Category: Let's talk
... so reads a facebook page that has been set up in honour of Raoul moat, a man who shot his ex girlfriend, shot and killed her partner, and then shot a police officer, before going on the run for a week before shooting himself after a six hour stand-off with police.
So what makes people sympathize with these types of individuals? What makes people see beyond the wrongs they have done and turn them into some kind of heroes, instead of the murderer he clearly is?
This is truly sick. I could understand, say, if he was a dictator but did good things for the country or if he had killed truly horrible people like child abusers or rapists, but this? I think people are losing their minds... That, or maybe they're just glad he killed himself so that the tax payers don't have to pay to feed and house such a monster. Of course, there are the sickos out there who are probably glad that he shot his girlfriend for sleeping with someone, but they apparently forgot that 1. you don't do things like that and 2. she was his x.
oh no, all the posts are supportive of him. With some even saying that the girlfriend deserved to be shot. Bearing in mind that this individual was reputed to have beaten her up on several occasions, and had just served a prison sentence for asalting a nine-year-old child, She apparently ended the relationship while he was in jail, soo he came out and shot her. hmmm.
People have always been fascinated by extreme acts of violence and crimes, look at horror films, war dvds, violent games etc.
Also people like to cause contraversy and act outrageously, especially when they can hide behind relative annonymity on plces like FaceBook, and freedom of speech sort of allows them to do that, wehther they should or not.
I don't agree with it and I think it is pretty discusting, but I understand it in a way.
ah but facebook isn't anonomous though is it?
People have their names, pictures, sometimes their home addresses and telephone numbers on facebook. It's well known that many employers look on facebook if they're going to recruit someone... I think people forget that (and maybe that's another thread).
This is the problem with releasing abusers and keeping them alive. They should be executed, or at the very least, kept in the worst conditions with the cheapest price, preferably paid by them through hard labour. These people should never be allowed on the streets. So this thing (I don't consider it/him human) hurt a child, then killed three innocent people before killing himself and people actually support him! Honestly, I'm left with the same questions as you. Thank The Gods there are still decent people out there who know better.
The thing that really scares me is that abusers will use this against their victims as a warning of what happens when they try to leave. As I've said on other threads, I have no pitty for those people who stay because they claim to love their abusers or because they think that their abusers love them. But I do feel for those who are genuinely afraid to leave and who don't have the courage or means to eliminate the problem. This is especially so when they don't have support. So a woman could just have gotten the courage to leave and/or to seek help and might stay now after hearing this.
I can't believe tax payers have to keep criminals alive and well in jail. Can't we put our tax dollars toward something more useful, like, I don't know, helping hospitals, schools, ETC. As far as I'm concerned, people in jail, if not sentenced to the death penalty, should be kept barely alive.
As for excuses, in my opinion, nothing short of mental insanity excuses crime, and if mental insanity is proven to be true, it should be strictly dealt with.
Hugs to you my friend! That's the spirit! We need more people like you out there.
"I have no pitty for those people who stay because they claim to love their abusers or because they think that their abusers love them."
Wow, how simplistic is that statement.
It is so easy to judge the actions on others based on what we think we would do in the same situation or what we think they should do.
The reality is that most women who have been abused have first been broken down emotionally and have so little self esteem as to not believe that they are worth any better.
And often they love their abusers because their abuser is the only love they know. Many abusers are very remorseful after the event, only to repeat the behavior again and again, but it's the apologies, the remorse, the promises that it will never happen again, made to a woman who is so emotionally destroyed that she feels she has no choice but to stay.
It has nothing to do with fear.
I don't believe in the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And even in the US where the death penalty exists, plenty of taxpayers' money is spent keeping them on death row for years before they are actually executed.
Yes, the process should be sped up. If it can be proven that this person is guilty, there should be no room for appeals. The only cases in which I feel the death penalty shouldn't be used in murders are acciddental cases or truly justifiable ones (a parent kills the abuser of his/he r child or adult child kills abuser of elderly parent etc.) There's no excuse, in today's world with all it's shelters, hotlines, self-help etc. to stand for abuse. What's way worse than that, though, is those people who allow their children to be abused. Okay, you believe that you're worthless and that you deserve it that's one thing, even though, of course, it's not true. But anyone who can allow their child to be abused without seeking help is, in my eyes, just as bad as the abuser. Surely, your child is worth something and doesn't deserve that, and if anything, he/she should be the motivation to get out of there.
you have a very narrow view of the world.
