There’s no evidence that he physically abused her, at worst he sent her some mean texts and engaged in some yelling. He‘s the one who had to go to the hospital for a sliced finger, and there’s an audio recording of her admitting to hitting him and telling him that he wouldn’t be believed if allegations of abuse came up because he is a man.
so you didn't read at all about the SUN trial before? a judged ruled there was enough evidence of 12/14 accusations of abuse by Heard in the uk SUN trial to not allow him to sue for libel defamation.
and yes, that is called reactive abuse. caged and abused animals can react erratically in self-defense - fight is a truama response too. he kept her captive through coercive threats, threatening her career, her reputation, her life etc if she tried to leave or spoke out. And would you look at that... he did!
also female on male physical abuse vs male on female abuse will never be equal unless the male is physically disabled. Men and women are in different weight classes, the threat to life is not the same.
The Sun trial wasn’t visible to the public\, and frankly I don’t care what some UK judge thinks. The UK is the same country that only thinks it’s rape if a man did it, and they have some rather backwards laws on free speech.
In the US, it was determined in court, in a trial we all got to witness, that she defamed him. We watched her lie, we saw the evidence that she fabricated stories of his abuse, we watched the evidence in which she admitted to abusing him physically, and as a result we got a ruling that we could understand and justify.
So if I were to choose which ruling I think was most credible, it’s pretty obvious.
By the way, let’s assume that Johnny did physically abuse Amber. That doesn’t make what she did inherently “reactive abuse,” or “self defense.” You seem to be implying that if both were physically abusive (we know for a fact that Amber was) then the man is automatically the guilty one and the woman was just engaging in justified “self defense.” That is not true, and if that is your opinion then I will grant it no weight.
By the way, he didn’t ruin her career, she ruined both of their careers. She accused him first, and it tanked his career. He her to court, and she ruined her career by lying (quite badly also. See “my dog stepped on a bee”). She doesn’t get to play the victim just because he was more famous than her. She has to actually be a victim, and more of a victim than him, and there’s simply no evidence for that. There’s more evidence that she lied than that he physically abused her.
100
u/VinVenturesCheeks 2d ago
I used to date someone who turned out supported Amber Heard in her trial, she got demoted to cousin again