Men are never the victims of DV or sexual assult by women

Started by damnbiker, Jan 12, 2005, 05:18 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

damnbiker

How can people still believe that lie?  Check this story out (It's from The Sun so I apologise in advance):  You'll notice in the story that there is no mention of DV shelters coming to the rescue.  No mention of how many other men are affected by DV.  The words sexually assulted cannot once be found in this article either.  I guess if a woman mutilates an innocent mans genitals these terms don't apply. :roll:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005013091,00.html

Ex rips off man's tackle

Quote
By ANDY RUSSELL

A JILTED girl tore off her ex-boyfriend's testicle with her bare hands - then popped it in her mouth, a court heard yesterday.
Amanda Monti, 24, grabbed Jeffrey Jones, 37, by the genitals in a rage after he refused to have sex.

She ripped off his left testicle leaving him in "excruciating pain". Monti, just 5ft 2in, then put it in her mouth to hide it.

The testicle was later found by a pal of Mr Jones who handed it back, saying: "That's yours." Doctors were unable to re-attach it.

The victim told Liverpool Crown Court how he had earlier ended their relationship but Monti refused to accept it.

After a party at his home in Netherton, she wanted sex but he was not interested. There was a struggle and she ripped off his shorts leaving him in his pants.

He said: "She grabbed my genitals and pulled hard. I noticed my underpants had come off and I was in excruciating pain."

Monti, of Birkenhead, admitted unlawful wounding but said she had little memory of what happened. She will be sentenced later.
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

dr e

This is disturbing.

There are multiple facets of this article that are upsetting but the first one is the title.

Ex rips off man's tackle

It sounds less like a violent and heinous act and more like a humourous scene from a slapstick movie.  They start off by making light of the seriousness of this crime which in turn dehumanizes the victim

Notice also that the article is told from HER point of view.  She was denied sex, she is the jilted GF.  It's all about her.  Very little about the real victim here.  Only that his friends found his testicles and then proceeded to make light of his "handing it back to him" and saying "that's yours."

Imagine an ariticle about a man who cut off a woman's breast after she had refused sex with him and one of her friends found it and handed it back to her saying "that's yours."  Would they rush to print this?  Duh!

This is infuriating.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

damnbiker

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
This is disturbing.

There are multiple facets of this article that are upsetting but the first one is the title.

Ex rips off man's tackle

It sounds less like a violent and heinous act and more like a humourous scene from a slapstick movie.  They start off by making light of the seriousness of this crime which in turn dehumanizes the victim

Notice also that the article is told from HER point of view.  She was denied sex, she is the jilted GF.  It's all about her.  Very little about the real victim here.  Only that his friends found his testicles and then proceeded to make light of his "handing it back to him" and saying "that's yours."

Imagine an ariticle about a man who cut off a woman's breast after she had refused sex with him and one of her friends found it and handed it back to her saying "that's yours."  Would they rush to print this?  Duh!

This is infuriating.


Like I said, it's from The Sun - sorry.  Your point is well made, instead of a heart wrenching sexual assult story or domestic violence story, we got an article that made light of the genital mutilation of an innocent human being.
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

dr e

So the Sun is a tabloid type?  Would they print something like this?


Quote
Man Snips Woman's Nips

A JILTED man tore off his ex-girlfriend's nipple with his bare hands - then popped it in his mouth, a court heard yesterday.
Manny Monti, 24, grabbed Jessica Jones, 37, by the nipples in a rage after she refused to have sex.

He ripped off her left nipple leaving her in "excruciating pain". Monti, just 5ft 8in, then put it in his mouth to hide it.

The nipple was later found by a friend of Ms Jones who handed it back, saying: "That's yours." Doctors were unable to re-attach it.

The victim told Liverpool Crown Court how she had earlier ended their relationship but Monti refused to accept it.

After a party at her home in Netherton, he wanted sex but she was not interested. There was a struggle and he ripped off her blouse leaving her in her bra.

She said: "He grabbed my nipple and pulled hard. I noticed my bra had come off and I was in excruciating pain."

Monti, of Birkenhead, admitted unlawful wounding but said he had little memory of what happened. He will be sentenced later.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

damnbiker

Again, a good point.  My point is that most other papers would just simlpy not carry this story or, if they did, bury it between the "backgammon playing Beagle" story and the "cheese slice that looks like Elvis" story.  I don't think most legitimate papers would try to give it an even mildly comical spin.  Mind you if the story had occured the in your version it would be front page material.
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

Sir Jessy of Anti

An update:


( ...)  He came into the kitchen and said to me, 'That's yours', and I
saw that he was holding one of my testicles in his hand."

Monti initially tried to hide the testicle by putting it in her mouth,
but released it. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.
___________________________


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWCOURTSTesticletue18testic?version=1
Woman 'tore off ex-lover's testicle'
11 January 2005

A jilted woman has admitted ripping off her ex-lover's testicle with
her bare hands after he refused to have sex with her.

Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage after her ex-boyfriend, 37-year-old
Geoffrey Jones, rejected her advances at the end of a drunken house
party. She yanked off his left testicle, which was later handed to him
by a friend with the words: "That's yours."

Monti, of Birkenhead, Merseyside, pleaded guilty to wounding at
Liverpool Crown Court and will be sentenced next month. The court
heard that Mr Jones had ended his long-term relationship with Monti
towards the end of May last year.

