A Florida judge recently thought it was in the interest of justice, in the best interest of the victim, and consistent with public policy to “sentence” a violent offender to take his wife out for Red Lobster and bowling, and then sending the couple to “marriage counseling” after the man had brutalized her in her home, reports The Florida Sun Sentinel.
From the article:
“It was a minor incident, in the court’s opinion,” he said. “The court would not normally do that if the court felt there was some violence but this is very, very minor and the court felt that that was a better resolution than other alternatives.”
Reading from an arrest affidavit, Hurley said Bray pushed his wife onto their couch and put his hand on her neck. He held up his fist to hit her, but never struck her, Hurley said.
A woman who identified herself as Bray’s wife attended the hearing and explained that the couple’s argument started on Monday after her husband didn’t acknowledge her birthday.
Hurley asked her is she was hurt or in any fear of her husband. After she said she wasn’t, and Hurley confirmed that Bray had no prior arrests, the judge continued his questioning with a lighter tone.
“Do you have something you like to go to?” he asked. “Is there a restaurant you like to go to?”
The woman answered that she enjoyed bowling and eating at Red Lobster. And so the judge made his decision accordingly.
“Flowers, birthday card, Red Lobster, bowling,” Hurley said. He also ordered that the couple begin seeing a marriage counselor within a week.
It’s interesting how the facts can always, always be spun to support male-supremacy, isn’t it? Specifically, in this case, to support the narrative that men’s domestic violence against women doesn’t hurt women or make them afraid, it’s not really that bad, and even if it does hurt women and even if it is that bad, who cares?
In this version of it, the abuser “put his hand on her neck.” In another version, he is said to have “grabbed her by the neck.” So which one is it? And just for clarity’s sake, are we talking about the back of the neck, or the front? You know, where the throat is? I’m thinking it was the front, but hey, what do I know about attempting to disable someone during a violent altercation, or even about a colloquialism like “going for the throat,” I’m just a laydee.
In the Sun Sentinel’s version, we are expected to put on blinders the size of toboggans and believe that a man in the midst of a violent attack on his wife, in between pushing her and lifting his fist to strike her, placed his hand upon her neck (not her throat!) gently as a silk scarf, without intending to harm her, and indeed without harming her at all. Look, she said so herself! The judge asked her whether she was hurt or afraid as a result of being violently attacked by her husband in their shared home, a very vague question and without defining his terms, in an intimidating environment, giving her the opportunity to make her husband
even madder than he already was hate her more than he already did, and making herself look like a drama queen and a complete bitch at the same time, and she declined.
But why wasn’t it just assumed that the wife was both hurt and afraid in this instance? I mean, wouldn’t you be? Why would anyone even have to ask? Oh yeah, because asking the question under these circumstances results in more positive outcomes (for men) than we would otherwise get, if we used common sense, and regarded female victims of male violence as human beings with predictable human responses to being terrorized and attacked.
Red Lobster it is, then!
And in HLNtv.com’s version, where the man “grabbed her by the neck” we are all not only told but shown too how a violent man who engages in an act that is reasonably likely to result in serious bodily harm or death, which grabbing by the neck (or throat) most certainly is, can do so with impunity, where the victim was a woman and/or his wife. In case anyone wasn’t sure about that, they have even more evidence than they did before, so we can all adjust our behaviors accordingly. Abusers and potential abusers can adjust their behaviors accordingly, and victims and potential victims can adjust their behaviors accordingly. This is male-supremacy, y’all, let’s get with the program mkay? Great.
And the part about marriage counseling was a nice touch: involve yet another male-supremacist institution in domestic violence cases (in this case, psychiatry/psychology) so they can all work together in tandem to help this woman “get over her issues” of mistakenly thinking that she’s a human being, and calling the cops when men attack her.
The Sun Sentinel reporter, Danielle Alvarez, can be reached here:
email@example.com or 965-356-4543.
The Judge, John “Jay” Hurley can be reached here:
Judicial Asst. Marjorie McClain