Legal trap - domestic violence - attorneys pay attention!


PDA






DCR
June 23, 2005, 05:41 AM
I just became aware of a strange application of the Lautenberg amendment that expands the definition of domestic violence. It may well be in effect in your jurisdiction.

Background: my friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match (no injuries to either), "victim" wife calls police, friend is charged with domestic violence. His solid defenses, and a now sober and uncooperative "victim" (she can't remember anything that happened; all they have is her inconsistent and contradictory "excited utterance" statement to police and the 911 call) forced prosecutor to back off; friend accepted plea agreement to disturbing the peace to get things over with and not put wife through "trauma" of a jury trial. Shortly after, he gets a letter from the Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's office stating that his CCW permit is revoked because he is no longer eligible to possess a firearm under federal law. :confused: And no, I did not represent him in that matter.

Get this: BATF and USDOJ guidance on Lautenberg states that "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence means an offense that: (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and (2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force ...committed by a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim...." Ok so far? Well, Idaho's disturbing the peace statute reads as follows: Every person who maliciously and wilfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting...is guilty of a misdemeanor

The sheriff's office has determined that this statute is a "physical force statute" and that because the disturbance in my friend's case involved him and his wife, his disturbing the peace conviction brings him under the purview of the Lautenberg amendment. Apparently, this has been happening for the last year or so in every disturbing the peace case between household members, and particularly when there was originally a domestic violence charge that has been reduced for whatever reason.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lautenberg only prohibit firearm possession in cases where a person has been convicted of assault, battery, domestic assault, or domestic battery - where there was a perpetrator committing an unlawful act on an unwilling partner/spouse victim? I could see the Sheriff's position (MAYBE) if there was threatening involved, but doesn't the mutuality of fighting or quarreling eliminate the roles of perpetrator and victim? And isn't the "victim" in Idaho's disturbing the peace statute a neighborhood or third parties -- none of whom are a spouse or partner under Lautenberg?

It's my view that the Sheriff's office is stretching this way too far; what are your thoughts? Does this occur in your jurisdictions? Anyone aware of any case law on the subject?

At any rate, you may want to find out how your jurisdiction treats this, both on the local and federal levels, and watch out for fellow gun owners who may be in this sticky situation. I'm going to try to help my friend out in any way I can, because he truly is a good guy and the only shooting buddy I really have, and would appreciate your thoughts before I dive in.

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal trap - domestic violence - attorneys pay attention!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fred Fuller
June 23, 2005, 06:55 AM
1) friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match

2) "victim" wife calls police

3) she can't remember anything that happened

4) friend accepted plea agreement to disturbing the peace

5) his CCW permit is revoked

6) sticky situation

Worse than just losing a CCW permit, I'd say. Your amigo's "right" to purchase/own firearms legally is now gone too, if your sheriff's interpretation holds. This is a logical extension (in a twisted bureaucratic sense) of the ex post facto aspects of domestic violence "crimes" in the modern age (getting punished now for something that wasn't punishable in this fashion when you did it) AND the crossing-the-felony-bar aspect as well (felony level punishment for something originally defined and punished as a misdemeanor). Lawyerly types shoulda been yelling bloody murder at both of those 'lane violations' years ago. But the silence has been deafening.

I have long said that the 'line' defining criminal behavior is moving to take in more and more people. Stay where you are and keep doing what you are doing and eventually you too will be a criminal. The "criminal justice system" needs more and more and more raw material to process, and people are the raw material of the criminal justice system. When trying to obey the law is no longer a protection from the law... we're toast.

Good luck to your friend, and to you. You both need more than luck. So do we all.

lpl/nc (IANAL)

ID_shooting
June 23, 2005, 08:07 AM
I can't really offer much but as an Ada County resident I will be very interested in the outcome if he challenges the Sheriff's decision. Since most of our 4th district judges are fairly conservative (at least from my expirience on jury duty) a court hearing on the matter should go well.

WT
June 23, 2005, 08:38 AM
I don't think this 'tough guy' should be allowed access to firearms. He pushed his wife around. Then he pleaded guilty to a crime.

Its not like 2 guys getting into a fight at the local bar.

Its domestic violence, pure and simple.

Taipei Personality
June 23, 2005, 08:40 AM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ... Create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt."

-- Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged

Art Eatman
June 23, 2005, 09:03 AM
WT, I surely do hope that's sarcasm. It's hard for me to accept that yelling (or "hollering and pushing", as was specified) is "violence". Maybe it's my old age, but I've always understood that violence involves serious threats of physical harm or physical harm itself.

But maybe you've never been married? Never gotten drunk and had somebody put the verbal needle to you? :) Heck, you've never been in a foul mood and somebody starts needling you?

Art

BigG
June 23, 2005, 09:12 AM
I mentioned this a quite a while back. You guys really need to know that they are enforcing this thing (at least here in GA) to an unreasonably far degree. All it takes is your ____ to file a complaint, the DA's office will kindly help her file a complaint under the Lautenberg amendment which the fed.gov (with your tax dollars) gives them a grant to employ some drone with. :barf:

El Tejon
June 23, 2005, 09:15 AM
"Strange application"??? :confused:

It's been happening since 1996. Who represented at his guilty plea?

beerslurpy
June 23, 2005, 09:21 AM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ... Create a nation of law-breakers, and then you cash in on the guilt."

-- Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged

Quoted for truth in case anyone missed it. I dont even approve of having ex-felons deprived of the right to self defense. A man who gets into a fight with his wife is normal, not something I would consider worthy of society's punishments. My parents got into worse fights than this once in a while, though they would never have involved the cops. They were paranoid about child services finding out how small our apartment was.

WT
June 23, 2005, 09:25 AM
Art - I'm serious. I have absolutely no respect for a guy who pushes his wife around. That's called DV.

I've been married a long time.

Being drunk is no excuse. Do drunk drivers get to walk after they've killed somebody? Heck, no.

No, I don't get drunk, go to bars, or push people around.

PS: Before I retired I was the recipient of many 'needling' incidents by the union folks in my plant. They were masters, like an old Navy CPO. I handled it.

GunGoBoom
June 23, 2005, 09:28 AM
1. Since Lautenberg as a whole is unconstitutionally violative of the 2nd amendment, I cannot with any clarity of thought bring myself to analyze whether Idaho sheriff's are stretching its application too far.

2. He of course needs his day in court to argue that this is an improper application of Lautenberg, probably first in an agency tribunal from the state agency who issues CCW permits, then appeal to the district court from there.

3. If it holds, he will be disarmed for 3 years, as I understand things.

4. As a practical matter, for future reference for folks with significant others, he and his attorney should have made it a specific condition of the plea agreement that his CCW rights and gun rights are not affected in any way. He might even attempt to overturn his sentence on the basis of violation of the plea agreement by the prosecutor, on the theory that the prosecutor should have disclosed this little gem; if successful, then re-negotiate a plea or have a trial. In any event, he's looking at a lot of atty's fees or disarmament one...

5. As a practical matter, for future reference for folks without significant others, it may be wise to commit to staying single in this crazy world. Either that or don't drink if you are shacked up /married.

:banghead:

Tory
June 23, 2005, 09:29 AM
"my friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match..."

The applicable statute prohibits the following conduct:

"Every person who maliciously and wilfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting...is guilty of a misdemeanor."

So, under what strained substitute for rational analysis is two drunks in a shoving match NOT "fighting?" under the controlling statute?

While an overly severe application of Lautenberg, the revocation has a valid basis. So, what ELSE has your drunken friend done to warrant the attention of the sheriff? :uhoh:

dfaugh
June 23, 2005, 09:31 AM
When I was getting divorced, my ex claimed that I had "verbally abused" her, and that she was afraid of me. Totally unfounded, and no calls to police EVER.

Yet, I had to surrender my guns...At least until I went to court, where neighbors testified that they had never even heard raised voices coming from my house (we then lived in the city where houses were quite close together).

My day in court cost me about $5000, but there was no way I gonna have my reputation tarnished, even by accusations people who knew me would never believe.

In short, you buddy made a BIG mistake to plead guilty.

As an aside, the fact that she lied about this, and some other thing as well, meant that anything else she said was taken with agrain of salt,in all subsequent proceedings.

GunGoBoom
June 23, 2005, 09:36 AM
dfaugh, that's like one's worst nightmare - imagine, what if you hadn't had the wherewithal ($$) to fight that accusation? Where would you be now? I'm curious, do you loathe her with a passion to this day as a result of her actions, or have you gotten over it? Stay single guys, because all women are crazy (except THR women).

sssteinkamp
June 23, 2005, 09:40 AM
To my mind, the drinking should be enough to have his CCW revolked. In Louisiana it is. Getting arrested for drunkeness is enough. DV is just extra gravy. Doens't sound like this guy is a responsible citizen.

Shane

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 09:41 AM
friend accepted plea agreement to disturbing the peace to get things over with and not put wife through "trauma" of a jury trial. Bad choice. The evil of the Lautenberg Act is that so many are sucked into its trap out of momentary convenience without any knowledge of the lifetime consequences. :fire: If a doctor, pharmaceutical company or lawn mower company failed to give a similar warning and full, informed consent, they would be liable for the lifetime handicap.

I don't care for wifebeaters, but the answer (withing the Constitutional presevation of liberty) is to arm the wife, not disarm the man. If the man is such a threat, he shouldn't be allowed to walk around in public, armed or unarmed.

Sean Smith
June 23, 2005, 09:48 AM
To my mind, the drinking should be enough to have his CCW revolked.

At home?

:confused:

BigG
June 23, 2005, 09:55 AM
This is not about wife beating or drunk and disorderly. It's about naked abuse of power by the authorities. Your jurisdiction contacts whoever called the police and helpfully recommends they fill out a few papers, usually including a restraining order also. You (now the defendant) find out about this just before you have a chance to plead.

You are an idiot to plead guilty. Please believe me.

