Monday, 24 November 2014

Thoughts on Ferguson

It's so terribly sad with what's going on in Ferguson today.

The levels of anger and feelings of injustice after the ruling are inflammatory past any kind of sense … just too much hurt to see the woods from the trees. 

Sad too and disappointing that it appears to be mainly young black looters cashing in on a situation allowing them to be so destructive and disrespectful … if they wanted to honour Michael Brown they wouldn't be adding fuel to the fires they are starting, nor would they be so violent.

Most importantly Brown's family urged a non-violent response to the grand jury's decision.… 
 ...those who are rioting, be they black or white go against the family's wishes.  Disrespecful, and doing unparalleled damage to their community.
These violent rioters don't seem to or understand that they are hurting fellow community members, burning family businesses to the ground, ruining lives.  They are like psychotic six year olds acting out terrrible adult tantrums.
 
Kudos Kudos Kudos to the community peacekeepers who are mainly men of the cloth who have put their lives on the line trying to calm things down, as well as those from Amnesty International, volunteers in bright vests who are trying to maintain the peace. 

Those who are putting themselves in front of the angry mobs to try and calm them so they do not confront the police are brave, strong men of strength and integrity  Thank heaven that there are still people in this world who strive for peace, even to the point of putting their own personal safety at risk.

Thank you, where-ever,  and who-ever you may be. 






And now for a lighter post The Dog Bed is Always more fluffy and the grass greener on the other side!

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Is the judge wrong? Were there errors of law with Oscar???

These are the words of - Prof James Grant PhD (Criminal Law), Associate Professor of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, SA.   He has professionally summed up my thoughts which surfaced in an earlier post ... so I thought I'd share this with you.

                                              **********************************

*** This is based on my (Prof James Grant Phd) observations posted on Twitter (@CriminalLawZA) live as the judgement was broadcast ***

