Silicon Valley tech CEO admits beating software engineer wife, offered just 13 days in the clink The CEO of a Silicon Valley startup captured on video beating his wife and threatening to kill her is, due to an offered plea deal, likely to spend less than 30 days behind bars to avoid being deported. His wife is furious about the arrangement, claiming that she had been cheated by the system and the charge of "offensive …
This post has been deleted by its author
If she has any sense she'll spend the next couple of weeks packing, moving out, filing for divorce, getting a restraining order, and buying a pistol; not necessarily in that order. It seems to me the evidence of abuse should easily give her sole custody of the kid and hopefully leave him without visitation rights.
Immigrant, no idea whether a legalized US citizen or resident alien - and therefore may not be able to buy a firearm. Either way, this is Kalifornia. Buying a pistol for personal protection is not allowed. Besides, buying a pistol without also getting some hands-on training is stupid. Forget about a concealed carry permit in this state too.
@Marty McFly
She is a naturalized citizen and should have little difficulty getting a firearm safety certificate after taking a basic NRA safety course or equivalent. They've never asked me here in SoCal what the purpose of the purchase was so I'm going to flag your statement "buying a pistol for personal protection is not allowed" as totally false especially since I was using "pistol" to mean "generic firearm" which could easily be a shotgun, featureless AR, revolver, etc. but more often than not folks go for a 9, .380, or .40.
It would also be fairly easy as part of the moving out step to move to a less restrictive state or county and get a concealed carry license as Kali law basically lets the county sheriff decide and some are pretty much "shall issue" (I understand Ventura [PDF] has recently adopted this policy at least until Peruta is finally sorted) as opposed to the "won't issue" of LA, Frisco, etc. Oddly Bernie's Vermont, one of the bluest of blue states has had constitutional concealed carry longer than all(?) the rest but that assumes she likes snow, maple syrup, and cows. Don't get me wrong, Vermont is a beautiful state if you can afford the taxes which are likely lower than Kalifornia and there's nothing wrong with snow, maple syrup, and cows.
Because when a justice system fails or looks so corrupt as to be usless,then one of the few things you can hope for is some "social justice" ..
Not only in America,this was exactly the result in an English court less than a month ago,but at least over here,overly light sentences can be appealed,(Asian cricket player forced.his wife to swallow drugs,bleach and hit her with a cricket bat,idiot judge let him off with a slapped wrist.
Once justice is seen to be a joke,that's how the population will treat it..
We have seen more and more cases in English courts of people buying ridiculously light sentences,so the only thing left is social justice..
Because when a justice system fails or looks so corrupt as to be usless,then one of the few things you can hope for is some "social justice" ..
Social Justice aka Mob Rule.
Tell me are you allowed pitchforks and torches?
Are we allowed to attack pediatricians?
Actually the article said the actual Judge in the case was not even in the courtroom.
It was felt it could be done by their stand in, who clearly felt it needed an actual Judge to look at this.
It's pretty clear he's got a pretty good lawyer and a frankly nasty attitude to women.
Anyone else thinking he'd make a great Uber employee?
Actually the prosecutor made a deal but the judge hasn't agreed to it yet. In fact the court stopped when it heard her statement and did not sentence him yet. Read the piece, it says the courts are working as they should, with various parties acting as checks on other roles.
Now if the deal stands, on the other hand, you will be correct in condemning the courts. We'll know on May 19.
"Shame on you. I don't for one second believe you are sorry that you hold such antediluvian views."
There's nothing antediluvian about corporal punishment no matter how many libtards cry crocodile tears about it. You people are the minority oddballs in thinking that every piece of scum who walks the earth should have the right to be treated with respect and that punishment should only be mental, not physical. I'd be quite happy to find out he'd been beaten to within an inch of his life in jail and if you don't like that snowflake then go cry into your hanky about it and write a strongly worded letter to The Guardian, but don't bother telling me, I'm not interested in your feminised morality.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Ah, quoting someone else. The "I'm not smart enough to think up my own retort" retort. Never mind, keep trying, better luck next time eh? Chin up!"