The guys beating their chests about hating wife beaters, drunkards, etc. are really missing the point. This is where mere accusation constitutes proof as far as the lautenberg yokels are concerned.

dfaugh
June 23, 2005, 10:00 AM
dfaugh, that's like one's worst nightmare - imagine, what if you hadn't had the wherewithal ($$) to fight that accusation? Where would you be now? I'm curious, do you loathe her with a passion to this day as a result of her actions, or have you gotten over it? Stay single guys, because all women are crazy (except THR women).

You bet I loathe her(17 years later)...Her lying has continued to this day (and boy do I hate liars).

Case in point: Even though we had joint custody of the kids,and they spent 50% of the time with me I was STILL forced to pay child support. Now, bear in mind that she's a chemist, and makes good money. And when I was making good money I was STILL paying over $1000 month in child support. But she used to tell the kids that "because your dad doesn't pay enough child support", I can't afford to buy food or {insert something the need here}...

The only decent clothes and things they ever had I paid for, IN ADDITION TO the $1000/mo in support....

But here's the interesting thing: Kids are smarter than we might imagine...Right now BOTH my sons live with ME (I'm permanantly disabled), so they can help me out (now 20 and 22)...Funny thing, huh?

hso
June 23, 2005, 10:05 AM
A DV conviction blocks you on a 4473 yellow sheet.

A DV conviction has blocked a handgun carry permit applications for years here in TN and and can get your CCW revoked.

Drunken shoving matches between a CCW holder and another person is pretty much going to get you into trouble here, but if my SO or wife (very unlikely to happen to me because I won't tolerate someone that even has hints of that type behavior) got drunk and mad and called the cops to file a DV complaint I'd either make certain that there was no record or I'd be going to court to make certain a not guilty decision was handed down.

I don't think anyone is of the opionion that what your friend did was correct, but I don't think that the authorities are correct in how they've addressed the situation either (unless there's a back story and history of problems)

I don't agree that everyone has been in this situation. I'm 48 years old and married (twice now) and I've never gotten into a drunken shouting/shoving incident with my spouce or any other woman (or man/kid/dog/ aardvark for that matter). I've got lots of friends and only a couple of them (~2%) have ever gotten into a drunken shoving match or any worse and that only in their youth.

Art Eatman
June 23, 2005, 10:32 AM
WT, you have self-control. I have self-control. Bully for us. What I'm saying is that very minor bad stuff is being overblown into The Horribles.

Based on the opening post's description, this is nowhere near a history of hitting and beating coupled with regular drunkenness. These, to me, do indeed warrant investigation and serious charges.

I dunno. To me, this particular case is sorta like sending a firetruck out to hose down a gutter after somebody spits into it. Or, sending a firetruck to put out a cigarette. It's way too much punishment for what's being called a crime.

Which is why I detest such do-goodism as the Lautenberg Amendment. It's over-kill by a large degree.

Hank Williams sang it over a half-century back: "...me and my old lady got a license to fight; why don't you mind your own business..." :)

Art

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 10:49 AM
Which is why I detest such do-goodism as the Lautenberg Amendment. It's over-kill by a large degree. And it's a step down a slippery slope. Sure, now that we all recognize that DV is really, really bad, what other act would we do-gooders like to punish? Smoking? Having evil books or music? Not giving you pet fresh water every day (now criminal in San Fran)?

Gung-Ho
June 23, 2005, 10:54 AM
Art - I'm serious. I have absolutely no respect for a guy who pushes his wife around. That's called DV.

I've been married a long time.

Being drunk is no excuse. Do drunk drivers get to walk after they've killed somebody? Heck, no.

No, I don't get drunk, go to bars, or push people around.

Excuse me while I go puke. :mad: Hey, if were going to do this, lets do it right. Lets make just pushing your wife a FELONY. Hell lets make just getting accused of pushing your wife a FELONY.

molonlabe
June 23, 2005, 11:30 AM
I have long said that the 'line' defining criminal behavior is moving to take in more and more people.
Precedence has already been set for repeat speeding violations and misdemeanors.
You should expect to see added to the list.
DUI’s
Minor Traffic offences.

Violation of any of the 27,000 + laws currently on the books of which most are misdemeanors. That should about take care of gun ownership. Couple that with confiscation and we will finally have the gun free socialist state Feinstein and Schumer dream of.

SteveS
June 23, 2005, 12:14 PM
Which is why I detest such do-goodism as the Lautenberg Amendment. It's over-kill by a large degree.

I agree. The described incident does not seem to rise to the level of DV, unless there is something else that we don't know about.

Though I feel no sympathy for abusers, the Lautenberg Amendment has more to do with eroding gun rights than punishing abusers, IMHO.

wmenorr67
June 23, 2005, 12:54 PM
I was in a situation one time where I was "married" to a pyscho, drug addict. Didn't know about the drugs until it was too late. Anyway we get into an argument one evening and she proceeded in scratching my face up. My CO at the time said it looked as if I went face first into a barbed wire fence on a motorbike. I did not lay a hand on her because we all know that she would have then called the cops and I would have went to jail. Even though I was defending myself. In most DV situations the man is screwed. Lucky for me I kicked the pyscho to the curb.

RavenVT100
June 23, 2005, 12:57 PM
I would advise your friend to look into expungement. Hopefully Idaho allows people to expunge misdemeanors.

Though I feel no sympathy for abusers, the Lautenberg Amendment has more to do with eroding gun rights than punishing abusers, IMHO.

I doubt Lautenberg cares nearly as much about protecting domestic violence victims as he does about banning guns.

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 01:01 PM
Every person who maliciously and wilfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting...is guilty of a misdemeanor
As long as we're talking about abuse of statute, let's consider this:
A couple of friends of mine, husband and wife, fight three or four times a week. And I'm not talking about yelling, pushing, and shoving. I mean hitting, tying each other in knots on the floor, chokeholds, arm-bars, the works. They both have concealed carry permits, and a gun collection that brings a tear of joy to my eye. On the basis of their fighting, should they be disqualified from firearms ownership?

If I were mention that they're both into Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and the hitting is done with pads, would it change your mind?

Would the fact that it's consentual, engaged in as sport, make it any less of a technical violation of the law if they "disturb the peace and quiet" of a child in the next room?

Can you see an anti-gun prosecutor abusing the law in this way? I can.

I have no sympathy for those who engage in violence other than defensively (and this extends to "husband-beaters" just as much as "wife-beaters"), but we need to take a serious look at our definition of "violence." Perhaps it ought to include something like "serious threats of physical harm or physical harm itself."

BigG
June 23, 2005, 01:18 PM
What ever happened to "a man's home is his castle," fer chrissakes? :uhoh:

Tory
June 23, 2005, 02:56 PM
"What ever happened to "a man's home is his castle," fer chrissakes?"


So, under that enlightened analysis, wife-beating is fine if done within the house; incest is fine as long as the sex is within the house; making and selling meth is fine, as long as it's done within the house; abusing children is fine, so long as it happens within the house........

What ever happened to common sense and rational thought, more like.... :barf:

BigG
June 23, 2005, 03:13 PM
You don't happen to be a jack booted thug, do you? :uhoh: The Myrmidons said they were only following orders at Nuremberg, didn't they? :rolleyes:

Seriously, the state does not have business inside of people's homes. There is no justification for this kind of intrusive crap, and no, I don't consider malum in se stuff trivial, but yes, statutes based on He said/She said and giving an unfair advantage to one party is bogus, thank you very much. ;)

Hawkmoon
June 23, 2005, 03:18 PM
A DV conviction blocks you on a 4473 yellow sheet.

A DV conviction has blocked a handgun carry permit applications for years here in TN and and can get your CCW revoked.
But the guy was NOT convicted of domestic violence. He pleaded guilty to "disturbing the peace," under a statute that covers everything from playing your car radio too loud to engaging in a barroom brawl. Nothing in the law to which he pleaded guilty even mentions "domestic."

IANAL but it is clear that the sheriff's office is, indeed, stretching the Lautenberg act far beyond it's intended reach.

And as for the poster who blithely wrote the male in this episode as a "tough guy," may I remind you that you were not present during the, ah, "discussion." Suppose his wife shoved him first, and all he did was grab her arms to defend himself. Then when he released her she called the cops.

Far-fetched? You've obviously not met my ex-wife. Please do not fall into the common trap of assuming that in any and every domestic altercation it MUST be the male who is the initiator and the aggressor. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable. I had one incident with my ex (before she became my ex-) when she started an argument, I didn't feel like playing so I repaired to the privacy of the bathroom to soak in the tub for awhile, and she kicked the damed door in so she could continue screaming at me face to face.

BioDemon
June 23, 2005, 03:59 PM
Perhaps one law enforcement officer I know should loose there right for ccw carry as well for acting in like manner to an innocent person? And any one who pushes there wife has an anger/controle problem in my book unless she started hitting him and used that as a method to get her to stop hitting.

rhubarb
June 23, 2005, 04:23 PM
Does the Lautenberg law mean that you can not speak your mind if you are convicted of domestic violence?
Are you banned from going to church?
May you no longer get together with your friends?
Can the gummint put up soldiers in your house without your consent?
Can the JBTs bust down your door and go through your possessions on a whim?

If someone is a threat to society, put 'em on trial and, upon a guilty verdict, lock 'em up. If they ain't a threat, leave 'em alone. If they ain't locked up, then they got rights. You cain't pick and choose which ones. Give 'em liberty or don't, but don't try any of this sneaky b.s.

what42
June 23, 2005, 04:28 PM
That's my thought on many of these laws. If all of these felons and convicted child molesters are so dangerous, why are they out of jail? If they're really so dangerous they should be either in jail or dead.

Sean Smith
June 23, 2005, 04:34 PM
This dilution of the meaning of words is dangerous for two reasons.