While Masipa J has delivered judgement in the Pistorius case, there appear to be errors of law in her judgment. These errors of law may allow the prosecution to appeal.
Many commentators are saying that Masipa’s mistake was to misconceive the form of intention in our law known as dolus eventualis. A careful analysis reveals that the apparent error relates only partly to dolus eventualis. Instead, the apparent error related to how Masipa conceived of dolus eventualis as related to a far more complex issue in our law: the difference between the scenarios of error in objecto and aberratio ictus. It is only by understanding these scenarios, and the settled law on these scenarios, that one can understand where Masipa appeared to go wrong.
After dismissing the prospect of premeditated murder, Masipa turned her attention to whether Pistorius was nevertheless guilty of murder.
She indicated that this required that she deal with the defence argument that a conviction in the circumstances would require that the court revive an old doctrine rejected from our law: transfered intent. This spectre of this is daunting – because to understand that this doctrine is not in question, one must understand what it is, what it is not, and why it doesn’t apply. Correctly Masipa identified that this required an analysis of two scenarios in criminal law: error in objecto and aberratio ictus. Anyone who tells you these are easy to understand, probably hasn’t understood them. At its essence, scenarios of error in objecto (or where one is dealing with a person, error in persona) relate to circumstances in which one strikes/shoots at a particular object/person and one hit one’s target. If you have aimed at a human being (a particular human body), and you hit and kill that human being, you cannot argue that you thought that the person you killed was John, whereas, in fact, it was Peter. This (error in objecto/persona) is irrelevant.
Aberatio ictus on the other hand means “going astray of the blow” – and ultimately describes scenarios in which one misses one’s target. This is crucial because it is the essence of the distinction between scenarios of error in objecto and aberratio ictus. It is an aberratio ictus scenario where one aims and shoots at someone (John), but misses that person and strikes and kill another (Peter). The question arises whether this mistake is material and can form the basis of a defence.
In these scenarios, our law used used to refuse to recognise that this mistake could possibly be a defence. It used to simply regard your intention to kill John as “transferred” onto Peter. Hence, “transferred intent”. Our law has shifted and rejected this transferred intent approach. It is now possible on our law to rely on this mistake as a defence against a murder charge in respect of Peter – but only if there was, actually, no other form of intention that actually fell on Peter. That is, our law will allow you to be convicted of the murder of Peter, if, while you intended to kill John, you also had intention in respect of Peter – such as perhaps dolus eventualis – you foresaw the risk of missing John and killing Peter, accepted the risk and proceeded. (For further discussion of the meaning of these two scenarios and the difference between them, please see http://wp.me/p3efQr-2)
Lets consider into which scenario the facts of Pistorius fits. Did Pistorius miss his target? No, he did not. He aimed at a particular human being and shot and killed that human being – whoever was behind the door. There can be no question that this is a scenario of error in objecto and that the identity of the person behind the door was irrelevant.
Masipa discussed these scenarios, correctly stated the law, and correctly identified that we (on the facts of the Pistorius case) are dealing with a scenario of error in objecto – in which (in the relevant sense) the identity of the victim was irrelevant. That is, it doesn’t matter who was behind the door. The significance of all of this is that it has direct implications for the way in which one enquires whether an accused had intention or not.
Then the first sign of trouble appeared. After turning her attention to the accused’s defence of putative private defence, Masipa stated that the question was: “whether the accused intended to kill.” Immediately it becomes apparent that there was a misconception regarding the nature of the defence of putative private defence. It is not the question of whether the accused intended to kill,  but whether he intended to unlawfully kill.
The question of whether the accused intended to unlawfully kill is the question of whether the accused believed he was under attack and entitled to resort to force in defence. This question was not engaged with. The question the judge pursued was whether he intended to kill.
At that point it seemed Pistorius was bound to be convicted of murder – given that there seemed little question that he did intend to kill whoever was in the toilet – despite his defence of putative private defence. But the judgement took another strange turn.
“I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
1. Did the accused subjectively forsee that it could be the deceased behind the toilet door;
2. Notwithstanding the foresight, did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in the toilet.
The evidence before this court does not support the states contention that this could be a case of dolus eventualis. On the contrary, the evidence shows that, from the onset, the accused believed that at the time he fired the shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom, while the intruders were in the toilet.”
She repeats this again twice: did he forsee the possibility of killing the deceased – although, on the third occasion coming closer to what ought to have been addressed: whether the accused foresaw the possibility of killing whoever was behind the door. She says, on the third occasion, that the accused did not forsee killing “the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time”. But accepting that the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom does not exclude the possibility of there being someone else behind the door. Indeed, ironically, that is his own version: that he thought there was someone else behind the door. Applied to the undisputed law on error in objecto where one mistakes one person for another – which is immaterial – the question ought to have been: “did the accused forsee the possibility of killing whoever was behind the door”. This is an entirely different question which,  in turn,  begs the question whether the accused must have, and by inference did, forsee that he would kill whoever was in his toilet by firing four shots through the door.
It is true that, on day two of her judgement, she referred to several authorities on how one may reason to a finding of dolus (intention). These authorities make the valid point that one must be careful not to conclude that just because a reasonable person would forsee something (death of someone for our purposes), that the accused did. This is the usual and well founded caution against a logical error of thinking that just because something should be true, doesn’t make it true. Just because someone should have realised something doesn’t mean s/he did realise it.
She also summarised her findings and, in reference to dolus eventualis, said that “this court has already found that the accused cannot be guilty of murder dolus eventualis on the basis that, from his belief and conduct, it could not be said that he forsaw that either the deceased, or anyone else for that matter, might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door.” Regretably this takes things no further because it is a bare conclusion without the all important reasons for this statement. We are left having to rely on the reason she provided previously in her judgement – that he did not forsee killing “the deceased or anyone else for that matter” because, as she said previously, the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom. As discussed above, a belief that the deceased was in the bedroom does not exclude someone else being in the toilet and this is exactly what he believed, on his own version.
What is also revealing is that, on a defence of putative private defence, even if a court accepts that the accused acted in putative private defence (mistakenly believed he was under attack and was entitled to resort to force in defence), the problem of how much force in defence arises. It is not the question of whether the extent of force actually used was allowed, because, given that there was no attack, no force at all would be allowed. The question – a very necessary question – becomes, did the accused foresee that he was not allowed to resort to that extent of force. Masipa ought to have asked, if she engaged properly with a defence of putative private defence, whether, not only was the accused mistaken, but was he so mistaken that he could have believed he was entitled to fire four shots through a door at an intruder. The court could have gone either way on this, but that is not the point. The point is that this is another reason to think the Court did not properly engage with the defence of putative private defence.
On the charge of unlawful possession of ammunition Masipa seemed to conflate the mental requirement for possession (knowledge of possession), with the mental requirement (known as fault) for the crime – that is, can one only be guilty of this crime if one intends to unlawfully possess ammunition or even if one only negligently unlawfully possesses ammunition. The statute that creates this offence is silent on the issue, which requires, in turn, that a court must decide what form of fault, if any is required. This analysis is conspicuously missing from her judgement. The significance is that an analysis could have led her to the conclusion that only negligence was required. If that were so, his defence that he did not know he was not entitled to be in possession of the ammunition would have to stand up to the appropriate test of negligence: would the reasonable firearm owner know that this is prohibited?
In the final analysis, Masipa appears to have erroneously conceived of the defence of putative private defence, and to have misconceived the test of intention when dealing with a problem of error in objecto. Also, she appears to have conflated a requirement for possession for the fault required for the unlawful possession of ammunition. These are all, arguably, errors of law. As errors of law, the state may appeal. The effect is that, if the state does appeal, and one may well expect that it will, Pistorius continues to face the prospect of a murder conviction.