Said the man who learned his favourite insults from Breitbart and "Fight Club". Unless of course you invented those first resorts of the terminally unimaginative, "snowflake" and "libtard".
"Said the man who learned his favourite insults from Breitbart and "Fight Club". Unless of course you invented those first resorts of the terminally unimaginative, "snowflake" and "libtard"."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between using a common word and quoting someone else's thoughts & ideas. Given how clueless and wet a lot of people on here seem to be doesn't that surprise me in the least.
"Apparently you don't understand the difference between using a common word and quoting someone else's thoughts & ideas. Given how clueless and wet a lot of people on here seem to be doesn't that surprise me in the least."
Yes, common words in the context of only one group of people, specifically right-wing mouthbreathers. As such, when an individual uses them in any context, my respect for them drops to a level almost as low as my assessment of their intelligence.
I agree one should try to use original statement; and, in small, simple words when dealing with someone as crude, poorly developed, and ignorant as your statement seems to indicate you to be. Such thuggish attitudes are the very thing civilization was organized to eliminate. Big ugly brutes doing whatever they wish, to whomever they wish, whenever they wish simply because of physical superiority. We used to live in a civilized society that used its laws to contain and, when necessary, punish such Neanderthals. You've been left behind in evolution and if you want to feel at home move someplace such as Russia where might is always right.
It's not being a snowflake to realise one crime does not condone another as a punishment.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
However ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with you, well now thats pretty immature, acting like you are special. Is there a term people came up with for that?
"It's not being a snowflake to realise one crime does not condone another as a punishment."
Define crime. Perhaps you'd have been happy if we'd all laid down arms in WW2 and let the germans overrun europe? Wouldn't want to hurt anyone, right?
""Whoever fights monsters "....
Oooo, straight from the Big Bumper Book of Nietzsche Quotes, get you! Do you think it gives your point gravitas? Think again.
"However ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with you, well now thats pretty immature, acting like you are special."
If the name is an accurate description its not ad hominem.
This post has been deleted by its author
Define crime. Perhaps you'd have been happy if we'd all laid down arms in WW2 and let the germans overrun europe? Wouldn't want to hurt anyone, right?
Seriously are you invoking Godwins law? Come on dude try harder than chucking up strawmen.
""Whoever fights monsters "....
Oooo, straight from the Big Bumper Book of Nietzsche Quotes, get you! Do you think it gives your point gravitas? Think again.
Bit more gravitas than that reply, and no I was inferring back to a philosophical idea that has been around for a while, the fact that you best argument against it is Ooooo is well I think you need to try harder, also irony.
"However ad hominem attacks when someone disagrees with you, well now thats pretty immature, acting like you are special."
I'd say something about holding a mirror up to oneself and the point I was trying to make but maybe that's a bit arty farty for you...
"Seriously are you invoking Godwins law? Come on dude try harder than chucking up strawmen."
It was an accurate analogy "dude" (even using that lame hipster word instantly marks you as a try-hard moron to me). Apparently you didn't get the simple point that sometimes violence IS the only solution.
Really? Describe to me the similarity beatween a man beating a woman and the invasion of Europe and holocaust? I'll worry about moronic language when you come out with something worthwhile answering.
I bet you can't because frankly every reply you have given has actually zero worthwile content to support your arguement, you are just flinging shit and hooting like a gibbon.
Dear boltard, apparently you don't get the simple point that while violence may sometimes be the only solution when dealing with savages or aggressor nations, it is never the solution when dealing with criminal law. This is not a case of you coming across an assault in progress and having to use force to stop it; this would be a case of you being just as bad as the original perp and fulfilling your violent fantasies under a veneer of respectability and justice. Based on the level of intellect and emotional maturity evidenced in your screeds posted here that is probably the case.
