Posted on 03/08/2005 2:18:36 PM PST by JFK_Lib
Source? I can't see police depts keeping stats like that.
Can you explain the workings of this?
"Emotional abuse. Uses put-downs, insults, criticism or name-calling to make you feel bad about yourself. Intimidation. Uses certain looks, actions or gestures to instill fear. The abuser may break things, destroy property, abuse pets or display weapons. ..... Privilege. Makes all major decisions, defines the roles in your relationship, is in charge of the home and social life, and treats you like a servant or possession".
Sounds just like boot camp to me.
Family Research Council
Abuse, either way, really sucks; but the broad net that has been cast to combat it is radically undermining lawful protections for accused, and sweeping up many innocent and falsly-accused. The pendulum has swung too far. "Shall Arrest" policies deny the natural inclination to investigate...to deliver a cogent, winnable case to the courts. Allegation --- mere allegation--- is suitable probable cause for arrest. Bad arrest? No problem: the court will cover you...ya gotta break eggs.... [better to arrest one-hundred innocent, than let one guilty go free]
This new paragigm is affecting other types of cases, too: like a cancer.
There are several females in my burg who make a nice living picking up hapless guys in bars, moving-in temporarily, fabricating a charge of domestic abuse, and restraining the guy from his own home for several months...while he pays the rent and utilities.
There are worse things than getting hit.
I can't define abuse but I can tell it when I see it.
There is no doubt that women use articles like this to say.."he looked at me crosseyed, I want a divorce and ALL his money!" There are also men who think that women are NEVER victims of abuse (she asked for it).
Sadly human experience testifies to both. Women often are abused by men, but men are most often abused by the legal system.
paradigm [blush]
It is simple...once a RO (restraining order) is taken out against the man (for the sake of simplicity let's stay with reality and use male as the person tagged as the abuser) - the man is living with his wife, girlfriend, whatever and they have children. With the issuance of the RO the man is barred from returning to his home.... (even a man who has a live in girldfriend in his home, once the girlriend takes out a RO, he is barred from returning to his own home but he still must pay all the bills...).....then, should a divorce proceeding be started, the premise while the divorce proceeds is that the woman will stay in the home (hey, that isher home and the kids are there) during the divorce, that the woman will have temporary custody (which in reality is permanent custody because the man is deemed unfit/agressive because of the RO)...so the man loses his children and his home....Should this happen because of a slap? When combined with no fault divorce the domestic abuse laws make marriage (and relationships) a very iffy thing for men ...and that makes it bad for women too.
I agree, mere allegations are not fair. However, wasn't this put into place so that the victims wouldn't change their minds (out of fear or "hostage syndrome") and not prosecute?
Yes....and to prevent lawsuits against towns and cities based upon "cops didn't do their job", should abuse continue after a visitation...more the latter than the former, although it's politic to say it is done for the former.
The psychology of relationships embroiled in violence or abuse is very tricky.
Also, one truism is that the aggressor will apologize, swear it will never happen again, and sooner or later it will happen again. And... possibly escalate. Yes, there will be those for whom it is a one time happening, I will agree.
Dreadful stuff, all of this.
Das, what do you think of the stats from the FRC? It would appear to me that the only accurate stats would be from police records, rather than self-reports on surveys. I am an ABT in Criminal Justice, and know that the crime stats are crap, to say the least.
No, there is no need to swear out an order. Here in MA when the police arrive in responding to a call one party must leave....or be arrested. Then there is a hearing in 10 days at which the woman can say she has been slapped...or simply that sheisin fear of the man. That is enough for the man to be barred for at least one year from his home and from his children.
Unfortunately, for the 'agressor' (the man) there is no hope under the current DV system for if he refuses to acknowledge his guilt he is blamed for not having remorse (and there for will not be re-educated) and if he apolgizes he is still blamed for the 'trickery' that an 'agressor' will play to get back at his victim...
This is the problem with your 'psychology of relationship" and the supposed truisms. It works well for women but not for men. No equal opportunity here.
Personally,I have never known of a man who hit his girlfriend or wife. I have known some women who have assaulted their boyfriends and husband however.
Statistics can say whatever.
Innocent people are being locked-up, sent for "re-grooving": the police-state response to domestic abuse is a tragedy...and the reason I removed myself to a desk years ago.
At some point, one must simply acknowledge that individuals own the consequences of their choices. I dare say, the state's overlordishness in this area might be an enabler for abused to stick around when they should vamoose.
The VAWA was struck down by the USSC in US v Morrison.
I have NEVER struck a woman, no matter how deep the provocation. I have, however, been struck, pinched, scratched, and slapped by several former girlfriends in the midst of arguments. Many women know they can get away with it....
What's an ABT?
I tend to agree that most crime stats are crap - as well as most other stats. Stats will also not convince most people of much of anything so I figure I'll quote the ones I like and dismiss the ones I don't - just like everybody else. "4 out of 5 dentists choose Crest"? Maybe that could be used to show the sad state of American dental schools? Who knows?
I like your tag line, though. All well-accessorized ladies should have a pistol.
Correction: If any allegation of assault, or worse, is suspected, the offender SHALL be arrested. [It's always nice to actually have a basis, other that allegation, for the charge....but it's not necessary.]
Letting a suspected offender leave, an officer risks much: getting fired/suspended; getting sued, if things subsequently go south. There is no incentive--legal or liability-wise, to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.
That said, yes: it sometimes, rarely, happens that somebody is given the option of leaving for the night...where evidence is thin: a very dangerous practice.
I wish it were true...but then why was it refunded after
US v Morrison.
I stand corrected...and agree...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.