One, if you define EVERYTHING as "domestic violence," no matter how trivial, you wind up labeling mostly harmless folks as volent criminal felons, which is simply unjust. Kind of like labeling a guy a "sexual harasser" because some uptight bimbo heard him say "tufted titmouse."

Two, people start to see "domestic violence" as a whole as one big scam, since so much of what gets labeled as such is really trivial nonsense. This does not serve the interests of women (or men, for that matter) getting beaten upside the head with frying pans.

DCR
June 23, 2005, 06:03 PM
I suppose more facts are in order.

I've spoken with both parties, separately first, then together.

She got drunk and had a mad-on when he got home from work (not drunk) and he proceeded to have four drinks over the next five hours. Ironically, she thought he had a drinking problem, which is why she was mad. She announced, at 1:00 a.m. (she'd continued drinking), that she was leaving him. He said," do what you need to do." He went to bed. She came to their bedroom, stuffed some clothes in a bag. She then went to their children's rooms, ages 3 and 5, and woke them up, hollering away about how their dad is rotten and they're leaving. She took the kids toward the interior garage door. He followed, begging not to drive, especially with the kids. She eventually agreed and called a cab. The cab company said they'd be there in 30 minutes. She then took the kids, barefoot and in their pajamas, outside, where it was 30 degrees (early January), high humidity and wind, to wait for the cab.

Legally, he has as much a right to custody of the kids as she does. He determined it wasn't in the kids' best interest to be drug from their beds at that hour, taken outside to wait half an hour for a cab, and taken to God-knows-where by their drunken mother. In his mind, she placed them in a bad situation taking the two kids outside, especially with one of them just getting over a severe cold and ear infection. He went outside, told the older child to go in, and picked up the younger one to take her inside. She charged him and tried to block him from taking the younger one in. Still holding the younger child, whom she was trying to grab, he pushed her out of the way. (Did I mention they're the same height, but she outweighs him by at least 40 pounds? ) She stumbled over a knee-high shrub right at the side of the walk (they showed me where it happened) and fell down. He went inside and put the kids back in their beds. While he was putting the kids back in bed, she re-entered the home and called the police. When the police arrived, they saw some landscaping bark on her pants (there was no snow), deemed that corroborative of the 911 call, and cuffed and stuffed my friend. He (wisely) refused to answer any questions.

Though her memory is foggy, that's pretty much what she recalls. That's his recollection, as he related to his criminal defense lawyer (whom I know). She doesn't dispute it - just doesn't remember it all clearly.

His defenses include self defense and defense of others (the children - from at least neglect, at worst abuse by taking them outside, dressed as they were(n't), at that time of year in that weather), and possibly even mutual (consensual) combat.

Does he sound like a "tough guy" now? Does that qualify as "wife beating" in your mind? Isn't it lawful to use whatever means are reasonably and necessary to prevent another from acting in a manner at least neglectful, and potentially even harmful and contrary to the best interests of a child?

I'd be curious to hear from you in light of this other information, particularly since the Sheriff's CCW revocation hearing will be based on the specific facts of a particular situation. Those facts are the genesis of his defense at the CCW hearing, and I'd like to learn of any flaws I may not have spotted.

Standing Wolf
June 23, 2005, 06:31 PM
That Lautenberg creature welcomed the camel's nose into the tent. How long will it be before parking tickets disqualify people from exercising our Second Amendment civil rights.

Disorderly conduct isn't domestic violence. That sheriff needs to be taken to court in a serious way.

Jammer Six
June 23, 2005, 07:18 PM
hose facts are the genesis of his defense at the CCW hearing, and I'd like to learn of any flaws I may not have spotted.
The main one is the obvious one, the same one that is the mainstay of civilian carry: avoidance, deterrance, and de-escalation.

Don't get drunk. Don't force fights with your wife when she's been drinking, assuming that you're brilliant enough to marry a woman who gets drunk.

De-escalate the fight. Postphone it until the next morning, after coffee.

I'm sick of excuses about why physical confrontations happen between mates. They don't happen to me, I've learned how to avoid them, starting with my selection of mates.

Grow up. Learn to deal with life without confrontations, at LEAST with your wife.

This wasn't new. If the kids were that age, he knew, it's happened before.

My father told me that every man lives exactly as he wants to, no exceptions.

Dad was right.

GT
June 23, 2005, 08:45 PM
Dayum!

That woman NEEDS a good beatin after putting your buddy through all that crap (some humor).

I sure hope she is behaving herself like a good little wife and not stepping out of line.

When the JBT's are out to get you, you don't need your family screwing you over too.

As far as wives are concerned, I have been married 25 years.
The one time I gave her a black eye:
We were driving through Manhattan and she got mad at me for some imagined slight and proceeded to smack me in the head repeatedly. As I was driving, avoiding other traffic AND negotiating a left turn I put my hand out to stop the worst of the blows without looking at her specifically.
My hand accidently connected with her eye, result: black eye.

I had to stop the car and pull over because I was laughing so hard.

Yeah, women can be violent. Fortunately my wife is slender and does not pack much of a wallop.

Your mileage (and poundage) may vary

G

Tory
June 23, 2005, 08:53 PM
Our Resident Defender of Hearth and Home declares:

"Seriously, the state does not have business inside of people's homes. There is no justification for this kind of intrusive crap, and no, I don't consider malum in se [sic] stuff trivial, but yes, statutes based on He said/She said and giving an unfair advantage to one party is bogus, thank you very much."

First, it's malum per se; not "in se." Second, that is only one of two classes of crime. Third, your assertion that "the state does not have business inside of people's homes" ignores logic and the facts.

The police were CALLED to the home, Ace. I'm betting that, once they arrived, they were LET in. That makes any 4th and 5th Amendment issues (neither of which you even suggested, still less argued) a nullity.

It is probably news to you, but exigent circumstances, hot pursuit and consent all negate any requirement of a warrant. And there is not, and has never been, an absolute immunity merely because one is in one's home in any social order I am familiar with. Do enlighten us with a factual and legal basis for your sweeping generalization.

If you want to cling to the delusion that you have a magic moat around your home, enjoy the fantasy. Logic and law hold otherwise. :rolleyes:

GT
June 23, 2005, 08:55 PM
But Jammer, you have to realize, not everyone is perfect like you.

Some of us make mistakes. Some of us say stupid things. Some of us marry the wrong people. Some of us feel that arguments and heated discussion (and maybe even your wife going upside your head on occasion) are cathartic in a relationship.

My wife is also my business partner :uhoh:

Can you imagine the stress of living and working with your wife for 25 years?

I didn't think so.

When you critique people for not being perfect it reflects worse on you than on them.

G

BigG
June 23, 2005, 09:52 PM
Malum in se -- What does it mean? Where does it fit?

Malum in se
An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

copyright | about us | help I thought you were a myrmidon, and an unread one at that. Next time, look it up (if you can). ;) :neener:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/malum_in_se.htm

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 10:06 PM
It would be nice if things worked like that in the real world, Jammer. For me they in fact have, but I've been lucky. So have you. That can change at any time, and often does. And no offense to your dad but no, he most certainly was not right.

Hawkmoon
June 23, 2005, 10:16 PM
DCR --

Thanks for the additional details. They clarify the situation (to me, at least), and demonstrate the exact point I was trying to make. SHE was the aggressor, but because she also was first to dial the phone, she got her story believed, and he was arrested.

That's bad enough, but it sounds like the cops didn't bother to ask either of two kids what happened and how it happened. Bad police work.

And then there's the policy in many jurisdictions (or maybe all jurisdictions, I don't really know) that whenever they respond to a call for a domestic dispute, there MUST be an arrest. For heaven's sake ... WHY? That's just like "zero tolerance" rules at grammar school, where kids are being suspended for pointing a finger at another kid and saying "Bang!" I mean, where's the room for common sense? Why can't the cops come to the house, talk to the couple for 20 minutes, and if they can see that everybody is calmed down just go along and leave well enough alone. But no ... every once in awhile an aggressor fools them and offs the partner 5 minutes after the cops leave, so now it has become S.O.P. that there must be an arrest every time they respond to a domestic.

Sheer idiocy.

one45auto
June 24, 2005, 03:46 AM
WT,

You must have married a good woman, one who does not mistreat you and therefore having such a marriage - one in which you're not exposed to such situations, you naturally look down upon them with considerable judgment. But not everyone is so fortunate.

My ex-wife was verbally and physically abusive. She would frequently strike and push me while doing her best to goad me into hitting her by calling me the foulest names and insulting or mocking my family. She'd also scream out things like "you want to kill me?!?" in a tone of voice designed to reach our neighbors ears, presumably to prejudice them against me and bolster a case. Several times she threw objects at me which left bruises and marks. Once she even threatened me with a carving knife.

Believe me, you don't ever want to know what that's like. You can't fight back, no matter how badly you want to defend yourself, because the law will not support you. In school, bullies are punished but as adults they're protected and if they're female they can quite literally act with impunity. Violence is easier for women to commit because they know that societal perception is on thier side. Had I knocked her into next week in self-defense you can bet your last round of ammunition that by the time the police arrived she'd have turned on the tears and portrayed herself as the innocent victim brutalized by an angry husband. Who do you think the officers would have believed? A petite, crying woman with a bruise or the husband twice her size?

If you think I am exaggerating, think again. Two men I knew personally were likewise attacked by thier wives. One had his Korean wife attempted to run him through with a butcher knife and after wresting the knife away from her in a desperate struggle (they were actually rolling around on the floor) he called the police. When they arrived they walked straight up to his wife - without so much as asking who had called or even what had happened, and asked her flat out if she wanted to press charges. Another man's Filipino wife repeatedly attacked him and had it not been for the hidden camera he'd secretly placed in thier living room he'd have been arrested because the officers didn't believe his story, either. Remember Tonya Harding? She repeatedly struck her boyfriend in the face with a hubcap in front of several neighbors and received only community service. Do you think a man would have been treated so leniently if he'd committed the same offense?

