It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: riiver
You don't seem to fully grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behaviour.
It can decimate a person's mental health, leading to depression, ptsd, anxiety disorders and even suicidal ideation.
Then when that person does take their own life the abuser can just claim it was only words and they did it by their own hand?
Don't want to live in your world.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think you understand how the law works. Every court case sets precedent for the next. No exceptions.
originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
If I encourage a human to kill another human I should be held accountable. Same goes for if I encourage a human to kill themselves.
originally posted by: audubon
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think you understand how the law works. Every court case sets precedent for the next. No exceptions.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. In legal terms, the decision of a lower court in the US cannot bind any future court. I.e., no precedent has been set.
originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Who said anything about linking abuse to PTSD?
Not that difficult to diagnose - the symptoms of PTSD are pretty obvious. And, to be honest, linking the symptoms to a preceding abusive relationship, sexual assault, etc etc isn't too hard, lol.
Here, it was simply a case of linking her behaviour in pushing her boyfriend to suicide. It was, again, obvious.
Likewise in the case of the ex-partner who took her own life following a campaign of abuse, stalking, and harassment.
Obvious.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That depends on whether there is an appeal. If a higher court upholds it, then it becomes case law up to the highest level it has been appealed and upheld.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
PTSD itself is not necessarily caused by any one thing. Two people can have exactly the same experience and one gets ptsd, but the other doesn't.
There is no need to bring a pseudo-science like "psychology" into the courtroom here. The matter is fairly cut and dried.
originally posted by: audubon
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That depends on whether there is an appeal. If a higher court upholds it, then it becomes case law up to the highest level it has been appealed and upheld.
So, as I was saying, no precedent has in fact been set.
You were claiming that a binding precedent had already been set, now you've changed your argument to saying that a binding precedent might be set in future.
originally posted by: melatonin
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
PTSD itself is not necessarily caused by any one thing. Two people can have exactly the same experience and one gets ptsd, but the other doesn't.
Yeah, predisposition. In no way does that remove responsibility from those who cause the trauma...
To suggest otherwise is pure and simple victim-blaming.
There is no need to bring a pseudo-science like "psychology" into the courtroom here. The matter is fairly cut and dried.
Yeah, keep those forensic psychologists away from the court room. They might identify the callous narcopaths among us (;
Did a psychologist steal your blankie when you were a nipper? lol
originally posted by: melatonin
Therefore, it may impact in how the condition is expressed, but unlikely to be a cause in and of itself. I think the stats are something like 50% of sexually assaulted women develop PTSD symptoms. I think the main link is obviously between traumatic event and condition. And other predispositional effects (earlier trauma, genes etc) determine the likelihood of PTSD being an outcome.
So can't see how the argument can be made to overlook the triggering event. If it's an interpersonal trauma, then the person imposing the trauma has to take responsibility.