Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know why so many grown adults seem to have such difficulty parting ways. It's not that difficult to have a successful divorce, but for whatever reason a lot of people feel the urge to be needlessly vindictive. It's disgusting, and doubly so if children are involved.

Just be happy it was 12 years and not 12 years and some kids. You never have to see this person again in your life. Why destroy everything you have because of it?

 dogma wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

What would you do if your wife cheated on you? Wouldn't you be angry?

I would consider my divorce options without destroying property I might gain in the divorce, especially as that action would almost certainly make the divorce settlement less favorable for me. It would play into the narrative that I was angry and abusive all along, causing my spouse to cheat.

Relapse wrote:

He's making money on the stuff and might find himself a new career as an angry artist.

Sure, because there are plenty of misogynistic people who will reflexively support his cause.

I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just be happy it was 12 years and not 12 years and some kids. You never have to see this person again in your life. Why destroy everything you have because of it?

Very true. I've seen where the parents try to use the kids as weapons or spies against the former spouse. Not pretty.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:
No half assed measures here:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/19/german-man-takes-revenge-on-ex-wife-by-sawing-everything-own-in-half-selling-it/

What a grade A dickbag.

I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If, although not likely, she was totally at fault by being a bitch and running around on him and finally shacking up with some other guy, I applaud his approach.

What if he was abusive and aggressive towards her first though? Would that excuse her? It's a bit hard to pin down the truth here when you've only a hint at his side of the story.

I agree, he could have been a total bastard that she couldn't handle anymore. That's why I said it's not likely she was the sole reason the divorce happened. That being said I think that people of the world the posters here on Dakka are, we seen divorces with all the degrees of fault on either side happen. At least I know. I have.

The guy himself makes it clear (in the video and ebay descriptions) that his wife cheated on him with a younger guy with a better job.
Though of course that does not take away the possibility of the guy himself also being a total bastard, but cheating is never acceptable.

And it's possible that his definition of cheating (which I have known many people use) was "she started seeing someone after we had separateed but before our divorce was final".

A friend of mines wife cheated on him, properly cheated. It was wrong, they got divorced, but he managed to do it with good grace and humour. But then neither of them tried to shaft the other one in the divorce and just split what they had amicably.

It's good to know there are so many level headed, rational people around to point out other people's faults on the internet. Otherwise, how would we know when we are wrong?

A link to someone being a cock was posted. What should we do? All go "oh ye, that's so cool". It's not like we went looking for it. He posted it for all to see, someone linked to it on here. You might have a point if this was a tabloid paper that had secretly filmed someone, but you can't expect people to not have opinions on something publicly posted on the Internet. People have opinions. This is an open forum. That's how the internet works.

 Ratius wrote:
Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.

What Jihadin is saying is that in the US, she gets half your money, pretty much for life (if you been married more than 10 years, it's "alimony")

Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead. She'll get the house, the car or half the cars if there are more than one. However, she won't get the mortgage for the house, that's on you still.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead.

I'm not sure about the other part, but this part is absolutely untrue. The only time this happens is if the father is either completely unaware of his rights (and basically erroneously believes that the mother will automatically get the children and there is nothing he can do about it) or decides to not pursue custody. If the father wants either shared custody or generous visitation privileges, as long as he is not going to fail a drug test and isn't a felon or have other charges like domestic violence or child abuse, there isn't really a way for the mother to prevent that. Fathers have some very significant rights. The problem is people spread misinformation like this and then fathers just assume there is nothing they can do to keep the judge from simply "giving" the children to the mother, which is absolutely false.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead.

I'm not sure about the other part, but this part is absolutely untrue. The only time this happens is if the father is either completely unaware of his rights (and basically erroneously believes that the mother will automatically get the children and there is nothing he can do about it) or decides to not pursue custody. If the father wants either shared custody or generous visitation privileges, as long as he is not going to fail a drug test and isn't a felon or have other charges like domestic violence or child abuse, there isn't really a way for the mother to prevent that. Fathers have some very significant rights. The problem is people spread misinformation like this and then fathers just assume there is nothing they can do to keep the judge from simply "giving" the children to the mother, which is absolutely false.

I used to think that about the system. My mother has always had sole custody. My fathers family tried to tell me for years that it was because of the judge and not my fathers fault, to get me to want to be in my fathers life. He didn't want to be in mine though, which complicated things. So eventually I gave up and then so did his family, they told me he gave up custody of me voluntarily.

I also have a cousin who has full custody of his son because his ex-wife is a crackhead. Women are not as favored as you think, most times when a man loses custody it is because he is a drug abuser or doesn't know what is going on.

Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.

Edit

and the reverse can happen to the father to

 Jihadin wrote:
Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.

My mother has been through 4 while I was a child between the ages of 6 and 20 and I can say that is not true. She has joint custody of my four other siblings with their fathers. She may not have been the best mother in the world, but she was far from a crackhead. She wanted full custody of all of her children and could not get it, no matter how hard she tried.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.

