In a video interview played to the court, Perez admitted he had got angry because he believed Ms Brooks had lied to him about a second pair of shoes she had when he picked her up from work at Centre City on May 31.Warning: TRIGGERING This is from the middle of it, click through for the whole thing.
They had fought when she said they were an old pair.
"I slapped her on the nose or lip. She was buying heaps and heaps of shoes. I don't know why she wants so many shoes and boots. I said `why do you keep lying to me?"'
Judge Murfitt found the two assaults and the intentional damage proven but reduced the assault charges to male assaults female.
He said he believed Ms Brook's version of the assaults.
But the judge did not find that Perez' had intended to injure Ms Brooks. "I think it likely he was intending to subdue her and impose dominant control over her."
The report certainly sounds like Perez has some serious issues with control, anger and violence. I imagine that would surely be more detrimental to his playing career than any conviction. To be a good rugby player you need to be able to focus, control your emotions and your body, and think tactically. I hope he gets the assistance he needs to sort this out, but going for a discharge without conviction for what are really quite serious charges suggest that he's possibly not on the path to redemption yet.
PS I'm going to start referring to these as Quickies rather than Quick Hits. I feel really icky putting Quick Hit when these posts seem to so often be about violence.
7 comments:
He should be in jail, but I am pessimistic about his prospects of going there. Being a rugby player is virtually a get-out-of-jail-free card. His lawyer's argument - that he will be denied the opportunity to make a fortune overseas if he is convicted - shows we are staring into a moral abyss.
What an appalling case. He was obviously intent on controlling the poor woman totally, and the decision gave him carte blanche to go on doing this. The control thing is often at the heart of male partner violence, and it makes women's lives hell, even without the actual physical violence.
Hold on, this is much, much worse when you read the full version: "She had been terrified when he choked her into near unconsciousness and punched her, causing her nose to bleed profusely. When she tried to get to the phone in their New Plymouth home to call police, he grabbed a knife and cut the cord. When she went back to the house a few days later to get her possessions, she found many of them shredded and her two iPods and cellphone in pieces." Thre is no way this guy should have been so leniently treated. That's the whole point, isn;t it - that behaving like this has to have major consequences? But not for sportsmen...
Do people get away with this shit just because of rugby? Are there other sports that are considered get out of jail free cards? Or is it just rugby.
No, it is not just Rugby; it is League as well. Entire teams of League players can get away with gang rape.
Oddly enough, you never hear of netballers beating up their husbands.
"Quickie" has other connotations too which might render it unsuitable? Not that I have a better suggestion.
Yep it is even more awful when you read the whole thing - I didn't want to put it all in the post as I was worried it would be triggering for some readers.
Hmm, good point about Quickie, although I thought that was probably still ok? Any other suggestions?
Post a Comment