People who beat up those who are less capable of resisting (whether the beating by physical, emotional, or mental) are perhaps a half-rung above child molesters...both are indulgences of power over the weaker. Its reprehensible that the prosecution would have even floated this plea bargain. He probably will never even see the inside of an actual prison - where inmates who're already serving long sentences and have nothing to lose *might* beat him more senseless. He'll likely not even leave a processing facility - the equivalent of a city jail. Pathetic.
This guy should be paying with weekend, and evening, work for lots of years. Give him 4,000 hours of community service. Make him remember and regret his indulgence of strength while he's serving food to homeless people or cleaning parks...or whatever other tasks might be available. No....not jail..where the taxpayer provides his food and shelter - make him work for the community for a LONG time, for no recompense, after working at his company 8-5...6-10 and for 10 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday, he works for the community. 40 for him, for for everyone else. He'll be done in about 2 years, but he'll have spent those two years remembering...and the taxpayers don't have to keep the idiot fed and clothed, he still has to take of that for himself.
"
There's nothing antediluvian about corporal punishment no matter how many libtards cry crocodile tears about it.
"
In which case why do you have a problem with how this man behaved? He was just administering a bit of corporal punishment to his wife, which you say is perfectly acceptable.
There's nothing antediluvian about corporal punishment no matter how many libtards cry crocodile tears about it.
Yes there is especially when there has been a miscarriage of justice and an innocent person is found guilty. Time inside can to a certain extent be compensated by money. But there is no compensation for murder by death penalty. Same for cutting off body parts.
How would you suggest compensating a innocent person who has "been beaten to within an inch of his life in jail" especially if that beating caused permanent damage / disability?
"How would you suggest compensating a innocent person who has "been beaten to within an inch of his life in jail"
First off, no one lawfully sent to prison is innocent. Forget "victim stance" as any sort of argument.
Second, chances are very good that if you mind your own business in prison, you won't get beaten. Those who show disrespect however, can get the crap beaten out of them. I did five years myself, so I have a clue whereas you don't. I did see a couple of epic fights, which usually involved not paying a debt. Even the guards turned their backs while the debtor got the ass-beating of his life. But, I never saw anyone get a beat-down that they didn't deserve.
I'm still surprised clever, educated women with a good job still feel compelled to abide to such practices, because of their family and friends social pressure - and dangerous idiots like this guy take advantage of that.
Just, I'm quite sure such practices also exist in some part of the US - and thereby it's better to pretend they don't still exist...
Nice bubble you live in where logic reigns supreme and people are not coerced by any means.
There are many factors that allow the control of one person by another person. And peoples parents have an amazing amount of power over them.
On a tangent but related, your entire political system is based on this idea, where the policy's have almost no bearing on the people being voted for and why
A good example is how the hell you got clever, educated people to vote for your current president over the other one in the election because the other one stood for capitalism....
(this taken from a Women on a sound byte talking about why she voted for Trump)
On the face of it she is talking drivel and seems brainwashed, but in reality she DOES seem to be able to tie her own shoelaces, so cant be THAT stupid. Something caused her to suspend her brain and accept this kind of nonsense.
feel compelled to abide to such practices,
It's not that simple. I've got friends who are in such marriages, and are not unhappy with them. If you come from a culture where that is the norm, the western model of "date and hope" seems just as odd to them as parental assistance does to us. In many cases the partners do have a choice, they can look at the person selected by their parents and say 'no, thanks".
Some such marriages work, some fail, just as happens in the free-choice model. They are not, in themselves, a predictor of an abusive relationship.
I'm still surprised clever, educated women with a good job still feel compelled to abide to such practices, because of their family and friends social pressure
You can apply the same sort of pressures to all sorts of things though, a lot of religions with practices such as shunning and such, you have things like the 'troubled teen' rehabilitation camps in America, Homosexuality being a choice you can pray away, liking a different foottball team....
We are sort of programmed to some degree to feel these pressures, it's what makes us a social animal.
I would not be so quick to judge. Who is the better judge of a suitable partner: hormone riddled Romeo and Juliette, or their level-headed parents with 20 years of marriage experience in their backpocket?
