# How best to start including men who are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse (Johny Depp vs Amber Heard)

## Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

It was not limited to the "specific utterance". It was limited to the truth of the specific utterance. It is not illegal to make a claim that is true. What is the jury supposed to do? GUESS whether or not the utterance was true without hearing any testimony about the specific allegations made? I didn't follow the trial either but with my very limited knowledge of the law it seems obvious that there would be allowed testimony to enable the jury to make a determination as to the veracity of the claim.

I think we can cut down on a lot of speculations by looking specifically at the findings instructions: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp v heard/cl-2019-2911-jury-instructions.pdf

They refer to these three statements made by Heard in her article:


Quote

(1) Whether Ms. Heard made or published any ofthe following statements: a. "Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change." b. 'Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out." c. "I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse. "

and decided that these statements were false, directed at Depp, made with malice and created damages. What makes it difficult in this civil case is the scope of the decision. While it does imply that the jury does not seem to believe that Heard was abused, it is not an explicit decision on it (or at least it reads to me like that, someone with actual legal expertise might want to correct me).

Perhaps confusingly there is also the counterclaim in the same sheet where Heard won on liability (page 3). From what I read the jury specifically agreed that this statement from Depp's lawyer was false:

Quote

b. 'Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. so Amber and her friends a little wine and the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911;" and

• Replies 163
• Created

#### Popular Days

1 hour ago, Arete said:

You got me.

In the context that approximately 54,500 people were murdered by their intimate partners in 2020, I don't think the financial losses Johnny Depp suffered because of the mean things his ex wife said about him to the Washington Post are terribly important, nor do I really care what Amber Heard said to the Washington Post in the first place.

What puzzles me is that, as a Post subscriber, I don't recall Heard saying one mean thing about Depp (or singling out anyone, actually) in her Op-Ed piece.  It struck me, at the time, as more an indictment of showbiz culture and exploitation.  I am continuing to increase my baseline level of skepticism about our nation's present jury system.  I would like to say all my thoughts on the Depp/Heard case are unbiased and I have strived not to take sides or draw any conclusions on what a jackass Depp is.  (JK)

I would guess that incidents of spousal abuse of men are understudied, not least because they are vastly underreported.  This skewing would seem pretty obvious, and yet maybe difficult to quantify.  My guess is that, if you conducted a survey of men that contained the question "Would you contact law enforcement if your wife hit you?" the ink that had been used to print the YES box would be largely wasted.  Though a good social scientist would hopefully derive multiple questions with greater specificity, like how would they respond if hit with a fist, or a rolling pin, or an unabridged dictionary, etc.  I guess if sledgehammer or andiron was one of the options, there would be police involvement whether or not the victim was able to make the phone call.

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I would like to say all my thoughts on the Depp/Heard case are unbiased and I have strived not to take sides or draw any conclusions on what a jackass Depp is.  (JK)

Har! 😆

##### Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I guess if sledgehammer or andiron was one of the options, there would be police involvement whether or not the victim was able to make the phone call.

In one of my previous lives, I saw some of the victims. Fatalities were, at that time, predominantly female, and the police were most often called either by the perpetrator or a close neighbor, while the perp sat on the front steps, staring at his or her hands, sobbing. Most of them also confessed at the earliest opportunity. These were mostly unintended deaths, the result of escalating violence and finally, loss of control. It may well be that some of those men and women were actually hitting back - just the one time, in a blind rage - after suffering years of psychological abuse: that aspect of the situation was barely noted prior to that time; not at all understood.

There were, however, a few cases of premeditated murder, by men whose abused wives had run away. They mostly ran to relatives, who were also killed by the enraged husband. I knew of only two cases where a woman went after and killed the man who left her. Just him, in both cases, no bystanders or enablers.

At that time - circa 1970-85 - there was a shift in social awareness and response to domestic violence, from secrecy and dismissal to reporting, police intervention and provision of safe havens and legal recourse for victims.

I think the picture has changed quite a lot over the last 40 years; reflecting the trends in society at large: all kinds of violence have been spreading and escalating, and woman have greater autonomy of action: more women are participating in bad behaviours - crime, bullying, physical conflict, malicious speech, marital violence - as well as in political, economic and social affairs.

If the incarceration rate in the US is anything to go by, a very sharp increase dates back to abut 1975.