If only your child is being abused and you are aware and you are not also a victim then I agree with you.
But often parents aren't aware that their children are being abused.
And often the mother is being abused too.
It's easy to sit there and state how things should be done/how people should react when you're not doing the reacting.
Children should always come first and foremost. If, for whatever reason, a parent honestly doesn't know that his/her child is being abused that's one thing. I still don't see how you can't notice changes in the way your own child acts and/or looks but okay. But if the parent is being abused, there's a very strong possibility that it's happening to the child, and for the parent to turn a blind eye and either refuse to realise that this is what's happening or to not investigate is plain wrong. Young children don't have the ability to defend themselves and even older ones can't simply strike out on their own. So it's the parent's responsibility to look after them no matter what that entails.
actually that's not true. Often parents are abused and while the parent takes the beatings the child escapes them. It's only once the parent starts fighting back that the children are often more at risk.
A lot of people who are being abused will do everything they can to hide the abuse, because often the abuse comes with a death threat, or something of the sort. Of course, there are ways around this, but wouldn't most people want to be as cautious as possibl when their life is on the line?
If my life was on the line in that way, I'd rather get rid of the threat, not submit to it.
What a chicken shit!
Tiffanintsa, I know of a little boy who was told..."Let your mommy know and I'll kill her." You don't know until your there. I realize that may be hard to understand, but it's the facts of life. Whether or not the child is being abused only makes the decission more difficult to make; it does not simplify it...
As I've said, children are a different story. As sad as it is, I can completely understand the child being afraid to say anything after hearing that. I think I was about five when my mother taught me that if someone hurts me, no matter what they say, I should not be afraid and should tell her right away. But children, even if told that, can't always rationalise and might take the bad advice to keep their parents safe. Still, I'm sure they'd act a bit off, even if only slightly.
Yes, maybe they do, but if your being abused yourself, it is difficult to see the difference in your own child. Besides, they may be simply reacting to seeing their own Mom get abused...To judge before you have been there; (I'm looking from the child's prospective and I still see the picture), is totally wrong. How does it go? Walk a mile in that person's shoes before you judge? My Mom, who is the strongest proponent of women's lib I know still stayed married to a man who drank, abused her, and, us. Why? Because she loved him, we (her children) loved him, she was afraid of what he or we would do, and the list goes on. I'm not saying that it's right, but it's the facts that when you take in to account; (truly take in to account without judgement), the issues that can arise when leaving an abusive man; (or woman), it is staggering to my mind; (and I'm in a happy relationship myself). There isn't always a clear cut; (obvious), choice. Wait until you have children; (if you do), and are faced with these kinds of choices...Think about the following questions my mother had to figure out how to answer...Who will watch my children while I work? How do I know I can get some one trustworthy? How will I pay for child care; (she couldn't get approved for any kind of government services)? How will my children feel if I leave their Dad? If he gets the house how will I provide a roof for my children? How will I be able to afford food and clothes if I have to pay child care? Is there a chance the man I love can/will change? Will my children blame/hate me for leaving their Dad; (my brother did for years after she finally did)? How will I be able to be there for my kids and work too? What will I do if he wins custody and I lose them? How can I protect them if they're with their Dad? What will others think if I get a divorce; (mid 80's we're talking about)? What comes first, working to provide or giving my kids a Mom who's there? Will he kill me; or even worse my kids, if I leave him? How can I get him gone with the least fuss? How will I pay an attorney; (divorces aren't cheap-especially if the spouse fights it)? How can I make sure my kids are safe? Do I want my kids to have to be latch-key kids; (we ended up having to be)? Those are just the questions I can think of, and honestly, I don't think I could answer them all easily. Also, I'm sure my list of questions hasn't even scratched the surface of the issue. Yes, my Mom found a way, and I have never regretted her decision. But, consider this, my brother hated her for years, he chose to live with my Dad and my Mom had no choice in the matter, I still hurt to remember how many times my Mom had to choose work over being home with me, and I remember giving my Mom money for milk because she didn't have it after all the bills were paid. I will never say she did wrong, but it took her fifteen years, and afterwards she did the best she could with what she had. Instead of downing women in this type of situation by saying "I'd just leave" or "no matter the consequences I'd do it for the kids" why don't you try to think of ways to help women in this situation. They can use all the help they can get. Do you know what the Mom of the little boy I mentioned before said to me? "I thought if I left he'd kill me, and I am no good or protection for my children if I'm dead." Death is a reality that almost every woman in an abusive situation faces every day. And at least while she's there she's alive and can try to buffer her kids. If she leaves she runs the risk of being dead, and then who in this world is going to protect her kids? CPS certainly won't. You know what? When she did leave the S.O.B. the courts granted him custody of their; (her youngest), son. We have both made child abuse reports, and CPS has done not a damn thing!!! I think some times she wonders if her son wouldn't have been better off if she had stayed. She has never voiced it, but I know her well enough. Now, try living with the fact that your abusive ex-husband has your son, is abusing him, and you can do not a God Damn thing to stop it. Now, judge her for staying as long as she did.