Even in our western culture, parental approval often plays an important part of such decisions. Probably for good reasons.
My guess is that biology sets us males up for multiple breeding partners, but our societies depends on well-functioning core families that can take proper care for their offspring. "Love" is a relatively new concept born from a society currently experiencing an excess of wealth.
Either way, violence is just wrong. Lock him up and throw away the key.
Who usually become accustomed to believe the same abuses they suffered should be inflicted upon their sons and daughters? Many people become old before becoming wise.
Montecchi and Capuleti are a perfect example, an endless hate for forgotten reasons.... but became a "tradition" the "family" must abide to. Great parents...
Who is the better judge of a suitable partner: hormone riddled Romeo and Juliette, or their level-headed parents with 20 years of marriage experience in their backpocket?
You are mistaking parental advice with parents trading their children like objects or domestic animals - without their consent and agreement. Do not even get me started on choosing a cousin as a preference - I actually used to do mol biol and medical genetics in my past lives and I KNOW the frequency of Thallassemia and other recessives in South West asia populations.
Parent advice is sometimes a good idea. Sometimes not - try to convince an older generation Eastern European parent that a Black or Asian bride is OK. I will sell tickets.
Arranged marriage, however, in all of its forms as an idea belongs in one place - amidst criminal offenses. It is a form of trading in humans as goods and should be punished accordingly.
Arranged marriage, however, in all of its forms as an idea belongs in one place - amidst criminal offenses. It is a form of trading in humans as goods and should be punished accordingly.
Although I agree with you, you have to take into account that the women in these context are often not in a position to object or reject their "chosen one" (quotes denote sarcasm here). They may either have been brainwashed from childhood into thinking that that is the way things are (and even that that is acceptable), or may not be in a social/financial position to reject it, especially when children have arrived (oft mercilessly used as a tool to maintain compliance). This wrong tends to be amplified by legal systems which tend to make light of male offences in this context which can include abuse and rape (not to mention the impact on the children).
I think you're too quick to condemn the woman here - culture and belief systems can be very powerful, and can take indeed this level of abuse to snap out of.
In this context, the lightness of the judgement and sentencing is simply unbelievable and ought to prompt an investigation in itself IMHO. Something is at play here in the background.
I think you're too quick to condemn the woman here
Whoa, where the hell did you draw this conclusion? The people to be condemned are the parents who arranged it in the first place. The victim of their choice should not be condemned. She should be helped and assisted in getting OUT of the arrangement.
In this context, the lightness of the judgement and sentencing is simply unbelievable and ought to prompt an investigation in itself IMHO. Something is at play here in the background.
I believe it. I suspect that the lawyer was similarly arranged and had an extra brief from the in-laws and parents. Seen it before too. Anything and everything but to avoid a stain on the family honor.
"The people to be condemned are the parents who arranged it in the first place."
I think you're confusing arranged or assisted marriages, where the parents/family friends introduce the couple to each other, with forced marriages where basically one or both are told "here's the person you're going to marry, end of".
This case sounds like it was an assisted marriage but the guy turned out to be a controlling misogynist.
The problem is that you simply can't tell the difference between an "arranged marriage" and a "forced marriage" when at least one person concerned (probably the female, though perhaps also the male) will be brutally murdered for offending the families honour should they reveal that it was a forced marriage.
Have you any idea how few people in forced marriages will describe their marriages as being forced?
"In this context, the lightness of the judgement and sentencing is simply unbelievable and ought to prompt an investigation in itself IMHO. Something is at play here in the background.
"I believe it. I suspect that the lawyer was similarly arranged and had an extra brief from the in-laws and parents. Seen it before too. Anything and everything but to avoid a stain on the family honor."
What's at play is the prosecutor's desire to get a conviction checked on his slate with the least amount of trouble and the defending attorney's desire to get his client the least punishment possible. It was obvious from the evidence that he'd never get his client off scot-free, so the best he could do was offer to plead out for the prosecutor's accepting a lesser sentence. Pretty much SOP, really; no need to look around for a deeper, more convoluted conspiracy when the standard one does the job adequately.
