Re: Intimacy and Asperger Syndrome Can They Coexist?

[Guest guest]

renaissanzelady wrote: " Hi Raven; People have tried to tell me 'they meant

well' when I have objected to how I am being treated. IF they genuinely meant

well, then I would think they would stop what they are doing when I asked them

to very plainly. (this is for those who think motive is important). "

Perhaps but then again, you are assuming things not in evidence when you say

that if they genuinely meant well that they would stop what they are doing.

You are attempting to read the other person's mind and attempting to attribute

motive(s) that may not be there in guessing that the behaviour would cease if

the person was being sincere.

The comment of 'meaning well' may be another ploy which means there is a motive

for making use of that ploy.

The motive does not matter as the unwelcome behaviour continues ergo motive is

immaterial when making a decision as to whether one will continue to accept the

abuse or walk away.

For example, if I punch my neighbour in the arm because I am grieving the loss

of my pet cat who was very close to me for a number of years, the motive behind

punching my neighbour in the arm is immaterial when the police come over to my

house to charge me with assault.

The police don't care what my motive might have been at the time of the incident

and my neighbour won't care what my motive might have been at the time of the

incident. What the police and the neighbour will focus on is the incident and

what transpired.

This is why motive is not important when dealing with abuse.

What is important is making good choices and best choices that are respectful of

the individual's right to personal safety ... emotional, mental, physical and

spiritually speaking.

Raven

[Guest guest]

Your country might be different. In many countries, the law takes

personal experience and circumstances into account in judging

guilt/innocence or in sentencing. In the example below, if you had no

prior convictions of assault and this behaviour was not characteristic,

you would probably be cautioned or get a suspended sentence. If you

had a history of assault, you might be fined, receive work orders or a

prison sentence. Motive would definitely count, particularly for

someone who did not have a history of violence. If the person you

assaulted had deliberately caused the demise of your pet, that might be

considered mitigating circumstances. You would still be guilty of

assault, but it is likely that the sentence would be based on evidence

of likelihood to reoffend.

Re: Intimacy and Asperger Syndrome Can They

Coexist?

renaissanzelady wrote: " Hi Raven; People have tried to tell me 'they

meant

well' when I have objected to how I am being treated. IF they

genuinely meant

well, then I would think they would stop what they are doing when I

asked them

to very plainly. (this is for those who think motive is important). "

Perhaps but then again, you are assuming things not in evidence when

you say

that if they genuinely meant well that they would stop what they are

doing.

You are attempting to read the other person's mind and attempting to

attribute

motive(s) that may not be there in guessing that the behaviour would

cease if

the person was being sincere.

The comment of 'meaning well' may be another ploy which means there is

a motive

for making use of that ploy.

The motive does not matter as the unwelcome behaviour continues ergo

motive is

immaterial when making a decision as to whether one will continue to

accept the

abuse or walk away.

For example, if I punch my neighbour in the arm because I am grieving

the loss

of my pet cat who was very close to me for a number of years, the

motive behind

punching my neighbour in the arm is immaterial when the police come

over to my

house to charge me with assault.

The police don't care what my motive might have been at the time of the

incident

and my neighbour won't care what my motive might have been at the time

of the

incident. What the police and the neighbour will focus on is the

incident and

what transpired.

This is why motive is not important when dealing with abuse.

What is important is making good choices and best choices that are

respectful of

the individual's right to personal safety ... emotional, mental,

physical and

spiritually speaking.

Raven

------------------------------------

Fellowship of the Aspergian Miracle is the last series of message

boards founded

by an original Aspergia member to carry the Aspergia name with the

www.aspergia.com website owner's permission. To contact the FAM forum

administrator, use this e-mail address:

FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

renaissanzelady wrote: " ... <snip> ... Raven spoke of being charged by the

police, where motive would NOT come into account ... <snip> ... "

Exactly, renaissanzelady. I am not talking about the courts; I am talking about

at the time the charges are laid by the police.