As the general level of anxiety and paranoia and frustration rise, so does the use of mood-altering chemicals and the stresses on intimate relationships. And it probably keeps changing, which complicates the work of social agencies and statisticians.

Edited by Peterkin
##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arete said:

financial losses Johnny Depp suffered because of the mean things his ex wife said about him to the Washington Post are terribly important…

Since I’m leaving and I don’t care about the downvotes for a longer while now, I can be frank and say what my heart tells me to say based on the trial evidence, the testimonies of all the witnesses and what the victim and the perpetrator said throughout the trial - have a great week Arete good luck.

##### Share on other sites

You're leaving?  Are you quite sure?  You've only declared your departure 47 times, so how can we be sure this isn't just some stray impulse that will pass?  I think we need some large official-looking fonts, perhaps a notice from an attorney, maybe a taped press conference?

I know: mail out refrigerator magnets.

##### Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, koti said:

I can be frank and say what my heart tells me to say based on the trial evidence, the testimonies of all the witnesses and what the victim and the perpetrator said throughout the trial

All that people here have asked is for you to share evidence regarding what the court actually said.

It’s strange that you lash out at everyone instead of answering that extremely simple straight forward question.

The only person here with an agenda or axe to grind is apparently you.

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

You're leaving?  Are you quite sure?  You've only declared your departure 47 times, so how can we be sure this isn't just some stray impulse that will pass?  I think we need some large official-looking fonts, perhaps a notice from an attorney, maybe a taped press conference?

I know: mail out refrigerator magnets.

I said I will finish up with this thread I started.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

All that people here have asked is for you to share evidence regarding what the court actually said.

It’s strange that you lash out at everyone instead of answering that extremely simple straight forward question.

The only person here with an agenda or axe to grind is apparently you.

The evidence is clear, the verdict says it all. Thousands of pages of testimonys are available for you and the People to access.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 5:05 PM, koti said:

If you were capable of reading with comprehension you’d know that this thread is my last one

First this,then

3 hours ago, koti said:
11 hours ago, TheVat said:

I said I will finish up with this thread I started

Back to school for me?

Edited by geordief
##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, koti said:

The evidence is clear, the verdict says it all. Thousands of pages of testimonys are available for you and the People to access.

Pro Tip: As you appear to be new to posting on this site, the expectation here is that if you make a claim, you are expected to support it with links, documentation, etc. You cannot expect others to do your work for you.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, geordief said:

First this,then

Back to school for me?

I guess so.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Pro Tip: As you appear to be new to posting on this site, the expectation here is that if you make a claim, you are expected to support it with links, documentation, etc. You cannot expect others to do your work for you.

On the contrary, I know that no amount of evidence will convince a mind which is already made up. The verdict in itself is the only evidence needed but it still eludes you.

##### Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, koti said:

On the contrary, I know that no amount of evidence will convince a mind which is already made up. The verdict in itself is the only evidence needed but it still eludes you.

You've fallen so far koti. I hope you'll rejoin us at some point.

##### Share on other sites

A couple decades participating in online forums has taught me this, which I now formalize as Vat's Law:

The probability of permanent forum departure is inversely proportional to the total wordcount announcing/discussing said departure.

Because I would like @koti to stick around, and have valued his contributions in other threads, from time to time, I find much reassurance in the wordcount so far devoted to his departure.

(I was just kidding about the fancy fonts and fridge magnets)

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, koti said:

The verdict in itself is the only evidence needed but it still eludes you.

The verdict said that Heard defamed Depp in all the instances cited, and that Depp's lawyer defamed Heard in one instance. It's rock solid evidence of defamation of character, but they'd need to go through a different trial to make abuse charges stick, wouldn't they?

I don't like that Depp drinks/drugs and then gets into situations like this, and I don't like that Heard thinks slapping and hitting are different things. They both seem culpable in this situation, and I wish we were talking about a better case to include in the public discourse regarding men who are victims of abuse. I think it's under reported because men aren't supposed to be that sensitive to emotional abuse (but we are!), and traditionally would be expected to stand up to physical abuse, but modern men are also more understanding than in the past, imo.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, koti said:

The evidence is clear, the verdict says it all. Thousands of pages of testimonys are available for you and the People to access.

1 hour ago, koti said:

The verdict in itself is the only evidence needed

Correct, and yet for some reason you continue misrepresenting said verdict here, which makes comments like these all the more hypocritical and despicable when posted by you:

1 hour ago, koti said:

I know that no amount of evidence will convince a mind which is already made up.