I'm not so quick to judge in this case. If she shoved him first then I can understand why he returned the favor. It's not something I would have done, but I can see his point of view.

thorn726
June 24, 2005, 03:34 PM
my friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match
uh, yeah. out in public? and pushing/shoving?

not exactly who i want with a ccw.
SHE was the aggressor

but he didnt walk away, he stayed, continued yelling and shoving.
that is why he loses.

One45Auto- i just got out of a simialr situation myself, and in this modern world- i deserved the black eye for saying bad words.
i am the evil one because when she yelled kicked and screamed- i stayed and yelled back.
a man is not een allowed to rasie his voice to a woman anymore, but they can beat you senseless..

and oh it isnt wrong for the guy to lie about how he got the black eye, he should not make the woman look bad. BUT woman should make sure everyone knows man does so much as yell

Tory
June 24, 2005, 05:50 PM
" Malum in se -- What does it mean? Where does it fit?"

Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) on Page 978, Column 2:

Also termed malum per se

Now that we've played Dictionary, address the two substantive issues you are so studiously avoiding.

Here; I'll refresh your memory:

Second, that is only one of two classes of crime. Third, your assertion that "the state does not have business inside of people's homes" ignores logic and the facts.

Jammer Six
June 25, 2005, 01:45 AM
If you can't hold your temper with your spouse, I don't want you to have a weapon.

Cesiumsponge
June 25, 2005, 02:38 AM
Believe me, you don't ever want to know what that's like. You can't fight back, no matter how badly you want to defend yourself, because the law will not support you.

Unfortunately there is an unwritten double standard when it comes to genders and domestic violence. "Wifebeater" and "deadbeat dad" are terms everyone is quick to throw around but a "husbandbeater" or "deadbeat mom" is far rarer and seemingly politically incorrect in a PC world. Women that you've been with, as you know, are very good at pressing your buttons and can be very persistent. Women can chase you down if you try to get away from an argument or dispute. They can, and might inflame you to the point of fight or flight. As mentioned by previous posters, some might attempt to get you to resort to physical violence, indulging in it themselves to provoke you.

The other day a man on the radio was speaking out on how his wife was hitting him a few years back (albiet not strong enough to hurt him badly) and it was a not an uncommon thing--the verbal and physical "abuse". None of it was serious (slaps and smacks) but the guy got sick of it. He ended up calling 911 to get her arrested. In a domestic abuse situation, the police have to make an arrest. When the police arrived, they offered to take the man in for a night in place of the wife presumably because he would take a bullet for her. Instead he made her spend a night in jail, rightfully so. Oddly enough, the marriage worked out just fine from that day on when her perceived invincibility failed.

In a world where everyone is crying for equality and ultra PC, there remains the longstanding idea that a lady's man "takes it like a man" when the lady of the house decides to scream, shout, and throw things at you. Complaining to police and others that your wife screams, shouts, and throws things at you can bruise your ego or get you laughed at even if it isn't enough to do you actual physical harm. You'll get called a sissy, pussy, or told that it's "part of the marriage package". If the actions were reversed, the man would find himself in jail very quickly. Of course, we hear arguments of "oh, she is to small of stature to do much damage" when you get slapped in the head, but the intent is there, independant of size or ability. Either way you cut it, there is a double standard here.

One might call me biased, but I grew up in a dysfunctional family (thankfully with no long term damage that I'm aware of) and seen a lot of stuff women can squeeze out of. It only takes one wrongfully charged domestic abuse count and you can lose a lot, including the ability to travel across the US/Canada border. I also seen situations (firsthand and relayed) of domestic violence where women have claimed untrue statements that got the spouse (or boyfriend) in deep trouble without any proof other than her word. You don't even need physical evidence anymore. Those who grew up in a normal family or are happily married might find it difficult to believe that human beings can act the way above unless one has lived through the same situations.

Quote:
SHE was the aggressor

but he didnt walk away, he stayed, continued yelling and shoving.
that is why he loses.


Sometimes walking away might not be an option afforded to you. At what point can he use self defense? A domestic quarrel can escalate into a situation that results in grave injury or death. In fact, it can be much more dangerous because someone's guard can be let down in such a situation and we've heard of plenty of fatalities resulting from domestic violence.

In any other situation on this forum, a scenario of someone being shoved and hit would result in a reaction of applying self-defense but we're supposed to think its okay for our signifigant others to use us as a punching bag and just take it? Say a wife of smaller stature than the husband isn't physically strong enough to hurt him with punches, then he can attempt to make an escape. What if the wife is equal in size or larger? What if she equalizes the lack of strength with airborne missiles or sharp objects? What about all the recent threads and articles posted here where some of us have clearly voiced our fears of the "one punch kill" and clearly stated they would be willing to excercise lethal force?

You're standing there in the living room getting nailed with dishes, tea kettle full of hot water, and all sorts of flying debris with screams of anger filling the air. You shout that you're going for the front door to get the eff out of there. She runs to the door into your path and refuses to move and starts hitting you. You grab her wrists in self defense at an attempt to stop getting hit. She gets bruised from the struggle and you go down for domestic violence charges when she calls the cops. You tried to walk away but she didn't let it happen.

That happened here.

I don't know what else you could do in the given situation, except cower in a corner and hope she calms down. Catch 22. Its generally hard for a man to come out on top of a domestic violence situation (provided he is actually innocent)

BluesBear
June 25, 2005, 06:14 AM
And yet people often ask me why I've never been married.

dfaugh
June 25, 2005, 08:48 AM
Unfortunately there is an unwritten double standard when it comes to genders and domestic violence. "Wifebeater" and "deadbeat dad" are terms everyone is quick to throw around but a "husbandbeater" or "deadbeat mom" is far rarer and seemingly politically incorrect in a PC world.

seen a lot of stuff women can squeeze out of. It only takes one wrongfully charged domestic abuse count and you can lose a lot, including the ability to travel across the US/Canada border. I also seen situations (firsthand and relayed) of domestic violence where women have claimed untrue statements that got the spouse (or boyfriend) in deep trouble without any proof other than her word. You don't even need physical evidence anymore.

See my earlier post...Acccusations of DV have become the "cause de juer(sp?)" in divorce, and custody hearings around here...Some are probably true, but (as in my case) many are false... But, the female will usually be believed before the male...I also tried to get custody of my children (costing me another $30k), but basically was told (eventually by several different lawyers) that "if she isn't a practicing prostitute, DOING IT IN FRONT OF THE KIDS, you'll NEVER get custody in this state."

You bet there's a double standard....

AlaskaErik
June 25, 2005, 11:52 AM
Which is why I detest such do-goodism as the Lautenberg Amendment. It's over-kill by a large degree.

The Lautenberg Amendment is not about good intentions, it's about finding one more reason to disarm America. Lautenberg is part of the DemocRATic Party's cabal of Second Amendment haters who are trying to gut it.

Erik

Curare
June 25, 2005, 12:26 PM
Domestic violence is real.

Domestic violence is targeted at women much more frequently than at men.

Dysfunctional relationships, continued needling, alcohol, statements like "a man's home is his castle," etc. do not validate domestic violence in any way.

If you raise a hand to your woman you are no longer a man--you are an animal.

WT
June 25, 2005, 12:38 PM
Curare - I agree.

Al Norris
June 25, 2005, 01:19 PM
DCR, that's Boise (Ada County) for you. It's rapidly become the second most liberal area of the State. (Second only to Blaine County, home of Sun Valley)

Give you the classic example: Idaho is a preemptive gun law state. No city, town, village or county may impose any gun law. Yet, go down to the Green Belt and what do you see? Signs prohibiting guns... They've been moved to be a lot less noticeable, since a certain stink in Garden City a few years ago, but they are still there.

I have a good friend that is one of the Green Belt volunteers. He just hates it that by city ordinance that he can't be armed while "on duty." (to be fair, he also signed a contract that states he won't be armed as a condition of the volunteer work.... Gotcha!!) Same ordinance says I can't be armed if I ride along with him. Guess what? I'm armed. I've also called their bluff several times. One nice young LEO threatened to arrest me. We were having a talk about permit holders and I made the mistake of saying, yes, when asked. I told him fine, let's go, then I'll sue you and the city for violation of my civil rights. He blinked. I didn't.

The fact that the Ada County Sheriff is interpreting this law in that manner is not news. Blaine County has done this since the BATF first made their ruling.

DCR, your the attorney. Sounds to me you have the CWP hearing pretty much sown up... Except it's Ada County! Could go either way.

If what you state are the facts, doesn't your friend have cause for appeal based on ineffective council? Sounds to me like the defense attorney was more worried about clearing his calender than adequately defending his client.

BTW, I'm over here in Rupert (Minidoka County). Where this kinda crap don't happen... Unless ya PO'd the Sheriff... We still run 'em outa town on rails here! :what:
:evil:

Intune
June 25, 2005, 01:43 PM
If you raise a hand to your woman you are no longer a man--you are an animal.
If you let anyone beat, stab, shoot, choke, garrote, bludgeon or perform any other serious trauma on you without raising a hand in defense -- you are an idiot. Being manly or womanly has nothing to do with it.

I've seen a woman (I have no idea who she belonged to, she wasn't my woman or "your woman..." ((I love that one)) Chauvinistic posturing aside...) who got punched full in the face by a guy and she was lucky he didn't return the favor of stabbing HER between the shoulder blades. She was still talking trash through a mouthful of blood. Oh, and he had just gotten stabbed when he tried to walk away from the "kinder, gentler" sex.

Curare
June 25, 2005, 02:18 PM
If you let anyone beat, stab, shoot, choke, garrote, bludgeon or perform any other serious trauma on you without raising a hand in defense -- you are an idiot. Being manly or womanly has nothing to do with it.

Who is dismissing the right to self defense here?