Whoa, where the hell did you draw this conclusion? The people to be condemned are the parents who arranged it in the first place. The victim of their choice should not be condemned. She should be helped and assisted in getting OUT of the arrangement.
Mea culpa - must have scanned too quickly (it was somewhat odd coming from you which should have been enough of a hint). I agree that parents who arrange these things even when in conflict with the wellbeing of what is, after all, their child ought to be re-educated. Patched, so to speak..
"You are mistaking parental advice with parents trading their children like objects or domestic animals - without their consent and agreement."
Given the context of the article, two software engineers, I assumed coercion was not part of the equation. I find it unlikely that two highly educated persons are coerced in the way you suggest.
Coercion is wrong regardless, but arranged marriage, afaik, does not imply coercion.
Sure, and also many tragedies and stories of lovers who lost their lives because of them. Sure, there was a time the father owned his daughters - it's very good in most of the Western world we got rid of such uses, and believe people should be free to choose.
Also, read some ancient literature about Love, there's plenty about it, in Latin, Greek, even more ancient languages.
For the matter, the Romeo and Juliet plot is old as Pyrămos and Thisbe - and it was already old when written by Ovid in his Metamorphoses...
Back in the day, the bride came with a dowry - paid for by the father, intended to help with setting up house. Thus, in asking for the daughter's hand in marriage, one was also asking for her dowry. Since the goods or money that comprised the dowry belonged, rightly, to the parents, then marriage was a two-stage process. Getting her to day yes was only step 1, you didn't *just* ask the father. You got her agreement, then you dealt with her parents. Having the daughter an enthusiastic partner in getting this agreement would, doubtless, help considerably in ensuring success.
Asking the parents is probably only a formality now - legally if she's 18, they have no right to deny the match, but starting off with "We're getting married if you like it or not" is getting off on the wrong foot.
@ Voland's right hand
Sir, You are casting aspersions on the behaviour of dear (deceased) Queen Victoria regarding her grandson George, later George V, King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India.
Apparently, and despite the fact that the arranged marriage was intended for George's elder brother who unfortunately died before the marriage could take place, the "backup arrangement" couple were immediately and permanently besotted with each other, so it was, sometimes, a slightly better system than you think.
Obviously he wont.
He is worth to much money to the States, enough that a Judge was ordered to pass such a lenient sentence.
Unless you believe a Judge stupid enough to pass such a judgement would be able to get into the position of being a judge by accident.
Cases like this show just how much "justice" is in the courts. (both in the States and the UK, where suspect decisions have been made in the favor of the state rather than the victim)
I am inclined to think that Judge Allison Danner is not a wife-beater. The prosecutor was probably just hungry for quick close - "Sign here, dot there, convict here... And we're done" and has not known anyone in an abusive relationship; so when the defense offered a plea (as is their job) he just accepted it without even listening to the evidence.
After all, why do you need evidence when you have a signed plea deal? Soon to be as ubiquitous as "To Protect and Serve"
This post has been deleted by its author
In Texas the pretense of his daughter would make it another felony charge.
I presume you mean "presence". Yeah, not a great example to set. I hope the returning judge throws the book at him and invites him for a lengthy stay where he'll be at the receiving end of people who can demonstrate what being hit and abused feels like.
Too many times authorities (worldwide) don't do the job when it comes to stop domestic abuses. I guess that when true sex equality will be achieved this might change... With all the paleolithic men still around there's a long way to go.
Fein told the Daily Beast that Rastogi did not object to the deal with he outlined it to her
I guess he has a written proof of the victim's consent to prosecution reduction, hasn't he?
With all the paleolithic men still around there's a long way to go.
If this were about palaeolithic men, then the woman could just find another palaeolithic man to smash the face of the first one.
No, the real problem here is shame - which is entirely a societal issue. So long as it is considered shameful to admit to making such a mistake (and it only gets more shameful as time goes on), then leaving an abusive partner (man or woman) will continue to be psychologically fraught.