Edited by iNow
##### Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 9:05 AM, koti said:

[...]
Also its all hogwash to you because you werent here participating in countless discussions over the years on pollitics, ethics, transgender issues,[...]

On 6/6/2022 at 11:17 AM, Arete said:

There is certainly an ongoing discussion about gender issues in domestic violence/abuse in the sociology literature - the gender based asymmetry of physical/psychological forms of abuse, gender bias in the likelihood of reporting abuse, etc.

Point ceded: I may have overgeneralized the topic when I edited gender out of the question. The question as posed of course is engendered and has direction (female->male abuse), and so broader implications include gender issue more generally. However, to an outside observer, bringing in a specific issue often equated as part of PC woke culture (transgender inclusiveness) and then turning to decry another party for doing the same seems like the hogwash: you want to include your specific topic, but decry the trend in general?

On 6/6/2022 at 6:32 PM, zapatos said:

You seem to be having issues following our conversation. Either that or you abhor having to acknowledge that you are not an expert on every topic under the sun and someone may have a valid counterpoint.

You stated:

To which I responded:

Ever since then you've been tap dancing around my queries, setting smoke screens, tossing red herrings about, and generally obfuscating.

Once again you dropped a big pile of poop on the ground and I was naive enough to step in it, assuming you would discuss in good faith. My fault, again, for failing to recognize the real Peterkin behind the curtain.

I'm pointing out the obvious, but I read @Peterkin to be dividing the causality from party A (AH) -> party B (JD) along with the issue which was actually decided in court. Party A was found to have defamed party B (A->B) alluding to sexual violence/domestic abuse, and party B's atty's defamed A (B->A) with what I infer are false allegation. @koti's question however implies A->B as a "victim of abuse" (i.e. the reverse of what was implied by the defamatory statements re: B->A abuse) , which I don't think was being examined in the case unless you include defamation as abuse. @koti seems to want to equate party B's statement about getting is life back with an evidentiary finding of A->B domestic abuse, when the issue was defamation claiming B->A abuse.

20 hours ago, iNow said:

The only person here with an agenda or axe to grind is apparently you.

@iNowThis is why I quoted what I did from you earlier -- you'd identified that you were engaging with an irrational actor. You should know when doing it that you can sharpen your own skills, but not likely reach any rational end; otherwise, do not engage. I do not know this person, but I have seen a similar script elsewhere where such methods are used intentionally. The M.O. with emotional brittleness, illogicality, and violent undertone is employed as a method. @kotiimplied he may have been injured personally in a relationship, so that could be the cause. But the ongoing illogicality combined with lashing out bespeaks some kind of assignment or agenda being carried on, in my opinion.

+1 to CharonY at the top of this page for hard details.

Edited by NTuft
##### Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NTuft said:

you'd identified that you were engaging with an irrational actor

Actually, identified a pattern in posting style and behavior that’s persisted now for years.

This post doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Perhaps if this were the first time Koti had acted this way, then my response likely would have been different.

Thanks for the quick logic lesson, professor, but as a reminder you need to validate your first principles, your priors, and your premises.

Edited by iNow
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The verdict said that Heard defamed Depp in all the instances cited, and that Depp's lawyer defamed Heard in one instance. It's rock solid evidence of defamation of character, but they'd need to go through a different trial to make abuse charges stick, wouldn't they?

I don't like that Depp drinks/drugs and then gets into situations like this, and I don't like that Heard thinks slapping and hitting are different things. They both seem culpable in this situation, and I wish we were talking about a better case to include in the public discourse regarding men who are victims of abuse. I think it's under reported because men aren't supposed to be that sensitive to emotional abuse (but we are!), and traditionally would be expected to stand up to physical abuse, but modern men are also more understanding than in the past, imo.

So if your wife would engage in manipulation and lies over a period of time which would result in you loosing your job and your good name, preventing you from finding a job in the future - if not abuse, what would you call this type of behaviour by Amber Heard? Johny Depp stated that he's grateful for getting his life back, why is it so hard to accept that he speaks the truth? She hit him (on record in court), she played long term games aimed at destroying his good name, his carier and propelling her own carrier, Disney droppped him from Pirates of the Caribean, the media stigmatized him for years. Now he is finding justice in court and you need a seperate trial and jury to tell you that he was abused? What would you call what has happened to JD then Phi, a "Misfortunate series of behaviours towards a man by a troubled woman" ?
FFS...