Also, "your woman" may imply familiarity with--not ownership. Nuances, nuances...

dfaugh
June 25, 2005, 02:49 PM
Domestic violence is targeted at women much more frequently than at men.

Got figures?...While I believe that is probably true, I suspect that its not "much" more frequently...I suspect violence against males is heavily underreported.

Seen both sides of the coin, in several situations I'm familiar with.

But, because of the perception you mention, a woman is more likely to be believed than a man, which is wrong....

Curare
June 25, 2005, 03:15 PM
90 - 95% of domestic violence victims are women.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings: Violence Between Intimates (NCJ-149259), November 1994.

As many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.

Much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence.
Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998).

The chance of being victimized by an intimate is 10 times greater for a woman than a man.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: National Crime Victimization Survey, Violence Against Women, 1994.

70% of intimate homicide victims are female.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings: Violence Between Intimates (NCJ-149259), November 1994.

American Bar Association DV Stats (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html)

Brett Bellmore
June 25, 2005, 03:33 PM
Two words: Recording bias.

Hawkmoon
June 25, 2005, 05:20 PM
If you raise a hand to your woman you are no longer a man--you are an animal.
BS
Who is dismissing the right to self defense here?
You are. Read your own words above.

thorn726
June 25, 2005, 05:58 PM
Quote:
SHE was the aggressor

but he didnt walk away, he stayed, continued yelling and shoving.
that is why he loses.


Sometimes walking away might not be an option afforded to you. At what point can he use self defense?


oh i am with you, but that's not the way the law sees it.

i think those stats are way off, i second the recording bias.

BUT- the thing is , abusive women rarely have much real control over their men, and dont inflict serious injuries often= ultimately the man is not totally unsatisfied, so puts up with it = and is genreally not as financially trapped in the relationship as the woman.
but you have situations. I - burned myself. i let an abusive woman have too much power over my finances by letting her loan me money, so i had to take abuse. but still it isnt the situation too many women are in- man gets her pregnant, then she's stuck at home, no money ,etc.
trapped for real.
so the thing is society accepts it, when a man is getting abused, he must deserve it, or enjoy it.
"If you got a real job and dressed better i wouldnt have to scream at you!"
it's ok coming from a woman.

really, a man can use self defense the same as he could against any other threat- but consider the strength ratio- 99 times out of a hundred, its a joke.
i mean my ex hit me square in the face a few times. sure , she gave me a slight black eye.
but what if i had hit her back? oh man. never. she'd be in the hospital, it would be like hitting a little kid. i dont even reflex like that because- well like i said, it would be over the top too much
i think more often than not alcohol is involved, and people forget the size difference.
so unless she's a real tough hulk ready to box you, theres never gonna be reason to hit a lady. restrain or run away from, maybe

Oleg Volk
June 25, 2005, 06:04 PM
Anecdotally, over 80% of the domestic abuse I know of is done by women. By abuse I mean battery or aggravated battery. Short of responding to such an attack as one would to an attack by a stranger, I see no solution. At least, one can run home to shelter from a stranger. There's no place to hide from an abusive family member.

I know that I don't have the best judgement when it comes to picking mates. The thought of a lifetime commitment to someone potentially crazy and/or abusive is now very daunting.

If women I know were getting mistreated as the men I know are getting mistreated, their spouses would have been removed before long. Men either try to shrug off or tough out the abuse or deem it an evidence of spirit in their wives or simply have no idea what to do. Especially men who do not consider themselves desirable in the dating market or feel that their kids are hostages to their meek behavior, stay with women who literally knock them bloody regularly or engage in other forms of abuse.

My posters may feature women willing to defend themselves, but often it is men who need to protect themselves despite their conditioning to treat ladies differently. The best defense is not getting involved with crazy trash, but hormonal changes or other causes may change a previously sane person to a domestic enemy. This may be why I've become much more careful with who I date, and even more careful about whom I'd consider suitable as a mate (no one, currently). The person I pick has to be sane and stable, as well as self-sufficient and personable. Very few such people I know, and none of them mesh with me on a romantic level.

beerslurpy
June 25, 2005, 06:11 PM
I'm never getting married, at least not on paper. The only difference between marriage and domestic cohabitation is that marriage gives another person rights to everything you have acquired through cleverness and hard work.

Seems like a prime invitation to dishonesty.

This country is really messed up in that it is actively discouraged for a man to be a breadwinner and for the wife to take care of the children. The government seems to want a nation of single moms dependent on the government to squeeze men for child support. Of course the mom wont actually get enough to raise her children and she will have to work and leave the children with the government to be raised.

Outrageous.

Monkeyleg
June 25, 2005, 06:28 PM
I guess I can thank my lucky stars that no neighbors called the police back in the late 1970's, or I wouldn't be posting on a gun forum today.

My wife and I had so many shouting fights that I can't begin to count them.

If that makes me a bad guy, so be it.

beerslurpy
June 25, 2005, 06:41 PM
Thats the problem. Any healthy marriage will involve shouting or even throwing things from time to time. The problems arise from this newfangled notion that it is a citizen's duty to call the police at the slightest disturbance amongst your neighbors or when you think there is the slightest chance you could get hurt from a spirited argument.

People also seem to have no concept anymore of the DUTY of marriage. People stay married as long as it is fun or convenient. I cant even count the number of people that get married after knowing someone for a few months and then are shocked when it falls apart a 2 years and a child later. It seems like many of us behave no better than animals in heat. We couple for as long as it takes to ensure the child is born and then everyone decides it is just too inconvenient.

Cesiumsponge
June 25, 2005, 07:17 PM
Domestic violence is targeted at women much more frequently than at men.

You mean to say domestic victimization against women is more frequently reported than domestic victimization against men? All the statistics in the world won’t do a bit of good if the people refuse to give accurate accounts. It is interesting to note these statistics look at end results of domestic violence in which the situation came to blows and the man wins because he is physically larger and able to cause more damage. Oddly enough, there aren’t refinements such as domestic assault or attempts to assault the other party.

The police show up and both parties claim the other was throwing punches. In most cases, a woman throwing a punch isn’t going to leave broken bones or bruises. That is a physiological fact of life. The man throws one punch and chances are the woman will go down for the count. The intent from either party is the same, but the ability to execute the intent differs greatly between the genders.

You can’t squeak out of murder since there is a body there as evidence. When it comes to something less black and white reported calls on domestic violence, where both sides can often be equally guilty, it is often that only one side takes the entire blame. I’m not dismissing the statistics at all. However, how many men do you know will call the cops if he gets slapped in the face and try to convince police that it was domestic violence that caused great physical harm? How many men will have physical evidence of their abuse that will get the wife in trouble? Will his honest word be enough to convict a violent spouse? Not likely. I can’t think of one. I’ve gotten answers of:
“I deserved what I got”
“I’m a man, I can take it”
“I can’t let people know my wife hits me”
“I’m used to it, this is part of the marriage”
Embarrassment and shame seems to be a present emotion.
Denial, justifying it with “its not bad enough to injure me”
Reluctance to end a relationship (both genders are guilty of this one)

Now, how many women do you think would hesitate to call the police if a hand is raised to them? I grew up witnessing the above firsthand, which is why I am so adamant about this. I’ll tell you right now my old man never called the police on my mom for what she’s done numerous times and he got arrested when he decided to defend himself on one incident. I guess he contributed to the domestic violence statistic as one more man abusing a woman.

Women are taught since elementary school that they have to call police when they are physically attacked in a relationship irregardless of actual harm or not. Males are NOT taught the same thing. Female based crime and violence is on the rise and has been documented statistically…either that or it’s being more accurately tallied in statistics.

Dysfunctional relationships, continued needling, alcohol, statements like "a man's home is his castle," etc. do not validate domestic violence in any way.

Alcohol isn’t strictly a male vice. Women can, and have been known to drink too. In fact, I could have sworn I’ve seen a woman at a bar before drinking alcohol. I’d like to see how the double standard of the female version of “this is my house, get out” doesn’t count as domestic violence. It works so well when she starts throwing your belongings and throwing you out of the house and you have no recourse of action except sleeping at a friend’s house or motel until things “blow over”.

If you raise a hand to your woman you are no longer a man--you are an animal.

What about the reverse? A woman isn’t considered an animal if she slaps you because…you deserved it and were an insensitive jerk? Since when does someone deserve being physically attacked? Since when is there a justifiable excuse to hit someone? This gender bias is such a norm that I’ve seen a guy getting slapped around with his wife or girlfriend’s purse in a crowded mall while yelling and no one batted an eyebrow to it. The guy covered his head with his hands and tried to walk away but she followed him with the ‘ol purse a swingin’ away. What do you do in this situation when you revert to flight mode while being followed and physically attacked?

BUT- the thing is , abusive women rarely have much real control over their men, and dont inflict serious injuries often

Ahh but the intent is the same whether she is all of 5’ 90lbs or a 6’6” Amazon. Basically some of us are reinforcing the idea that battering men is okay because most women aren’t strong enough to hurt their male partners. Therefore, if it doesn’t cause physical harm or death, then it is okay. Then, when we’re being battered by the women and no longer can find a way to “weather it out”, we defend ourselves and end up getting in trouble for all of it. Sorry, that is baloney logic. Women have the potential to be as violent as men. Statistically, mothers make up the majority of children abused and killed in a family as compared to fathers. That alone would invalidate the “innocent flower incapable of harming others” mentality. I suppose it can be argued that the frustrations are taken out on children but I won’t stretch to make that connection.

As mentioned, a healthy marriage has ups and downs. It’s been well researched that a marriage has high and low phases. I cannot think of such a case where a marriage has existed without any arguments whatsoever. However, you can’t even yell at your wife now or she has the option of calling it verbal abuse, which carries the same ramifications of being domestic violence.