* This analysis was written based on what could be discerned from the live broadcast and media reports of Masipa’s judgment. I am waiting to receive a copy of the written judgement. I have exercised the utmost care to accurately reflect her judgement but there is the risk that I may have missed something. Once I have received a written copy, if it appears that I have missed something, I will correct the article without delay.

Friday, 12 September 2014

Oscar Pistorius Trial ... yeah I guess I do have an opinion ...

Today the vertict was handed down.  Culpable homicide.  I have mixed feelings on this, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  I do understand why Oscar was not convicted on murder charges ... however I'm baffled how the judge could rule out dolus eventualis.   If you or I were to fire four rounds into a bathroom door, surely we'd be aware that we would probably hit someone, if not kill them?  Is that not gross negligence?  Not?  Oh OK, well what do I know ... 
But I do know a little about ammunition ..  "the bullets that were shot from the Pistorius’ gun were a type of expanding bullet that is especially damaging to body tissue and were banned from international warfare in 1899.  Expanding bullets, also known as hollow-point bullets or “dum-dums,” are designed to “mushroom” upon entering a target in order to stop it from leaving the body."

Really?  Well then, fire four of those through a bathroom door ... or should I say the door to a loo or toilet.  Then what the hell do you think is gonna happen genius.

Before the trial started this was, for me, one of the red flag points.  Even if it were not Reeva behind the door, Oscar still fired off four rounds into a small bathroom space .. oh hang on, no ... a toilet.  So surely dolus eventualis should stand.  Ah well...

To pee or not to Be, 
That is the question.

Am I the only person who is highly pissed off that so much evidence for the state was not admissable?  But that is just what it is - an emotional response - not a legal one.  Not knowing much about legal matters I do feel that Judge Thokozile Masipa has upheld the letter of the law - possibly with too great a zeal, but all the way through she has been poised and calm.  The weight of this trail must have been monumental and now she must consider the sentence.

Today's headline in our SA newspapers was "Will Oscar Walk?"
I get the feeling today that tomorrow's should be "Will Oscar Run?"  A sentiment I've had from the very beginning.