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, koti said:

Now he is finding justice in court and you need a seperate trial and jury to tell you that he was abused?

Yes. With evidence and witness statements presented and weighed by people other than their adoring fans.

##### Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, NTuft said:

I'm pointing out the obvious, but I read @Peterkin to be dividing the causality from party A (AH) -> party B (JD) along with the issue which was actually decided in court. Party A was found to have defamed party B (A->B) alluding to sexual violence/domestic abuse, and party B's atty's defamed A (B->A) with what I infer are false allegation. @koti's question however implies A->B as a "victim of abuse" (i.e. the reverse of what was implied by the defamatory statements re: B->A abuse) , which I don't think was being examined in the case unless you include defamation as abuse. @koti seems to want to equate party B's statement about getting is life back with an evidentiary finding of A->B domestic abuse, when the issue was defamation claiming B->A abuse.

But that was irrelevant to my dialogue with Peterkin, which was not about the truth of who did what to whom, but about relevant evidence at trial.

I found Peterkin's statement that he "wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways", in a trial regarding the veracity of the claim that one litigant was victimized by the other, to be implausible.

I was simply seeking a further clarification of his statement; either an argument supporting the supposition, or an acknowledgement that upon further consideration the supposition may not be correct after all.

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, koti said:

Now he is finding justice in court and you need a seperate trial and jury to tell you that he was abused?

You’re the one asserting, and refusing to provide evidence in support, that he was abused.

The court did not determine that. He sued for libel and that was the verdict.

You’re claiming the court confirmed he was abused. They did not. If you want them to, maybe you need a separate trial.

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, koti said:

So if your wife would engage in manipulation and lies over a period of time which would result in you loosing your job and your good name, preventing you from finding a job in the future - if not abuse, what would you call this type of behaviour by Amber Heard? Johny Depp stated that he's grateful for getting his life back, why is it so hard to accept that he speaks the truth? She hit him (on record in court), she played long term games aimed at destroying his good name, his carier and propelling her own carrier, Disney droppped him from Pirates of the Caribean, the media stigmatized him for years. Now he is finding justice in court and you need a seperate trial and jury to tell you that he was abused? What would you call what has happened to JD then Phi, a "Misfortunate series of behaviours towards a man by a troubled woman" ?
FFS...

I don't find it hard to accept that he speaks the truth, at least as he and the jury saw it. I think the court case was resolved well.

I think it's abuse to treat people like a punching bag, or to make them miserable with your words. I think money and fame and publicity and privilege make it all worse.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of here. Depp won his case, but it was a case of defamation. That's the way the courts works (I guess, I've never been, even my jury duty gets cancelled). What more do you want? What does Depp want? Is he going to pursue a legal case of abuse? Without that, isn't it just our opinion that he was abused?

##### Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re claiming the court confirmed he was abused. They did not. If you want them to, maybe you need a separate trial.

Quote

@Phi for AllI'm not sure what you're accusing me of here. Depp won his case, but it was a case of defamation. That's the way the courts works (I guess, I've never been, even my jury duty gets cancelled). What more do you want? What does Depp want? Is he going to pursue a legal case of abuse? Without that, isn't it just our opinion that he was abused?

She admitted herself in court to hitting him. She also lied about him hitting her alongside lying about a specific type of makup she used trying to fabricate evidence of Johny Depp hitting her.

Edited by koti
##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I found Peterkin's statement that he "wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways", in a trial regarding the veracity of the claim that one litigant was victimized by the other, to be implausible.

What you and I find plausible and what you and I expect may be different. How you and I define victimization may be different. That doesn't mean either opinion is dishonest.

I don't expect a defamation case to get down into the root causes (who started it) of a dysfunctional marriage between two dysfunctional people. That's all.

##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, koti said:

She admitted herself in court to hitting him. She also lied about him hitting her alongside lying about a specific type of makup she used trying to fabricate evidence of Johny Depp hitting her.

I think that would support a physical abuse case against her. Verbal and psychological abuse are a lot harder to prove, but it sounds like her testimony in the defamation case might help Depp's abuse case... if he decides to pursue it.

## Create an account

Register a new account