Sorry to those who feel we've gotten off topic. *small smile* this is one subject I'm very; (maybe too), passionate about!!!
here's a link to a radio interview with the stupid bitch that started the facebook page. i find it sad that she is the mother of 5. poor kids having to grow up with that as their mother.
http://tiny.cc/mmqg1
In answer to the original question...
People sympathise with Raoul Moat because they feel that they can identify with the anger and hurt he felt, and the unfairness and injustice he suffered.
People cannot trust the police, and throughout this case it's been obvious why.
They cared more about their shot colleague than the other people who were shot. They acted like a clique, and people don't trust cliques. They glorified David Rathband, depicted him as a hero, used photos of his injuries to generate emotional reactions, etc.
The police also exagerated the threat Raoul Moat posed to the public.
In Raoul Moat's last stand, he never gave in, despite being surrounded by armed police and being under intense and constant pressure.
Raoul Moat felt that the police had made him suffer by having him jailed for a crime he said he didn't commit. He knew that if he had surrendered to them, he would have had to endure more suffering.
Raoul Moat denied the police the outcome they wanted by shooting himself. Now, the police are having to answer questions, the police are having to explain their actions, the police are being investigated, and the police are under pressure.
They have been reluctant to tell the truth. It took twelve hours for them to admit a taser was fired. Two were fired by West Yorkshire Police officers.
The police have also tried to influence public opinion. David Rathband said he didn't bear any malice towards Raoul Moat. This comment seems to have been made to persuade people that the police didn't consider Raoul Moat an enemy, so people who had sympathy for Raoul Moat would cooperate with the police. It didn't work.
More people joined Facebook pages which sympathise with Raoul Moat, so Raoul Moat used words like "evil" and "monster" to describe him, and talked about the impact of Raoul Moat's actions on him. This was an attempt by the police to show David Rathband as the real victim, but again it didn't work.
David Cameron tried to get the Facebook page closed down. The focus was on Facebook. This must have eased the pressure on the police, and I think that was the reason for David Cameron's actions on Wednesday.
Then there is Sick Sam Stobard. She's so selfish, greedy and manipulative, that she wishes to make hundreds of thousands of pounds from the deaths of her boyfriend and her ex-boyfriend. No wonder so many people dislike her. She was the person who metaphorically pulled the trigger that caused Raoul Moat's war.
This is so interesting and I think shows how slowly people are realizing that our constitution is no longer is in effect, at least as far as the U.S goes (though I think many other places).
I know, I'm taking this out of topic again, but what the poster above(Senior) has stated is true. People are realizing that the police are selfish at most times and can often only carry out the law --not because they want public safety to happen, but because they want their reputation to increase, and to cause a general sense of fear within a given population. How many TV news stories do you see involving police? Count once, and you'll be shocked that more than half of your news is about crime, whether local or national. It is sad really, that our nation's forces are no longer about protecting their citizens but about making more money, increasing notoriety, etc.
Now, do I agree with what this man did? Certainly not. However he left an impact upon the world by waking people up, and for that I must give him credit. Hopefully with events like this +the BP oilspill+whatever is doomed to come down the line people will demand the right for the restoration of what our original constitution really wanted.
Sam Stobard is the victim in all this. She left an abusive relationship and paid the price.
If it transpires that Moat asked for help and was not given it then this needs to be investigated, and anyone involved needs to be brought to account. But I don't think we should start laying the blame with the woman who ended a relationship with an abusive narsicist who took a gun and killed her partner and then tried to kill her.