As another commenter mentioned, physical violence is only a small (albeit most visible) part of the problem. It's the emotional manipulation that stops people from simply leaving such a relationship - and that manipulation often comes from many sources.
I guess that when true sex equality will be achieved this might change...
Sex equality has absolutely no influence on domestic violence. None. 10 years a cop taught me that domestic violence in most cases is, the perpetrator and the victim are repeating and reinforcing behaviour they experienced as a child and their teenage years. I attended 100's of domestic violence calls over that 10 years
That is why where Police would physically remove the victim and the children from the abusive partner, lodge them in emergency housing ensure counselling services were available for them. Arrest the offender, Refuse bail and then find out they were released on bail by the courts the next day. Issue domestic violence orders restricting their movements or approaching the victim. Come court day for the assault, the victim will refuse to give evidence and therefore the matter is thrown out and no conviction recorded. In the mean time on Friday night you are called back to the same address to find the victim has moved back in with the offender days before and the pattern of abuse and victimisation is repeating again.
Rinse and repeat as many times as you care to.
The cycle of domestic violence cannot be broken unless the victim and/or offender wish it broken. Seeking the help to make that happen.
The efforts of the police, the restrictions imposed by the courts are only a temporary fix.
The human stain in this report should be locked up, but breaking the chain means he needs to be enrolled in a program to deal with his abuse patterns. Otherwise, 30 days or 5 years in lock up, doesn't matter he will only repeat the violence when he is released.
There was precedent...as I read it he was arrested previously, and charged with felony assault. She asked the charge be reduced in severity so he wouldn't be deported, so he ended up with a misdemeanor then. Maybe it was just for the kid's sake, but people in abusive relationships have a very tortured psyche. In many places around the US, the victim of domestic abuse does not press charges nor have any actual voice in the charges themselves - the police officer responding presses the charges. I expect its thought that, by giving the victim no choice, the abuser won't beat up the victim for sending him/her to jail, but I'm skeptical it works that way.
Indeed. Compare with the Drupal case where a developer got dumped because of consensual BSDM roleplay, yet for the real, violent, thing this guy gets 13 days jail & apparently keeps his job?
Spot the difference or I will spot it for you:
Drupal - developer
Cuberon - CEO.
Do you have any more questions?
"Cuberon - CEO."
According to Linkdin, he's the Chief Executive Officer of a company with an employee count of "1 to 10".
I bet they also have a company President and Vice President too. FFS, it's a tiny little start-up pretending to be a multi-national! All you need is an Owner/Manager, not a fecking CEO!
"In stealth" means "not available to the general public." The statement as a whole could mean many different things but one interpretation that seems likely to me is "The product is still in alpha, or beta at best, but we've found a customer or customers who'll pay to use it while we develop it."
It wouldn't surprise me if that hypothetical customer/guinea pig were Walmart, given his past ties to them.
This post has been deleted by its author
There are these things called dictionaries, and they contain words. And with those words a definition is given.
We suggest you purchase one of these books - Oxford or Cambridge Dictionaries will suffice - and look up the word Justice. Because you sure as hell have no f**king idea what it means.
Thanks.
We need to stop pretending that we can behave civilized. We have delusions of grandeur in thinking humanity as a species is civilized, if we even turn a blind eye to any "uncivilized" behavior on this planet we are all not civilized.
Any physical/mental abuse to anyone, oppressive regimes, any "allied" countries that chop heads off, corrupt banking, corrupt politics, oligarchy, royalty, Chief Executive anything.... If I have enough time I can easily make the list 10x longer.
So when we are ready to truly fix the problems of this planet I say, "I hope this arse gets what he deserves in jail and a room mate named Bubba". Behave uncivilized, then get treated uncivilized.
... Just because he's a CEO he shouldn't be deported?
He can run the company via videoconference from India! His wife shouldn't suffer more because of (undoubtedly) the lawyers pleading that he shouldn't be deported (because OMG, he contributes to society, innit?)
The man needs jailing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