If Oscar gets off with no jail time it will be a travesty and a mockery of the law.  Additionally it may well open the doors to facilitate appeals for all those convicted of murder, attempted murder and culpable homicide etc, and those who are actually serving time. 

But time will tell on that ... let's see ....

Whether you've followed this trial or not, it has, for me, made an indellible life-changing imprint.
And that imprint is:
Make your choices wisely.  Those choices can make or break your life, and the lives of others in a heatbeat.

Yes it is that simple.  Action, reaction, choice and consequence ... please choose well, and I'll try to do the same.

x


ps Thank you Trevor Noah for this..





 and for the saffas who know about the Jub Jub trial ...



And now I feel the urge for a sing-a-long overtaking me ... so all together now .... (to John Denver's I'm leaving on a jet plane)

All my bags are packed I'm ready to go

I can't do the time, but this you know
I'm creeping off no time to say goodbye

The dawn is breakin' I have leave
My bail is posted no time to grieve
I have to start a new life overseas

Cause I'm leavin' on a jet plane
Don't know when I'll be back again
Oh SA, I hate to go.


And now for something lighter ... I've generally gone for humour in my blogs, but ISIS , the Gaza Strip and now the trial have kept things a tad more serious ..... sooooo .... if you feel like a bit of fun and wanna put a smile on your face ... CLICKENZI HERE!

Monday, 4 August 2014

Jews, Israel, Palestine. An impossible ball of string or a brief overview?

I am horrified with what is going on in the Gaza Strip, the carnage and devastation is beyond my comprehension.  But surely it has to stop somewhere.

No I don't have the answers, and I'm sure I'm going to get some irate comments after posting this.  However after finding the article in the Jewish News I figured I'd share it with you. 


"For those who don’t know, Dennis Miller is a comedian who has a show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO. Although he is not Jewish, he recently had the following to say about the Middle East situation:"
7

"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don’t get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need.’
Here we go:
The Palestinians want their own country. There’s just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It’s a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like ‘Wiccan,’ ‘Palestinian’ sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was Owned by Egypt , the West Bank was owned by Jordan , and there were no ‘Palestinians.’
As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the ‘Palestinians,’ weeping for their deep bond with their lost ‘land’ and ‘nation.’
So for the sake of honesty, let’s not use the word ‘Palestinian’ any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone Points out they’re being taped. Instead, let’s call them what they are: ‘Other Arabs Who Can’t Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death.’ I know that’s a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: ‘Adjacent Jew-Haters.’ Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don’t. They could’ve had their own country. Anytime in the last thirty years, especially several years ago at Camp David. But If you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks. And Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.
That’s no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course that’s where the Real fun is — but mostly they want Israel.
Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel – or ‘The Zionist Entity’ as their Textbooks call it — for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab Countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they’re the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God’s Earth, and if you’ve ever been around God’s Earth, you know that’s really saying something.
It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I’m missing something, the Arabs haven’t given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.
Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews.
Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals.
Really? Wow, what neat news.
Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive very Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend, Kevin Rooney, made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.
Or marshalling every fibre and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense.
Or dancing for joy at the murder of Innocents? Impossible.
Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.
No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
However, in any big-picture strategy, there’s always a danger of losing moral weight. We’ve already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint."

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

The grass is always greener and the dog bed more fluffly ... on the other side!!!



We all want what other people have.  It's been proven in experiments that a person can stand on a cerbside and offer freestuff.  People just walk past.  Put a crowd around that same person and folks will flock to his side.  

A guy chats you up and you think 'yeah, ok but not  interested'.  Put a hot woman by his side after you've turned him down, and suddenly you're thinking he's a lot hotter and you wonder what you passed up!  Of course this works both ways for the guys that are reading this !

It seems my four beloved paws have a similar outlook.  The three rescues I have were all quite happy with their dogbeds until I got the fourth lost pooch who has now joined the Mutley Crew.  She's a lot smaller, 8 month golden spaniel (now named Goose) so when I got her a dog bed it was half the size of the others.  

