Originally Posted by
6warddude
It doesn't matter. She wasn't endangering him. She wasn't endangering their child by denying him attendance. Maybe you see that as wrong, and that's fair, but the way to deal with that is with words, with third party, impartial support and aid. You do not deal with that via threats of murder. His response was entirely out of proportion, irresponsible, stupid, and unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether she was using the kid for a pawn, it doesn't matter if ''a female'' knows his weakness or anything else: in a non-violent dispute, it is unacceptable for you to react with murder threats.
There's got to be a sense of scale here. You can't ''both sides'' this.
Is it wrong to stop your kid from going to their father's wedding? Sure, if the father is safe to be around, that's wrong.
Is it on the same scale as threatening to murder the child's mother? God no, it's not even in the same ballpark. Acting like these two things are just balancing on a scale is absurd, and it diminishes the wrongness of what Cousins did. Murder threats are not acceptable.
And that's even assuming that Cousins is safe to be around. I don't have kids myself, but I wouldn't want my nephews and nieces around someone that I knew would make murder threats whenever they were inconvenienced. It would be irresponsible for a parent to put a child in range of someone like that. If this is something Cousins is prone to, then I'd say she was justified in stopping the kid from going: that is a big if though, because we don't know if Cousins has done something like this before. If I had to guess, I'd say he probably has, because she didn't seem surprised by it, and if it was a trap like some people are arguing then clearly this is predictable behaviour for him. But that's just a guess, and even if it's wrong and this is the first time, he's STILL more wrong than she is.
Cannot believe that people are really going to bat for a man threatening to put a bullet through a woman's skull over a custody dispute. Jesus Christ.