My mother has been through 4 while I was a child between the ages of 6 and 20 and I can say that is not true. She has joint custody of my four other siblings with their fathers. She may not have been the best mother in the world, but she was far from a crackhead. She wanted full custody of all of her children and could not get it, no matter how hard she tried.

Did not see my edit?

I did, after I posted that.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Thats in the US Jih.
In Ireland, she gets the kids, the house, the car, the mortgage and your 40k collection.

What Jihadin is saying is that in the US, she gets half your money, pretty much for life (if you been married more than 10 years, it's "alimony")

Plus, if you have kids, many judges will simply give them to her, even if she is a proven crackhead. She'll get the house, the car or half the cars if there are more than one. However, she won't get the mortgage for the house, that's on you still.

Only in Barbarian states. In states with proper laws, she gets half the community property.

 Jihadin wrote:
Ever been divorce?
Judge is going to lean towards the mother of a custody battle unless she is proven unfit to be a mother.

One of my soldiers in Germany went through a divorce with his wife. The unit would not grant him any leave, emergency or otherwise, to take care of proceedings in person. So he was forced to do everything via mail, email, and phone. He told his lawyer explicitly that he wanted partial custody or more. This was due to the fact that he had the police reports showing that his wife had been arrested while high on, and in possession of drugs like Cocaine and Heroine.

Not only did he not get any custody, he gets no visitation rights, AND somehow, in the state of Michigan they count ALL army pay for the purposes of child support (as in, they were using his COLA, any housing allowance, which was removed due to him living in the barracks, and food allowance, which was also deducted due to eating in the chow hall), we had our JAG people, as well as the brigade commander fighting for this dude, and in the end the judge basically said, "that's my ruling and that's final"


So, while I have not personally been through divorce, I have known enough people who have and have come to the belief that it really comes down to jurisdiction and the crap-shoot of who your judge is.

Relapse wrote:

I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.

Of course he doesn't care, he's a an irrational man who probably has anger issues. The issue I have is that lots of people reflexively defended the guy because of some perverted sense of men's rights.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I'm sure he doesn't care about the type of people giving him money for this, but just the fact he's racking up some nice coin while letting off steam. In all truth, the woman might be better off without him if he's the type that goes to this extreme.

Of course he doesn't care, he's a an irrational man who probably has anger issues. The issue I have is that lots of people reflexively defended the guy because of some perverted sense of men's rights.

I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong. I don't really believe any of the people posting here are blindly supporting the guy, right or wrong. It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction. Up close, the humor most probably isn't there, but we aren't up close.

Relapse wrote:

I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong.

But many people gave financial support before they could have full knowledge of the case, and even more people gave spoken support before they had full knowledge; yourself included.

Relapse wrote:
It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction.

Sure, if you're a misogynist.

I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.

If the divorce was fully due to her cheating and he chose this way to go through with it, more power to him! She quite literally got half the stuff. She can do what she wants with her halves, he chose to sell his. Sounds pretty darn fair to me.

With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.

Nah, her side of it is still in the same condition it was in.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.

Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.

A fair point.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.

If destroyed before that it was their mutual property and, as the guy destroyed it, he should be forced to compensate his soon to be former spouse.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think you have to be a misogynyst to laugh at a grown man throwing a temper tantrum.

A fair point.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Only if the divorce was already completed and the property divided by the time he cut things up.

If destroyed before that it was their mutual property and, as the guy destroyed it, he should be forced to compensate his soon to be former spouse.

Again, why? She quite literally got half of everything. She got half the TV and half the radio: as opposed to her getting the TV and he gets the radio. This is the most literal breakdown of "she gets half my stuff". Honestly, it's like some of you guys have no sense of humor or respect for this man's literalness. He's essentially the real life Drax the Destroyer.

Maybe we just have more respect for a persons property than his right to do something absurdly childish and immature.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Again, why? She quite literally got half of everything. She got half the TV and half the radio: as opposed to her getting the TV and he gets the radio.

She didn't get half the value of anything. All of the relevant property was destroyed by a childish man who will only recoup his losses because childish men like to support each other.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
With that line of reasoning, he has effectively destroyed her personal property and she should be compensated for it, by him.

Not if you consider the stance that he is taking a judge's word quite literally. And in my own limited experience, German tends to be quite a literal language, it is the language afterall, that gave us a word like "schadenfreud", and no other language that I know of has a singular word to describe that situation that schadenfreud does.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I think there was an unspoken caveat, though, that the support was conditional on if the woman was totaly in the wrong.

But many people gave financial support before they could have full knowledge of the case, and even more people gave spoken support before they had full knowledge; yourself included.

Relapse wrote:
It's just that from a far distance, there is an element of comedy in his reaction.

Sure, if you're a misogynist.

You are taking what I said far out of context even though I clarified my point in several posts. I know you are far smarter than that.

I'm now curious to see if they had a dog together.

...I'll get my coat.