What happened?  All three other heffalumps have been determined to squeeze themselves into this dog bed, entirely ignoring their own.  They look ridiculously cute jammed in there ... but still, it just goes to show that we all want what someone else has ... even if you're a dog. 







Here's two of the other three heffalumps clickenzi here!



Monday, 9 June 2014

Dating is tricky

It's about time I had a somewhat more frivolous post .... So here goes.
Dating after 38 plus is tricky.  
In your 20's you're out and about with mates all the time, the world is your oyster, the nightlife prolific, and the bars and clubs choc-a-bloc with limitless testosterone fuelled hunting options!   But now?
Well most of my friends are married with kids so I don't get to see that much of them, and when I do go out I'm chatted up by 25 year olds.  WTF???!!!

Most of the older guys I meet (like my age) are married or pretending not to be - which really PISSES ME OFF.  So not by choice I seem to be slipping into Cougar mode.  Somewhat ironic since in my teens and early twenties I only dated older guys.  This is turning into the dating version of Benjamin Button !!!

Fortunately my weekends out are going to be nipped in the bud for a few weeks since I just went back onto radio for the first time in years ...  for your edification I'm a radio DJ by trade.

What I love is the immediacy of the medium.  You get the privelidge of being in peoples lives RIGHT NOW!  Doesn't matter what they're doing; they could be driiving, at a braai or BBQ, in the kitchen, in the bedroom ... if the radio is on you're right there with them.
I frikking LOVE IT !!!

I can safely say there is no-where I'd rather be for the next few week weekends than in the studio on-air ... OK well realistically the Maldives is probably the top contender, but aside from that .. it's the studio!

That said I'm going to be a responsible adult (doesn't happen often with me) for a few weekenends, concentrate on the shows and put the 25 year olds on hold!

Maybe by the time this cougar gets out they'll have grown up a bit .... hell one might even have had a birthday and turned 26! 



More Blogs to read???  Try this one - clickenzi here !!!!


Tuesday, 28 January 2014

Is it safe to date a Borderline or Narcissist ? Welcome to the Twilight Zone !

Would you willingly put your head into a lion's uber toothy mouth, or play russian roulette with a half-loaded revolver?   No, I didn't think so. 

Chances are that you don't know you are in a relationship with a Borderline.  I'd picked up on a few traits over the time we lived together, (a smidgen of narcissism combined with underlying rage which was hidden well) but erroneously thought that X (as in my ex) had bi-polar tendencies, and might have been a bit vain.   
(DUMBASS !!!  Please excuse the note to self, but I should have listened to my intuition ! )  
At the time I'd never heard of Borderline Personality Disorder.  If I had, I would have read the signs more accurately.  At least I'd like to think that I would have.

In every relationship, family, friend or lover, it's important to take note of how he or she talks of how they have treated others in the past.  I foolishly ignored this most important rule of life.  X often spoke of others with disdain and shared information that was less than favourable about them. Yes it made me uncomfortable, buuuut .... I didn't call him on it.  If you're thinking I'm a bit of a dumbass right now (you might have noticed that is one of my favourite words at the moment) you'd be right, since that is probably when I should have run for the hills.

So back to the arc of your relationship, after the intense passion, declarations of love and when you do start to soften and trust, the tears will probably be yours and so will the pain.  The only thing that will differ from one person to another is the time line.  It seems there is no such thing as a sustainable relationship for most people with BPD.  
By the way feel free to disagree with me, and then give examples of long term, sustained and relatively drama-free relationships over 5 years.  Yes, even a Borderline can marry... but will they stay married?

Oh and the reason this blog came about?   Is because someone suggested that X might be Borderline... and so I started googling.
After poring through articles, blogs and forums, I have to say that yup, Holy Mother Of Antweasels !!!  
I concur.  
So I thought I'd share.