I don’t know how it’s possible, but a lot of people are oblivious to the large anti-male stereotyping going on. It isn’t just domestic violence cases. It stretches to prison sentences, aquittal rates, even justification for crimes (“I was on the rag”). Granted, there are areas where men will have the upper hand on women, but I find it hard to believe that women claim they got the short end of the stick everywhere when it clearly isn’t the case.

I can see two types of people posting on this thread. Those that have gone through domestic violence and can verify the bias and injustice present…and those that have escaped it, lead a happy life, and don’t know it’s a real problem since they haven’t experienced it firsthand.

BluesBear
June 25, 2005, 07:55 PM
90 - 95% of domestic violence victims are women.As many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male. I'm calling BS on those. And anyone who believes them for more than one nanosecond is an idiot.
Two words: Recording bias. There you go.

We all know than large numbers of rape are never reported well I'll wager that the large majority of woman against man voilence is never reported.
Ask anyone who ever worked in a nightclub, tavern, honkey-tonk, whatever you call them in your region. Ask them how many times they;ve seen a woman go off on a man and he does nothing. Ask any door man how many women they've had to carry out in a bear hug to stop them from fighting because the only other option they had was to hit them.
Hell's Bells™ don't ask them ask me. I've wager I've seen it happen more than anyone here.

You'll find that a man just won't admit to being hit by a woman. At least he won't admit it to the authorities.

Where I come from we were taught by our fathers to never hit a woman. The trouble is that no one was teaching that same philosophy to the women.

Let's face it. People in relationships know how to press the buttons. And many of them know just when and where to push.
On of the principals of War is to make your enemy mad enough to do something stupid.
One of the principals of Survival is to not let anyone know you did something stupid.


As Chris Rock said,
"I believe you should never hit a woman.
Now I'd never hit my woman...


But I know how he felt."

GT
June 25, 2005, 08:32 PM
The government seems to want a nation of single moms dependent on the government to squeeze men for child support. Of course the mom wont actually get enough to raise her children and she will have to work and leave the children with the government to be raised.

A winner!

Yes, the Socialist plan is to make everyone wards of the State.

This is what all this is ultimately about.
A group starts out to right a real or perceived wrong (in this case "Wifebeating"). Once that is acheived the group is co-opted by Socialists to promote a Socialist agenda and make everyone criminals and wards of the State.

G

Barbara
June 25, 2005, 09:01 PM
Nah. Never mind. It was practically rhetorical anyway. :)

one45auto
June 25, 2005, 09:34 PM
Ok, then, boys..step right up and tell us about it..not anecdotal evidence, though..I want to know about your own experiences.

Which ones of you have been beaten? Needed medical treatment? Have permanent physical damage? Hidden from someone you thought was going to kill you? Been stalked? Had to move to prevent someone from finding you and hurting you.

Come..be men and tell the truth..it happens all the time, right? There's 18,000 of you here..surely a couple of you have been hospitalized by violent women..cause I'm telling you right now, if you have 18,000 women in a room, you're going to find more than one or two that have had broken bones or miscarriages because they were beaten.


I see how this feminine double standard works. The degree of injury is what denotes abuse, not actions. Because women aren't as strong as men and theoretically cannot inflict equal physical damage with thier bare hands, it just isn't the same. We should overlook the woman who ran her ex over with a Mercedes a year or so back, as well as the wife who stabbed her husband to death because he wanted to eat his dinner in the bedroom, or maybe we should all ignore the 78 year-old grandmother who shot and killed her 85 year-old boyfriend because he was dating someone else? I mean none of those men were beaten, miscarried, had a broken bone, etc., so I guess that doesn't rise to the same level. The fact that women don't use bare hands but rather knives, clubs, firearms, automobiles, poison, and so on is irrelevant.

Okay, I get it now.

Curare
June 25, 2005, 11:03 PM
You are using the tactics of an anti. Well done!

You bring up a few high profile incidents that are highly irregular--just like an anti denouncing "assault weapons" based on a few high profile but outlying crimes.

The reality is that many more women have been put into the ground than men through DV homicides (kind of a hard stat to argue with I might add). The reason you remember those news stories is that they received so much attention based on their novelty--women killing men. :rolleyes:

Monkeyleg
June 25, 2005, 11:17 PM
Seems like many here are all for creating special classes of crimes.

Stabbing someone is a lesser crime than shooting someone. The answer to how that came about explains where we are with "hate crimes" and "domestic violence" crimes.

Hit/punch/push someone of a race, creed or religion other than your own, and you get an extra penalty.

Slap/punch/push/shout at your Frat buddy, and you're OK. Do the same to a person you live with and you're toast.

Cesiumsponge
June 26, 2005, 12:45 AM
The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the writers are all over the map and contradicting in their various studies.

In their 2002 study and plotted graph, it shows just under 500 men were murdered by an intimate (defined as a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend). Just under 1200 women were murdered. Using basic mathematics, a 500:1200 ratio is approximately 1:2.4 or 29.4% men murdered an 70.6% women murdered. That’s not anywhere near 95%. According to the same graph, which goes back to 1975, about 1500 from either gender was murdered by an intimate, with women victims slightly higher in 1975.

The BJS also states during various fact sheets and reports, such as "Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties" NCJ-153256 or NCJ 143498:

-Men receive prison sentences 2.7 times longer than women for the same crime.
-Men are 16% more likely to be imprisoned if convicted as compared to women.
-Men are one fifth as likely as women to be acquitted for the same crime.
-Wives are twice as likely as husbands to kill their spouse with a knife.
-Boyfriend victims were more likely to be killed by knives than any other group of intimates.
-1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. This would contradict the 90-95% figure. That would translate to 64% of women being victims of physical violence, not 95%

-66% of males who killed their intimates had been drinking, compared to 37% of the women. 22% of males had been using drugs, compared to 3% among women. More men have killed intimates under mind altering substances. More women have killed intimites under a clear, lucid mind.
-11% of the males who killed their wives had a history of mental illness compared to 15% of the female defendants.
-50% of the husbands used a firearm, compared to 58% of the wives.
-19% of the husbands used a knife, compared to 37% of the wives.
-3% of the husbands and 6% of the wives were charged with contract killings.
-30% of the wives and 13% of the husbands either were not prosecuted or were found not guilty after being tried for domestic violence.

Using information from the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3), US Department of Health and Human Services and relating care of children exclusively under either gender:
-Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only Households than in Father-only Households, and 73 times more likely in households where the mother cohabits.
-Compared to biological fathers, children are 59 times more likely to be fatally abused by women. Excluded is SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) which, if labled as murder, would increase the fatal child abuse rate by mothers by 4-10 fold.
-3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each year, more than 90% of which are false.

You can throw around statistics collaborated from “reported incidences”. If someone isn’t going to report the incident, the statistic is no good. Domestic violence statistics depend on reports made by women or men calling 911 to report an incident. If a man gets slapped and won't call, it ain't going to make the statistic and will end up as underrepresented. Domestic violence statistics are along the same lines in terms of accuracy as rape statistics or penis length statistics. The DOJ cites that 500,000 women claim to be raped or sexually assaulted a year but only 15,000 men are convicted per year. When there isn't a cold dead body as evidence, statistics start heading towards the gray area of he said she said.

Never forget that you can make statistics to look like whatever your heart desires. I would think we’ve all learned this by now.





*edit, just out of curiosity, I spent 5 minutes using Google's news service and came up with the following. If you think the aforementioned cases of women assaulting or killing men (intimates or otherwise) were “just isolated media circus incidents”…look what I found in a matter of a few minutes time on Google News, all within a 30 days of age.

Wife Stabs Hubby With Pen and hit him over the head with a 3-pound dumbbell. To Make Him Stop Snoring
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/features/strangenews/wabc_061705_strangenews_snoringstabbing.html

Woman Assaults Daughter's School Bus Driver
http://www.nbc4.com/news/4562612/detail.html

Police Say Lubbock Woman Stabs Boyfriend to Death
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=3492312

Woman Stabs Boyfriend After An Argument in Tampa
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBT1IWOP9E.html

woman was arrested for beating up her four-year-old son over P100 bill
http://www.thefreeman.com/local/story-20050611-31496.html

Woman Assaults Leonardo DiCaprio with Beer Bottle
http://www.nationalledger.com/scribe/archives/2005/06/report_woman_as.shtml

Woman shoots and kills husband on Father's Day
http://www.parisbeacon.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1338&Itemid=

UAE WOMAN SHOOTS HUSBAND WHILE HE SLEEPS
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2005/June/theuae_June430.xml&section=theuae

Woman Kills Husband in His Sleep With Tractor Axle
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200506201108-1025-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia

Mother kills four babies 'to hold on to boyfriend'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1639909,00.html

Woman Shoots At Deputy, Turns Gun On Self At Taco Bell
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4574082/detail.html

Woman, 78, kills 85-year-old former lover
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1119702643284530.xml&coll=2

Mother kills 3 kids, herself
http://newstodaynet.com/24jun/ld1.htm

Mother kills her two daughters due to marital dispute
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050531/2005053128.html

Woman kills sons, attempts suicide
http://www.hindu.com/lf/2005/06/09/stories/2005060915530200.htm

Ex-wife murders millionaire with hallucinogen
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/09/content_3062218.htm

Granted you will find wife stabbers and shooters too, but please don't for one instance try to convince us that there is no other side to the story.

artherd
June 26, 2005, 01:37 AM
It's hard for me to accept that yelling (or "hollering and pushing", as was specified) is "violence".

You do NOT touch another person if the contact is unwelcome! PERIOD!

You sure don't plead it down to 'spare her the trial...'.

There will not be a trial withought a cooperative whitness, pure and simple.


This guy is either a moron, or a wife-beater, and in either case should probally not be carrying.

All that said, the DV statues are too far-reaching for my taste.