Also, let's not forget that he hurt a child as well. I don't care how much you hate the police. You don't kill two innocent people and then harm a child. Yes, if he asked for help, he should've been given it. But there's a way out for people who are that deranged. It's called suicide and not the kind that takes along other people for the ride.
I don't think he was worshiped...lots of people just seem to find messages where they don't exist.
Raoul Moat said he never hit his children, and felt that the police lied so he'd go to jail. The police are certainly not always honest, and I know they do use certain tactics to covertly influence juries who are unaware.
Sam Stobbart lied to him by saying that she was with a police officer, and in doing so she pulled the trigger in his mind. She has also used the deaths of two people she once loved to get rich. That's a disgusting thing to do.
It is also worth pointing out that Raoul Moat has never been convicted of abusing a woman. He does seem to have had a temper, which he wanted help to control, which he never received.
Right. So he said he didn't do it, so he must be telling the truth mustn't he. hmm.
The fact that he beat up his partner and ex partner before her is inconsequencial then? And then took a gun and shot his ex partner and her new partner and some random police officer, that's all her fault? nothing to do with him at all then?
Get real.
Raoul moat shot his ex partner and her partner and a police officer because he was a violent narsicist who had to be in control. He then went into hiding for a week and started issuing threats because he wanted to be seen as a marter. He lay on a river bank pointing a gun to his head for six hours because he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and a shower of police bullets.
Perhaps she shouldn't have lied. But perhaps she felt she had no choice because she feared for her safety.
With attitudes like "well the woman told one lie because it's all her fault" is it any wonder that women feel that their claims of domestic violence are not taken seriously.
It makes me sick that a man can gun down three innocent people (and telling one lie does not make someone guilty of a crime) and yet it seems that someone else gets the blame.
Okay, to be fare, many times, at least around my neck of the woods, the police do make justifications and much of the shoot first and ask questions later atitude. That doesn't mean that happened in this case.
Perhaps I digress here, but I know from experience that the CPS can't always be trusted. No, I'm not going to try to convince you that I was in the right, and that my parents were in the wrong, but, long story short, abuse complaints came in, they talked to me, then talked to my mother, and took her side right away without investigation. Had they made any effort at all to investigate the abuse claims further, I would have been satisfied with any outcome, even if it hadn't been in my favor, because I would have at least known they tried.
Wow. That is truly sad and sick and I'm sorry that this happened to you. No one should ever have to go through something like that and then have trouble with the police ontop of it.
actually, I think that there's more a patern of the cps not taking abuse claims seriously enough than the other way around.
And the reality is that we'll never know one way or the other, but given that two of his partners have said that he abused them, I think it's highly unlikely that Raoul moat was an innocent man.
And even on the off chance that he had been wrongly convicted, that is still no justification for killing anyone - two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes. I do think killing would be a bit much for that. But blinding might work nicely.
Raoul Moat snapped. He wasn't in complete control of himself. This was reflected in what he said and did.
The police can't be trusted. Look at the cover-up after the death of Ian Tomlinson. The police officer has used agressive force while on duty before. The first pathologist has nearly 30 charges against him relating to separate incidents, but because he insisted that Ian Tomlinson died of natural causes, PC Larwood has avoided prosecution for manslaughter and ABH.
A bit closer to home, the police and local government are wasting money on a new hotline shopkeepers can ring if they witness or experience antisocial behaviour, which now includes shoplifting. They should be able to ring their local police station or 999, but they're being encouraged to ring a different line instead, which is funded with money that could be used to clamp down on shoplifting. This hotline has been set up in response to the death of Gurmail Singh.
No wonder people don't have any confidence in the police.
I am not a judge so it is not my place to deal out punishment. I say let the system run it's course and if it fails yet again, so be it.
People suffer when people hiding behind "the system" fail.
I'm not hiding behind the system I'm saying that I don't care one way or the other. Lol.
Raoul Moat's funeral is next week. I won't be there, but I hope the occasion brings his family and sympathisers together in grief and appreciation for Raoul Moat. He fought bravely against those he believed had made him suffer; now they cannot make him suffer any more. Rest in peace Raoul Moat.
"Push the little daisies and make 'em come up!"
forget who does that song
Yes, let's all remember an abuser of women and of children and a murderer of the innocent. And I thought I was strange! For once, I can't even blame the Americans. Good to know the rest of the world has nutjobs in it as well. Even if police ignoring the pleas of people who sincerely need and ask for help is to be addressed, and I believe it should, people like him should never be glorified.