Soooo... as you might have gathered by now this isn't going to be one of my funnier or more flippant blogs ... but if you're out there and dating you might want to read it ... then you might want to click here to find out more about male BPD.  Knowledge is power, it might also prevent your heart from being severely dented or broken.

So here goes, this is wildly personal but hopefully might help someone else out there, which is why I'm committing this to paper.  OK, well virtual paper.

When you're told you are "The One," that you're the only person who has ever had the capacity to hurt him (or her) and the depth of his love scares him because for the first time in his life he is vulnerable ...and when you're treated as such in all ways to the point of it being almost overwhelming.  When you feel so completely loved, adored and cherished, it is devastating to have that person walk out of the relationship with no remorse, compassion or regret.  In a split second love turns to indifference or hate like the flip of a coin.

Does this sound familiar?

To add insult to injury (or so it feels at the time) they carry on their lives as if you never existed!  They're happy, they move on ... and you're left in the aftermath of a hurricane wondering what the hell just happened.

Imagine for a moment that you are in this relationship.
Sound impossible?  Well sadly it's not.  Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

I had known and hung out as friends with X eighteen years previously, and while I saw a lot of him we never really spoke of anything particularly deep.  He wanted a relationship but I wasn't interested, at the time feeling that he might be too shallow and was just a 'pretty face with a great body'.   It seems wisdom does not always come with age after all !!!

Fast forward fifteen years later and we meet up again.  I'd been overseas for over a decade and we'd lost touch, so although there were rumours that he was A Player I chose to go with my instinct and my view of him.  
(Hey, there are always unfounded rumours, and for the most part I prefer to judge people and situations for myself.) 
The more I saw of him, the more I revised my opinion of eighteen years ago. I started to feel that with age and experience he had matured into an intelligent, accomplished and deep man.  He was still good looking and had carried on at the gym to the point that other men spoke of him looking like a Greek God.  
(Yeah, I know that sounds ridiculous but it's true.)
Since I've never dated anyone based purely on looks, the Greek God thing didn't bother me one way or the other ... 
... actually that's a lie.

I DID have worries early on that anyone looking like that might be narcissistic, but X went out of his way to dispel those concerns, although now and again I felt it might be peeking through. He spoke of Buddhism (he has Buddhas all over his house) his desire to council those in need, and the altruistic acts he had done for others ... and slowly, story by story, day by day, I began to fall for him.

I shared my core values with him, and the more I shared the more I discovered that he was indeed the perfect man for me.   I see now that he adapted to accommodate me (a BPD trait) ... remember Runaway Bride?  Julia Robert's character didn't even know how she really liked her eggs?  Well it turns out nor did X (just so we're clear the eggs are a metaphor) but at the time it didn't feel that way, I just thought that we were fabulously compatible.  
Yeah right Miss Rose Coloured Glasses.  If it walks like a swan, quacks like a swan and swims like a swan ... it's a swan .... however if that swan lays golden eggs, is made out of calorie-free-chocolate?  
Well then it's too good to be true, and best you work out what it really is, before it bites you in the ass !

The relationship started from a spark to a forest fire, blazing as if out of control, and grew quickly with seismic intensity. He moved in after a couple of months, and showed no signs to myself or anyone else that he was nothing but completely besotted and in love, and so I let my guard down and loved him back...  because I thought it was safe for me to do so.

He introduced me to his family and went out of his way to meet mine (they were in Italy and he was in South Africa so it was an extravagant and expensive trip to make) ... his mother commented that she'd never seen him be so affectionate with any of his past girlfriends, and his brother told him to marry me ... so with all this love, affection and even validation from friends and family, I believed everything he said.

Dumbass!  Sorry that was just another note to self ... my fingers took over and ran away with the keyboard !!!

He spoke of a future together, joked about buying a ring (how much it would cost - I like rocks) consulted me as if I were an Oracle on all minutiae in his life.  I have no doubt that he loved me at the time, and I have no doubt that he believed everything he said,  but unfortunately with a Borderline, their love doesn't behave as the love you and I know.