The pair remained on good terms and on May 30, Monti offered to
collect Mr Jones from a barbecue and drive him to his home in
Netherton, Merseyside. She then drove him to another party and then
home again, where friends joined them for more drinks.

As the drinks party was winding down, Monti told Mr Jones she wanted
to discuss their relationship and offered him sex. When he refused,
she grabbed his face and a struggle ensued.

Mr Jones threw petite Monti, who is little more than 5ft 2ins tall,
out of the house. She then smashed a window and confronted him on the
doorstep as he went to investigate. Another struggle took place and
Monti was knocked to the floor, from where she pulled down Mr Jones'
shorts.

In a statement read out by judge Charles James, Mr Jones continued:
"Suddenly she grabbed my genitals and pulled hard. That caused my
underpants to come off and I found I was completely naked and in
excruciating pain."

Referring to his friend Danny McDonagh, who was sleeping at the house
after the party, Mr Jones said: "I believe Danny walked out shortly
afterwards. He came into the kitchen and said to me, 'That's yours',
and I saw that he was holding one of my testicles in his hand."

Monti initially tried to hide the testicle by putting it in her mouth,
but released it. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.

Defence barrister Wendy Lloyd said her client did not remember much of
the incident. However, she accepted the prosecution's version of
events and did not claim to have acted in self-defence. Monti, who
spoke only to confirm her name and enter a guilty plea, was released
on conditional bail for sentence on February 10.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

LSBeene

Thanks for the story.

I was JUST debating some harpy on Gonzo's blog and she's telling me that since women are smaller they won't commit DV.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that was her current version of how DV isn't happening to men. (it changes as I disprove her "facts")

This story is a nice clincher:  Rape AND DV.

Outstanding.

No DV advocates come forward to quote stats.

No Rape advocates to call for her to be a registered sex offender.

What a CROCK of SH*T.

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

damnbiker

Read it more carefully.  There was no rape or attempted rape, no domestic violence and no sexual assult.  She "admitted unlawful wounding".  I'm not sure if that's a specific charge in the UK but it certainly doesn't sound even as serious as assault.  The article never actually came out and said what she had been charged with specifically.
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

damnbiker

Okay boys and girls definition time care of the Crown Prosecution Service:

Quote
Unlawful wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Act.
Refer to (Archbold 19-200) for the law.

The offence is committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either:
wounds another person; or
inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.

It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Summarily, the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

Wounding means the breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or the inner skin within the cheek or lip. It does not include the rupturing of internal blood vessels. (Archbold 19-212).

The definition of wounding may encompass injuries that are relatively minor in nature, for example a small cut or laceration. An assault resulting in such minor injuries should more appropriately be charged contrary to section 47. An offence contrary to section 20 should be reserved for those wounds considered to be serious (thus equating the offence with the infliction of grievous, or serious, bodily harm under the other part of the section).


Grievous bodily harm means serious bodily harm. (Archbold 19-206). It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to serious harm include:

injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;


injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;

compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;

injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;

injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;

psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.

In accordance with the recommendation in (R v McCready (1978) 1 WLR 1376), if there is any reliable evidence that a sufficiently serious wound has been inflicted, then the charge under section 20 should be of unlawful wounding, rather than of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which part of section 20 more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence.

The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699).

This offence is capable of being racially/religiously aggravated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. (Refer to Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime, elsewhere in this guidance).


My guess is that they made a deal in order for her to plead guilty - and a rather cushy deal at that. :roll:
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

LSBeene

Nice job on the research!

Yeah .... cushy indeed.

She demanded sex, and when she didn't get it she permanently disfigured and maimed the man sexually.  This occured during a violent assault she initiated due to a DOMESTIC dispute as to his refusal to date her.

Rape or attempted rape.

Aggrevated Sexual assault.

And Domestic Violence.

That's my interpretation.

Anyone elese?

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

ChickenZliZe

Pshycopaths (sp?) is everywhere,I feel sorry for the dude.

I dont care wheteher its a man or female who does something like that,its still shocking..damn,feels the pain.
Or..rather ,cant imagine the pain,both the body and the mind suffers
londe,blue eyes and smart. WTF is wrong with me?

FP

Quote from: "LSBeene"
Nice job on the research!

Yeah .... cushy indeed.

She demanded sex, and when she didn't get it she permanently disfigured and maimed the man sexually.  This occured during a violent assault she initiated due to a DOMESTIC dispute as to his refusal to date her.

Rape or attempted rape.

Aggrevated Sexual assault.

And Domestic Violence.

That's my interpretation.

Anyone elese?

Steven


You could sell me on attempted rape and sexual assault. DV prolly not. They weren't technically "dating" right?  In general I don't think it'd be easy to sell a jury on 1 or 3 sadly.

LSBeene

Floorpie,

Yea, I see you point.

I mean, had the genders been reversed you could sell it to a jury (IMO).

Which is sad, but ... whatever.

I was, I guess, speaking legally as to what could be applied.  (with the full disclaimor that I am a legal amateur, of course!)

I should have made that distinction.

Steven
'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8
"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

CaptDMO

Quote from: "FloorPie"

You could sell me on attempted rape and sexual assault. DV prolly not. They weren't technically "dating" right?  In general I don't think it'd be easy to sell a jury on 1 or 3 sadly.


Legally DV can include within up to one year of seperation? Where have I seen that recently? Am I mistaken on this? State law judgement?

Sir Jessy of Anti

All I can say is legally, you would plead with the Gods for me not to be Council.

And then some.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

Go Up