At that point, motive is immaterial. The police only have to determine if the

situation warrants charges being laid.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In Australia, the police can and do make decisions about charging

offenders, taking into account context. If the charge is laid by a

member of the public, including organizations, they cannot make those

decisions. Your country may be different.

Re: Re: Intimacy and Asperger Syndrome Can

They Coexist?

Hi raven and grobertson;

 

--- regarding the example of assault and motive,  context is

important, pertaining to which component of the criminal justice system

is dealing with the person who committed the assault. 

Raven spoke of being charged by the police, where motive would NOT come

into account.

Grobertson seems to be speaking of a different aspect of the criminal

justice system, that of the courts. In the courts, motive could come

into consideration.

 

renaissanzelady

" Hi Raven; People have tried to tell me 'they

meant

well' when I have objected to how I am being treated. IF they

genuinely meant

well, then I would think they would stop what they are doing when I

asked them

to very plainly. (this is for those who think motive is important). "

Perhaps but then again, you are assuming things not in evidence when

you say

that if they genuinely meant well that they would stop what they are

doing.

You are attempting to read the other person's mind and attempting to

attribute

motive(s) that may not=2

0be there in guessing that the behaviour would

cease if

the person was being sincere.

The comment of 'meaning well' may be another ploy which means there is

a motive

for making use of that ploy.

The motive does not matter as the unwelcome behaviour continues ergo

motive is

immaterial when making a decision as to whether one will continue to

accept the

abuse or walk away.

For example, if I punch my neighbour in the arm because I am grieving

the loss

of my pet cat who was very close to me for a number of years, the

motive behind

punching my neighbour in the arm is immaterial when the police come

over to my

house to charge me with assault.

The police don't care what my motive might have been at the time of the

incident

and my neighbour won't care what my motive might have been at the time

of the

incident. What the police and the neighbour will focus on is the

incident and

what transpired.

This is why motive is not important when dealing with abuse.

What is important is making good choices and best choices that are

respectful of

the individual's right to personal safety ... emotional, mental,

physical and

spiritually speaking.

Raven

------------ --------- --------- ------

Fellowship of the Aspergian Miracle is the last series of message

boards founded

by an original Aspergia member to carry the Aspergia name with the

www.aspergia. com website owner's permission. To contact the

FAM forum

administrator, use this e-mail address:

FAMSecretSociety- owner@yahoogroup s.com

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " In Australia, the police can and do make decisions about

charging offenders, taking into account context. If the charge is laid by a

member of the public, including organizations, they cannot make those decisions.

Your country may be different. "

The police have better things to do with their time than to lay charges and do

all the paperwork if there is insufficient evidence to support the charges.

To imply that the reason that every call to the police does not result in

charges is because the police consider motive is incorrect. The reason that

every call to the police does not result in charges is because there isn't

always sufficient evidence to support charges that would result in a conviction.

Australia is no different in this regard, gprobertson, despite your hopes to

make others believe the police in Australia consider 'motive' when laying

charges.

Motive is immaterial to the laying of charges.

Raven

[Guest guest]

I belive it is the same in the United States, the police need to make a decision regarding sufficient evidence before charges are laid.

as Raven said, excerpted: The reason that every call to the police does not result in charges is because there isn't always sufficient evidence to support charges that would result in a conviction.

Canda's legal system is based on British Common Law, as is the United States'

renaissanzelady

"In Australia, the police can and do make decisions about charging offenders, taking into account context. If the charge is laid by a member of the public, including organizations, they cannot make those decisions. Your country may be different."The police have better things to do with their time than to lay charges and do all the paperwork if there is insufficient evidence to support the charges. To imply that the reason that every call to the police does not result in charges is because the police consider motive is incorrect. The reason that every call to the police does not result in charges is because there isn't always sufficient evidence to support charges that would result in a conviction.Australia is no different in this regard, gprobertson, despite your hopes to make others believe the police in Australia consider 'motive' when laying charges.Motive is immaterial to the laying of

charges.Raven

Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.