After three months of living together (in my house) and five months in ... still affectionate, still loving, still making plans for the future and for no apparent reason, the day after he said "I must get someone to put my house on the market to rent"  he just felt different.  
Ice cold.  Distant.

That same morning he walked out the door to go to work like every other day... no actually he didn't walk...it was more like a sprint, the Usain Bolt 100m ice-dash .... and that was it, he was gone.
That afternoon I got a text citing that he needed space and was going to sleep at his house. Four days later I got another text that he wanted to pick up his stuff.

I was devastated.

When I called him all he could say was that he "just wasn't feeling it anymore".

I'd gone from being the love of his life, to a random person to be broken up with on Whatssap.  Gotye had it right ... "Now you're just somebody that I used to know."   Bummer.

I don't think I've ever felt so betrayed in my life, and if you read more about BPD you'll understand why.

I will concede that I picked up signs like a lack of empathy early on, however I misread them, and figured that he would soften and heal with love. 

Boy was that a costly mistake to make.  So please DON'T  rinse and repeat.... stay the hell away!  Run!

Early on in the relationship he shared with me the details of what can only be described as a hellish childhood - no-one should ever have to go through anything like that - but again I reasoned to myself that love would soften him.  I had always believed that real love - the unselfish and unconditional kind - can heal most things.  I now know that is not always the case.

In the aftermath the world looks so very different today.  It's like finding out your favourite love song was written about french fries, and that unicorns and rainbows may not exist after all.... and Prince Charming?  Definitely not.

X had - and still has - the capacity to excise people from his life with no regret, and although this trait made me uncomfortable and was a red flag, I rationalised it away thinking he only did this to people that had crossed him or betrayed him in some way.

And then with no rhyme, reason or warning he did it to me. 

The shock, trauma and complete inability to understand what had happened was overwhelming at the time, but now I know about BPD everything has clicked into place.  No, I'm not happy about any of this and if I could erase any relationship I've had from my life it would be this one.  
So please, make this blog and the experience worthwhile by learning from my mistakes.  Sharing my heart and ill-judgement on a public page is not comfortable, but I feel it may benefit or help someone else.  At least I hope so.

There are more than a few other tendencies of BPD that I can apply to X, which is why this has all started to make sense, so please don't think I've tried to "diagnose" him on the strength of what I've shared here.  Firstly I'm not a professional, so I'm not qualified to do so..... but with the knowledge of everything I've experienced of him, with him ... there is so much more to the story than this, which reinforces my belief...   however I feel that I've shared more than enough about someone else ... so I'll leave it there.


Enough time has now passed so I've been able to let go of the feelings I had for him, added to which he's gone out of his way to blatently ignore friends of mine (also friendly with him) so I'm doing what I can to cut him out like a cancer. 
Now I know who he really is and what he is capable of...  my head can at least have the upper hand over my heart and dictate that it's not smart to love someone that dangerous or damaging.

A leopard will never change his spots ... nor will a sociopath.  Actually that's unfair to leopards to lump them in that analogy.  Leopards, I apologise!

X has (on a sunny day) good qualities, generosity, kindness (selectively), humour, and having overcome the obstacles faced with in his childhood and adolescence, he has become, for the most part, a successful man... but I suppose that view is selective and I know that not everyone would agree with me on that.  Hey no-one is perfect, least of all me, which is why I choose not to throw stones, but lack of empathy or compassion to the point of cruelty - I realise now - is a deal breaker. 

If more people knew about BPD I feel there is a good chance fewer hearts would be broken, so I hope this has helped you in some small way ...  and that you click on the links above they are informative.



It's one crazy, crackerjack, roller-coaster of a world out there ... so stay safe!


ps ... perhaps you are a man who has had a relationship like this ... or you know a man that has?  
If so click here ...