Amber Heard granted domestic violence restraining order against Johnny Depp

So because women can slap men or throw something at them, this is what's allowing them to thrive? Like what, they're getting ahead in business this way?

I disagree with the statements, and wonder what your real source of anger is here. Because as it's showing through on this subject, you are failing with logic. Maybe you're angry about other sexism things, or hate feminism or are mad about other double-standards or something, idk. But this is about the dumbest choice of subjects to get all SJW on.

I mean, as far as I know, most dudes are "yeah dude, don't ever hit a woman." And I've never met someone who was all "Man, if only we could hit these bitches, then we'd be back in power again."

And it is a fact of life - women are the weaker sex, physically.

 

Eh? Equal means of equal worth, there's no line to be drawn between it and identical.

PS: I have to admit, I thought you were jtfloyd86 when I typed that. Not that it matters a lot to what is being said here.

 

Just where did you read that piece of information? I'd like to see any proof and indeed the source of that statement before you start quoting it as fact

 

Interesting. An article on washingtontimes.com states "New research from Deborah Capaldi shows the most dangerous domestic-violence scenario for both women and men is that of reciprocal violence, particularly if that violence is initiated by women." I guess the saying "I didn't start it, but I ended it" is still often true.

I also think it's unfair to say "I'll never believe anything a woman says/claims when it comes to men."

 

Johnny Depp was manipulated, set up by Amber Heard: His friend​

LOS ANGELES: Hollywood star Johnny Depp's friend Doug Stanhope has penned a column in support of the actor in the wake of his divorce from Amber Heard and her claims of domestic abuse.

Stanhope, 49, has written an op-ed for The Wrap that Depp, 52, told him his wife of 15 months threatened to blackmail him as their marriage fell apart.

On May 21, hours before Heard claimed that the "Pirates of the Caribbean" star hit her with a cell phone during a violent argument, Stanhope and another friend named Bingo spent most of the day at the couple's LA home.

"We assumed initially that his dour mood was because of his mother's death the day before," the stand-up comedian writes.

"But he opened up in the most vulnerable of ways that it was not only his mother, but that Amber was now going to leave him, threatening to lie about him publicly in any and every possible duplicitous way if he didn't agree to her terms. Blackmail is what I would imagine other people might put it, including the manner in which he is now being vilified."

Heard, 30, filed for divorce two days after her alleged fight with Depp, and on May 27 she was temporarily granted a restraining order against him, after submitting a deposition in which she claimed she was "extremely afraid" for her safety.

Stanhope, best known for hosting "The Man Show" on Comedy Central, wrote, "He hadn't slept in days with anxiety. You'd call him a paranoid if you didn't know better. But he knew better and he was right."

The friends left Depp to get some rest, but later that night police were called to his house for a domestic dispute.

Police, however, has said that despite Heard's claims, they found no evidence for a report when they were called to the home.

"Everything Johnny had told us that she'd been threatening had actually come to be," Stanhope writes. "It blew up in the news, raced through the Internet like a plague and blew up on Twitter... People are swarming with torches on social media."

He explains that he hesitated coming forward because he didn't want to look like a name-dropper, but believes he had to speak out to defend his friend.

"Abusing women is bad," Stanhope adds. "Johnny doesn't abuse anyone. And he told me that day ahead of time that she'd pull something like this. Johnny Depp got used, manipulated, set up and made to look bad. And he saw it coming and didn't or couldn't do anything to stop it.

 

^^^That last sentence is indeed a fact. Men are a superior creature to women. But somehow that admission could (and will be) arbitrarily labeled as "sexist". Imagine that. ;-)

 

So would you agree that (based on the linked research) women are as guilty of domestic violence as men are, despite the societal narrative of men being deemed the perpetrator whenever the topic is breached?

Also, I never claimed that last statement was fair, but its what I believe, and I'll stand behind it.

 

You do understand the difference between "women being in general physically weaker than men", and 'men are a superior creature to women", right?

But then again, you also said:

Just to make it clear. You're stating that you are no better than an animal, by reacting the same way it would.

 

I think what he is trying to say is that very few men would pick a fight with someone physically stronger than himself.
Nobody wants to get their ass kicked.Its simple survival skill.
You wouldn't pick a fight with the biggest guy in the bar.
It is the very reason bouncers are bigger than the average guy.They are bigger so that they can break up fights.