Curare
June 26, 2005, 01:41 AM
The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the writers are all over the map and contradicting in their various studies. In their 2002 study and plotted graph, it shows just under 500 men were murdered by an intimate (defined as a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend). Just under 1200 women were murdered. Using basic mathematics, a 500:1200 ratio is approximately 1:2.4 or 29.4% men murdered an 70.6% women murdered. That’s not anywhere near 95%. According to the same graph, which goes back to 1975, about 1500 from either gender was murdered by an intimate, with women victims slightly higher in 1975.

70.6%--exactly!!! Look at my post above:

70% of intimate homicide victims are female.

You've proven the numbers correct--thanks for verifying that. The 95% figure wasn't for homicides. ;)

Cesiumsponge
June 26, 2005, 01:52 AM
You've proven the numbers correct--thanks for verifying that. The 95% figure wasn't for homicides.

That 95% figure supplied by the BJS is contradicted by another one of their own figures I previously posted, specifically from the Nov. 1998 Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey

-1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate.

Oops, now we have contradiction from the same source, except mine is 4 years newer. Its also an often used tactic to pick out one mistake in a long post, focus on it, and casually dismiss the rest :D

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 02:06 AM
No one has really addressed the question of whether the government should be trying to fix everyone's marriage, nor whether they should be denying the constitutional rights of people based on how loud they fight with their spouse.

If your husband mistreats you, leave him.
It isnt the government's responsibility to put an end to wife-beatings.
It is the wifes responsibility.
It takes two to have an abusive relationship.

Anyone who proposes a government solution to maritial strife is a socialist trying to squeeze something in through the back door. We have all seen the wonderful effect of government action upon marriages in this country in the past few decades. We have what, a 70 percent divorce rate? Scandalous.

Curare
June 26, 2005, 03:07 AM
We have all seen the wonderful effect of government action upon marriages in this country in the past few decades. We have what, a 70 percent divorce rate? Scandalous.

It's interesting that you ignore personal responsibility as a major component in marriage. It's convenient to blame the government for our ills--isn't it? Just like some of my patients blame their parents for their bad choices.

People have suggested in this thread that domestic violence is most often the fault of women--do you advocate this position? Do you ignore the cold hard fact that 70% of domestic murder victims are women?

FYI, my wife and I have argued, but we've never struck eachother. My stunning wife and I chose mates without substance and physical abuse problems. We dated for years to make sure we were happy, stable, and compatible. My wife and I own our own home, paid cash for our modest cars, invest heavily, and have no credit card debt. My wife and I share 5 degrees, including my MD. We have many polar opposite political, social, and religious views--and we thrive off the diversity and learn from it. We've made made good decisions and we are reaping the rewards of our hard work. I view my wife as my equal, and I will never raise a hand to her. This is the reality that we've created.

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 03:15 AM
The source of the problem of wife beating is personal. Obviously. Just like the sources of poverty, crime and stupidity are personal. The question is whether the solution should be a government one.

The government creates a solution to prevent a rare tragedy and ends up breaking the entire system through its constant interference. Domestic violence laws dont just extend to stopping wife beating. It also extends to stopping potential wife beating, taking children from their parents and allowing women to more easily expel their husbands from the house and use the government to extract money from them. It is an attack on the institutions of Marriage and Family in this country.

The real solution to wifebeating is found with the people who are participating in it. If they dont want it to happen any longer, then they should take efforts to make it stop happening. It is that simple. If they cant resolve the probem themlselves, what makes you think that having a 3rd party intefere will be any more effective?

It is not my business to interfere with the miserable (but voluntary) relationships of other people. Nor should it be the business of government.

Curare
June 26, 2005, 03:24 AM
It is not my business to interfere with the miserable (but voluntary) relationships of other people. Nor should it be the business of government.

I absolutely agree--where have I suggested that it's the responsibility of the government to resolve domestic violence or the threat of domestic violence?

I think the goverment should stay the hell out of our homes--if people were responsible and used good judgement, government wouldn't have to get involved.

Jammer Six
June 26, 2005, 03:27 AM
It isnt the government's responsibility to put an end to wife-beatings.
A favorite refrain of wife beaters everywhere is that it's no one else's business.

Here's a flash, stud: I make violence, either direction, my business, and I only vote for politicians who will turn that view into policy.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 07:41 AM
No, one45auto, you're the one saying the problems are equal. I was asking for evidence of it. .

If 3 times as many women are dying as men, I'd say domestic violence against women is the bigger problem right now. Feel free to donate all you want to men-only shelters..I'm not going to stop you. I won't even start a thread complaining about it.

I've noticed this pattern time and time again here.

Poster 1: Such and such happens to women (rape, domestic violence, whatever.)
Poster 2: It's those evil women. They're making problems out of nothing. Lautenberg Amendment! Evil Temptress! Feminazis liberal dogs! Wah! If they do get beat, its their own fault for putting up with it! They probably dress like hookers, too!
Poster 3: Well, it happens to men, too. Not very often, but it does and that's wrong, too, and should be taken into account when looking for solutions.
Poster 2: See, it is a huge problem! but those evil women don't want to admit its a problem for men! Why don't we see men being treated as the victims we are? It's all a scam to create single family homes where men are nothing more than sperm donors and all women can suck off their hard work through welfare! If men get beat, its because they're sweet and kind. If women get beat its because they're too stupid to end it. Those poor, poor men..there oughta be a law banning women who hit men from owning guns!


Seriously, folks..more women don't post here because this stuff gets old really, really fast. Most of us are not obnoxious enough to stay where we're not wanted, me apparently being an exception.

(and lest we hear more complaints about me not posting gun-related stuff:
I own a SA XD-9, a Sig P232, a S&W .22 A, and a Marlin Model 60. I'd really like a 20 ga. to shoot trap with, but alas, more guns will have to wait until my children are grown, I'm afraid. I also have an M1 Garand that is not mine but is on long term loan, and I shoot it about every two weeks, although it gets pretty pricey and not being supported by any person or government agency (despite being one of those evil single parents!) I sometimes have to make a decision between gas and ammo. I'm also president of a gun rights organization comprised of several hundred people, mostly, believe it or not, men, most of which who actually like me and stuff..go figure. This, however, would be why I post more on gun rights than I do on shooting itself. I prefer to read and learn about guns and don't feel I have anything of much value to share on shooting, (although I am trying to get a friend to make me some of those Nylatron bullets to try!) Obviously, I believe my knowledge of gun rights and women's issues is better than my knowledge of ballistics and firearms models, so that's what I post about.)

dfaugh
June 26, 2005, 07:46 AM
For researching and coming up with REALISTIC (if still possibly biased by under reporting) statistics. Those numbers are far closer to what I have seen "in real life", as well as what my gut tells me is reality.

As far as "walking away" from an abusive relationship, well, I just don't get this sometimes...In the past few years, I've dated 2 different women who came from abusive relationships.

The first, admitted to being verbally abused (never admitted to physical abuse, but suspect it was there at least occasionally, from things she said) as well as being totally controlled by her husband for 27 years. Marriage ended when HE left her, abruptly. Had all sorts of rationalizations for his behavior (and hers). I treated her as a woman SHOULD be treated....But to make a long story short, she wasn't (at this point anyway) able to have a "normal" relationship.

The second had lived with a guy for several years, and apparently they fought alot...From what I could gather (and then from my own experience) she was frequently the instigator (especially when drinking, which it turns out she had a big problem with.) On more than one occasion she tried to "pick a fight" w/ me(always after too much to drink), not physically (although I'm sure she was capable of it) and was only made angrier when I wouldn't play along (Usually I just left.) Always apologetic the day after,but unable to change the pattern she'd grown used to, as it would always happen again.

Not even sure entirely what my point is here, other than DV can be "enabled", and that apparently some people (my examples are women,but could just as well be men.) feel that this is an acceptable....lifestyle?

Not trying to judge anyone here either, but I wonder what statistics wouldbe like if we removed some of the instances where someone stays far too long....

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 07:50 AM
Yeah..you konw the thing is, I know violent women, and some of them are flat out psycho and should be locked up..but its a short path from saying that to having someone tell you that violent women are a *bigger* problem than violent men.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 07:53 AM
Dfaugh, I think location matters a lot, too. I know here, there is a huge pressure on women to make the relationship work, regardless of the problems..a lot of women, especially older ones, stayed out of a sense of duty. I'm not sure its like that everywhere, and definitely not so much in the past couple of decades.

dfaugh
June 26, 2005, 09:59 AM
Where did I once say that violent women were a bigger problem than violent men?

I'll go over the points of my posts, in abbreviated form:

1) Women are more likely to be considered the "victim" in any case of MUTUAL DV. Because of this they are also more likely to be believed if they lie about supposed abuse.

2) DV can be one sided, but it can also be two-sided. And it can be one-sided with the female being the agressor.

3) There are often "irrational" motivations/justifications on BOTH sides.

4) In most cases of he said/she said, the women wins, OFTEN wrongly(See #1).

Sounds to me like you have BIG chip on your shoulder (Yes, I have one too....being falsely accused of abuse will do that to you....but mine's a small one.)

Intune
June 26, 2005, 11:14 AM
Who is dismissing the right to self defense here? You are.

Also, "your woman" may imply familiarity with--not ownership. Nuances, nuances... Precisely. I was yanking your chain. Well, me & the old :eek: lady were.

We also enjoyed your post detailing your careful selection of a mate. Good thing you didn’t marry “down.” It would have never worked. Don’t get yer scrubs in an uproar, I’m yankin’ again. :rolleyes: Her parents just celebrated their fifty-year anniversary with his eighth-grade education and Mom’s nursing degree. Good thing for that sheepskin or they’d have never made it! Oh, their net worth of well into seven figures that he brought in through his oil & cattle acumen just about covers the counseling they receive to avoid pummeling each other on a daily basis. :cuss: It’s just hard to resist a good right cross that results in a satisfying cartilage crunch. 50 years of pure hell, ask either one of them. :rolleyes: My wife & I are at 15yrs & look forward to the rest of our lives together in that WWF ring called Home. It’s where our hearts & 8oz gloves are. :D

I view my wife as my equal, and I will never raise a hand to her. Who is dismissing the right to self defense here? Ya did it again Doc!

