of your comments have not involved “criticizing my writing” at all; they have been churlish, personal attacks on my character and motivation, neither of which you know anything about. For example, you have accused me of being “unable” to see the case as anything but an opportunity to beat up on feminists, of not caring about a dying man, of being full of bile and having no humanity, and of having “very serious problems”.
You also made the defamatory allegation that I made a number of “abusive comments aimed at the females in our society” and that some were more abusive and deserved retraction. When I then challenged you to point to a single “abusive comment aimed at the females in our society” you were unable to do so and instead resorted to more hollow personal slander.
It’s interesting how similar your dishonourable style of communication is to that often employed by feminists: ignore the arguments and attack the person as viciously as possible.
I will no longer grace your childish diatribe with further courtesy. I invite you again to retract your defamatory allegation made in this public forum, an allegation that you have not been able to back up with evidence. Otherwise, my next communication with you will be through my lawyer.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 11:13 am
In parliament they have a policy to cope with these events. Over the last three days, where a politician has taken a direct offence to something I have said and another, where I recognised for a mistake I have made in my writing, would naturaly take offence, I have withdrawn and apologised. I do not believe I have lost any credibility or mana from pursuing this means to correct a wrong. On another issue I have apologised but not withdrawn given that I have no choice but to stay responsible to my actions, as not excusing the behaviour about which I would complain.
In a pub they tell the combatants to go outside. On an e-group where debate is likely to lift into personal shots, we could ask that they be done offline.
I, by Murray was already puled up to hold the debate offlinie and this has gone on to a point where if Murray is unsatisfied with any answer he could continue to a degree where he complained publicly – but I still reply – what is the point – we are in one place together seeking to achieve one purpose.
Again using my circumstances – Darryl Ward complained about me as you have Hans about DavidB – using the word defamatory. In Darry’s case he was right and I was wrong. I had to separate what I was saying for how he had taken offence and I am still going to say the same thing – our energy is extraordinary. If each of us was placing this energy into a direct challenge on the system for its news, and then spending our time on promoting that energy to this group, then I promise: we would be writing that news. We/men/fathers (and our many, many female supporters) are one very powerful group. But we are ot a group. We are concentrating on what other people do and how it affects us – taking it personally and complaining to the wrong people about our general condition.
I am here helping Noelle with her court case: and a damn fine job I think we are doing here as well. She had read your message on this and too was suprised that you jumped in so quick. That’s OK – whatever – Pete responded and DavidP responded and this brought out everyone – whatever. You write excellently – it is of value to have this site writing to Howard Broad and Annette King about this incident, but only with those facts that are directly relevant to our issues. If you can make them relevant and they are directly accurate to an incident of this nature for the facts, then you hold much weight on our collective behalf and we should always be in a position to support you. Go for it. Let’s see our skills in masculine independence exercised in pack mentality rather the like a bunch of dogs getting caught into bitch fest. We are all way better – that is why it is us standing up and the rest of the pack, struggling along like a flock of ewes, causing the problems we are all made to suffer: where some of us die, and others of us slaughter our young.
Most respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 11:58 am
And we should reject beating the women with whom we would could and can love.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 29th September 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Attention David Brindley , are you mates with that lying liarbour lickspittle Russell Brown who has his ugly head on an offensive domestic violence TV commercial putting the shit into the majority of kiwi blokes ?? I bet Mr Hard News got paid a pretty penny . No doubts you are like him , that is , a two faced back stabbing coward – weakling on the liarbour gravy train – eh !!
Comment by dad4justice — Sun 30th September 2007 @ 7:35 am
He papa nui haka:
The biggest thing a father could ever possibly do for his sons or daughters to master his responsibility to fatherhood as much as to be in health with himself is to challenge those demons within himself that drive him to anger.
Until this occurs he cannot be ready to face God as he would want God to be best.
If we concentrate, each, on a “grand father plan” and take this message back to society, and say the way the menz movement will respond to challenge domestic violence is by asking every father first to challenge the demons he knows live inside and under his skin.
Then there is no foe to fight. Noone can hurt us. We are not bad – we are not deadbeat. Obviously this isn’t easy and obviously for each of us, myself included it is the toughest road to take. But real dads are tough and someone has to lead the way.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers coalition.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 30th September 2007 @ 8:38 am
NZHerald Principal faces assault charge before new job in England – (private prosecution by vexatious ex-wife)
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 11th May 2014 @ 11:06 am
Thanks for that MurrayBacon
She could learn to live without the violence of trying to demolish a man’s reputation and career, and of course without the various forms of violence she will have indulged in during her marriage to which her ex husband probably reacted.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 11th May 2014 @ 7:51 pm