 

LOL women thriving with respect to domestic violence.

Fuck this.

 

ex wife vanessa paradis and daughter lily rose are jumping to depps defense

 

Typical cop-out from someone who has nothing to back up his opinion but emotion. Obviously the truth has touched a nerve with you in regards to this domestic violence thing, but it is what it is.

Taken from divorceresistance.inffo (obviously subtract one F)

There are problems and injustices with the domestic violence legislation as it exists today in most states:

1. It deals primarily with men vs women violence, and largely ignored women vs men violence. (However, now that is improved at least in theory in VAWA 2013.)

2. A person accused of domestic violence is considered guilty until proven innocent, in a reversal of normal principals of justice.

3. Definitions of "abuse" are sometimes so broad that nearly anybody can be accused of it.

4. Most importantly, fraudulent claims of domestic violence are common and unpunished in many states. It is a favored divorce tactic in many states.

5. Provocation of spousal abuse by a women is encouraged by these laws. Often, a wife will deliberately provoke a husband to slap her in hopes of gaining a very favorable divorce settlement.

6. Divorce is often a cause of spousal abuse – particularly if infidelity is involved -- rather than an escape from it.

7. Spousal abuse and child abuse are sometimes considered to be closely related, products of violent men. But in fact, spousal abuse is a very different problem from child abuse. Legal solutions to spousal abuse might actually increase child abuse in some cases.

A bit down the page-

2. Guilty until proven innocent
In most states, as soon as a women complains to the police or a court about domestic violence, a protection order is issued, and the police will come to remove the man from the home. This makes sense – the woman's life could be in danger, and getting actual proof of that could take time. But in many states, then it is up to the man to prove that he was not really abusive, and be allowed to come back to his home and his children. Sometimes that could take months or even years, even if the man is completely innocent and the charges were just a ruse for the wife to start a divorce and get custody. (A new documentary by Janks Morton on this subject has the title "Guilty Until Proven Innocent"; I haven't had the chance to see it yet.)

4. Fraudulent claims of abuse
The worst problem part of our domestic violence laws is the easiest to fix. In many states, women who are thinking about starting a divorce – for whatever reason – are encouraged to begin by filing for a Restraining Order (aka Protection From Abuse order) against their husband, based on claims that he has been abusing her or might be threatening to abuse her. In most states, little or no proof is needed at that point, just a woman's statement is enough, so there need not be any truth at all to the statement. The police will come, perhaps give the man 20 minutes to collect his things, and then he is removed from his home and prevented from seeing his children or even talking to his wife. He might spend a night or two in jail, or be able to stay with a friend or relative or in a motel. Eventually there will be a hearing for both sides to present evidence. States vary widely on how long that time is; it might be just 10 days but it might be months. Also, states vary on how the hearings are conducted. Stephen Baskerville cites cases where judges of “kangaroo courts” barely gives the accused man a chance to speak before the sentence is passed that he is forever barred from seeing his children or his wife again. In other states, though, the family-law courts will be able to see that the charges were false, and this will reflect badly on the women in later child-custody litigation. In still other states, the man might be allowed to return home if the charges have been found to be unsupported, but the fact that the woman filed the unfounded charges won't be held against her in any way. It all depends on the state.

In states which don't have punishment for filings of false charges of abuse, lawyers often encourage women to initiate divorces by calling the police and claiming that their husband is abusing them, or by filing for protection. The police come to take him away, and the woman keeps the home and the children. Then the woman files for divorce. The woman is certain to get full custody and generous spousal support if the abuse charges stand. But if the man is cleared of the charges, the woman will probably still get primary custody of the children just because they are used to living at home with her by that time and might be alienated from their father who had been taken away by the police. The woman will have had a lot of time to engage in parental alienation to turn the kids against the father whom she raised charges against. If a woman was truly battered by an abusive husband, she deserves the full protection of the law – but all too often "domestic violence" is just a legal maneuver by a woman who wants to get rid of her husband to make room for a boyfriend. This falls under state law, not VAWA.

So my previous statement, "I meant some women are THRIVING when it comes to the domestic violence issue and double standards built therein." is quite valid despite your conversational equivalent of taking your ball and running home.

 

Lots of bitching. No proposals on how to make the system better. What systemic changes could be made to make it better?

You point out the insignificant flaws of a system as a reason for throwing the whole system out, without acknowledging the many benefits and necessities of said system, and also with no suggestions for improvement. In any case, when evaluating a massive situation such as the overall legal system's approach to DV, the question of "How will this affect celebrity couples and their coverage in the media?" does not belong anywhere within the conversation. Whatever system exists, the way it works for celebrities will always be a shit-show.

I happen to work with a divorce lawyer with about 30 years of experience, and she's never had a single case of someone on either side suggesting someone to claim abuse. Granted I do not live in California, where I'm sure things are worse. We've had claims of exaggerated infidelity, yes. But false claims of abuse are as shitty (maybe even worse) as actual abuse. It appears you and I clearly agree on that at least!

 

I'll agree to that, except for the assumption that men are always assumed to be the perpetrator.

 

@ Jackinthebox - I'll never claim to know the inner workings of the legal system enough to formulate a guaranteed solution about fixing it. All I'm doing is pointing out that some women (in this society) are abusing the very system set in place to protect them from actual spousal abuse. On that, indeed we're in complete agreement. If I had to start to fix DV fraud (false allegations *from either sex* to bring about divorce for monetary gain, attempted children custody, or just allegations made out of spite), I'd make it so the punishment for lying about being abused, was the same length of jail time the other party would've served if the fraud wasn't discovered. I also feel this way about false rape allegations, but that's something else entirely.

Anyway, this scenario might seem farfetched until one thinks about how a man's (or less often, a woman's) life could be forever tarnished (or destroyed) from a false allegation such as this. If the punishment for lying was more severe, I believe the numbers of women (and men) who came forth with frivolous claims would drop, and the legal system would have more time to spend on actual abuse cases for those who legitimately need help. Just my opinion. Also, I agree that these celebs SHOULDN'T be examples of how the legal system works. I believe that enough money/status/power can and will influence any legal situation.

@sleazoid - Fair enough. I should've worded that question, "despite the societal narrative of men being deemed the perpetrator (more often than not) whenever the topic is breached?" I think that's a more sound way to put it. Just laziness on my part, I guess.

 

Heard made less than $260,000 in the last calendar year, depp made $30,000,000. Surprised she earned so little.

 

In a bar, alcohol plays a role.
Bouncers just do what their job is.

The difference between a man and a bear is that the man can understand when he doesn't need to respond in similar fashion, and simply subdue the weaker person. The bear cannot do that. From what he says, he'd react the same way as a bear, hence he's no better than an animal.

 

I'm not. I'm actually surprised she made that much... think about it, when was the last time she was in the news because of her acting? Last time I can remember was during Playboy Club days and that was in 2011!

Hell, last year she was in Danish Girl but she got completely overshadowed by Alicia Vikander and I honestly can't remember anyone even mentioning her performance in that movie. All everyone was talking about was Vikander and her performance.

 

What I'm surprised at is she did not seem to either use depp's connections in the industry; did not want to; he did not offer; or producers did not see her talent.

I've never seen her in anything compelling or memorable.

 

Agreed. But I also think that the logic often poorly (but realistically) applied to rape victims of "yeah, rape sucks, but then don't go out alone at 3am" applies to men in this potential situation - don't associate with women that might be capable to pulling this kind of shit. I don't mean it as saying victim-shaming is ok, but rather to those who aren't yet victims, have some common sense and you'll be a lot less likely to find yourself becoming a victim. A story to back that up - in the small town I grew up in, when I was in highschool an adult boy scout leader, school board member, and general great community man that I knew very well was accused of improper sexual advances by a 16 or 17 year old friend of his daughter's. Long story short - I would never believe him capable of this until the day I die, and indeed nothing was ever proven, but he had to step down from the school board position, and certainly his reputation was forever tarnished. That all sucks, but it still begs the question - something did happen, and it was misinterpreted by this girl. And his failure was in not realizing the whole situation that he needed to avoid. It's kind of like putting a priority on learning to drive safely rather than worrying about the car that rates highest for safety. No matter what, it's always best to not get in an accident in the first place.

Anyways, I'll be done on this subject for now. I prefer my debates on here to be more about the merits of pubes (or lack thereof), the qualities that constitute a perfect female ass, and the analysis of potentially fake breasts (and whether it matters).