All sarcasm, thread drift, chain yanking & meant in good humor remarks aside, were the children placed in any potential danger by going off into the frigid night with a drunk mom? Was the father instigating violence against his wife or protecting/fending for his children? With the minimal facts available, Dad would have wanted me on the jury.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 12:12 PM
Oh, I have a huge chip on my shoulder. A big old freaking boulder. That doesn't make me wrong. Nor does it really have anything to do with the attitudes I see here.

However, I wasn't directing my comments at you, either.

2nd Amendment
June 26, 2005, 01:54 PM
Fantasy land is in full bloom around here, it appears. Men 95% of abuse and abusers? That''s painfully absurd. Let me see, the last ten instances I am aware of would be recorded as male abuse, but yet each was instigated by the woman, called in by the man and, when the cops arrived he went to jail. Three different couples. One I've been present for a couple times. The other two women I was present for their open statement that "Yeah, I knocked him around and then the cops hauled him off. Great, ain't it". So how much did that tilt those percentage do ya think? :rolleyes:

My former best friend from highschool married a gorgeous blonde. Things were grand, till after the first kid. Then she took to a pattern of instigating violence. She'd yell, scream, curse and push and when he would try to leave she'd corner him and keep him in place. Did I mention she was of the Amazon gorgeous blonde pursuation? Meanwhile my little buddy was just that, one of those little guys.

Eventually he'd have enough and push, and when that didn't work he'd swing. And then she'd beat the hell out of him and then whine to everyone about how he hit her. Another damned abusive male, eh?

I was there. I saw it. Any number of times.

My first wife spent the last part of our marriage trying to get me to hit her. I never did. Frankly, looking back, I wish I'd cold cocked her a couple times. She deserved it. Yeah, you read that right: Deserved it.

My wife of now 12 years was the other side of the coin. She was abused before we got together. I scored a broken nose from him when they were breaking up because he blamed me. It was a statement of my own self restraint he's still walking and the .45 stayed in my belt. The guy has abused every woman he has been with since so maybe I shouldn't have been so restrained.

Men do more damage when they abuse. Society doesn't accept that women manipulate this fact. So we wind up with male abusers who jack up a system designed to see abuse from men in everything and women smart enough to use that system for their own benefit. It's a curse on men today and it damages the credibility of women who actually are abused. I for one can't manage to take any accusation seriously at first blush anymore. Then when crap like "95%" get's parrotted around it makes it even more impossible to take this "poor abused women" concept seriously.

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 01:57 PM
I've never beaten or even raised a hand against any woman and no one in my family has either.

However, I still beleive:
-women who are mistreated and dont leave or fight back deserve no sympathy
-the government has no business intruding into marriages

You people who keep crying for government interference on the ground of "its for teh children! its for the beaten women" make me sick because you are being intentionally blind to the way this policy works in day to day life.

Its just like with the TSA- once in a great while they accidentally catch someone like Richard Reid (or not), but the day to day effect is that everyone is harassed and inconvenienced.

The day to day effect of the educational system, CPS and domestic violence laws (which are all part of one system designed to break up families) is that children are encouraged to rat on their parents, wives are encouraged to accuse their husbands of being abusive and familes are generally encouraged to break up and rely on the government to settled disputes and supervise the welfare of the family members.

Or maybe this is only occuring in Florida and no other states have this problem.

dfaugh
June 26, 2005, 03:00 PM
He's drunk again, it's time to fight
She must have done something wrong tonight
The living room becomes a boxing ring
It's time to run when you see him
Clenching his hands
She's just a woman
Never Again

I hear her scream, from down the hall
Amazing she can even talk at all
She cries to me, Go back to bed
I'm terrified that she'll wind up
Dead in his hands, She's just a woman
Never Again

Been there before, but not like this
Seen it before, but not like this
Never before have I ever
Seen it this bad
She's just a woman
Never Again

Just tell the nurse, you slipped and fell
It starts to sting as it starts to swell
She looks at you, she wants the truth
It's right out there in the waiting room
With those hands
Lookin just as sweet as he can
Never Again

Seen it before, but not like this
Been there before, but not like this
Never before have I ever
Seen it this bad
She's just a woman
Never Again

Father's a name you haven't earned yet
You're just a child with a temper
Haven't you heard "Don't hit a lady"?
Kickin' your ass would be a pleasure

He's drunk again, it's time to fight
Same old ????, just on a different night
She grabs the gun, she's had enough
Tonight she'll find out how f---ing
Tough is this man
Pulls the trigger just as fast as she can
Never Again

Seen it before, but not like this
Been there before, but not like this
Never before have I ever
Seen it this bad
She's just a woman
Never Again

-Nickleback

Curare
June 26, 2005, 06:34 PM
I must confess, I've been wrong all this time. I'm sorry to post such vicious attacks and facts. I'll never do it again. Take me back just one more time. I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't of pushed me so far. You know, in a way you kinda deserved it, though. Please Wife Beaters--take me back just one more time. I'll never post anything to do with reality again. :rolleyes:

I was in the ER last night and it was amazing how many battered men came in. Their spouses came with them and said that the men had just fallen down the stairs. Thankfully we have a safe house for them and we were able to get them a safe place to stay through our Battered Male social worker team. I've seen a few unusual front page articles about women abusing their husband--America just doesn't realize how big of a problem it is. Those damn women better stop. Then again, the men are at fault too because they were probably just asking for it (or they were drunk, which is a perfectly acceptable excuse).

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 06:59 PM
Your ad hominems and your attempts at sarcasm and emotionalism dont justify government intervention any more than the facts you presented earlier.

Lets put it another way. If the government has no duty to protect people against crimes committed by strangers, why should they have a GREATER obligation to intervene when the offender and victim are voluntarily acquainted with one another?

Intune
June 26, 2005, 07:04 PM
A. Would you let the drunk wife drive?
B. Would you let the drunk wife drive with your children?
C. Would you let the drunk wife take a cab to parts unknown with the children?
D. Would you let the drunk wife wallow in her anger while subjugating the children (one of which with a known compromised immune system) to potentially dangerous temperatures while dressed in pj’s?
E. Yes to all the above to avoid a confrontation? Priceless.
F. Don’t breed.

Monkeyleg
June 26, 2005, 07:14 PM
Sheesh, I should be downstairs reading the paper and watching "Sixty Minutes."

Let's just distill the question at hand to this: should the government be able to deny Second Amendment rights to a man or a woman based on the testimony of one person, or the presumption of guilt, or for slapping another (not punching), or for just shouting?

Way back when, my wife threw a pizza at me. Enough cause to deny her Second Amendment rights?

My niece had a spouse who locked her and her kids in their trailer from the outside. That seems pretty clear-cut as far as definitions of domestic abuse go.

My BOL got into a shouting match with his fiance. No slapping, no pushing, no physical contact at all. In fact, she told the police that there was no physical threat or contact. Yet he's now prohibited from owning a gun.

My SOL had a boyfriend who stalked her everywhere she went. He beat her. He didn't stop until he got jail on another offense.

So, who decides, and what are the parameters?

Curare
June 26, 2005, 07:57 PM
I've never suggested anywhere in this thread that the government should intervene in marital affairs or take away someone's 2A rights. If I have please quote me.

My point is that domestic violence happens more frequently and more severely to women--70% of murder victims in domestic disputes are female--Cesiumsponge crunched the government numbers and supported that figure. Kind of hard to argue with that cold, hard, statistic.

Furthermore, it seems that some have put more time into selecting their next handgun purchase than they have in selecting a mate. You marry someone with a violent temper, control issues, self destructive behaviour, or substance abuse problems and you expect marital bliss? Time to start making responsible decisions.

Intune
June 26, 2005, 08:19 PM
Life is not a petri dish. People change, fall down and degenerate. From my previous post, at what point in the alphabet would you intervene?

30% are males. Insignificant?

Jammer Six
June 26, 2005, 08:32 PM
Your ad hominems and your attempts at sarcasm and emotionalism dont justify government intervention any more than the facts you presented earlier.
My vote, on the other hand, justifies exactly that, government intervention. It's how I tell government where I want them to intervene.

It's our business, it's their business, and not only are wife beaters a morally bankrupt, self-pitying, cowardly bunch of children, but they're a tiny minority at the polls.

Because our government pays attention to large blocks of voters, wife beaters everywhere need to know that they're going to have our government, the police and the rest of normal, descent citizens in their homes, their lives and their faces, every time they make a fist.

Sheesh, I should be downstairs reading the paper and watching "Sixty Minutes."
Yeah, I know what you mean. Watching "Gilligan's Island" is better than trying to talk sense to wife-beaters.

If they had sufficient sense to listen and the ability to learn, they wouldn't hit the people they think they love.

So, who decides, and what are the parameters?
The courts decide, and the parameters are what we as citizens say they are.

We change them. We update them, then we vote.

There is no excuse for violence, and engaging in violence in your own home is a mark of the pathetic.

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 08:44 PM
And thanks to morons who cant tell the difference between good intentions and good policy, a significant portion of men WHO HAVE NEVER HIT THEIR WIVES can no longer own guns.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 08:56 PM
You really think the police shouldn't arrest people for assault, regardless of who is doing the assaulting? That's one of the silliest things I've heard on this board..beats zombie bears all to hell. Right up there with we didn't land on the moon. :D

I think Monkey Leg makes the most sense of anyone here..there's a problem and then there's another problem disguised as a solution for the first problem..instead of pretending the first problem doesn't exist, concentrate on finding a better solution for it.

beerslurpy
June 26, 2005, 09:05 PM
Why are you people being so dense?

"Domestic Violence" often has nothing to do with assault.

Its two most common abuses are:
-an accusation during or before a divorce to put the husband in a weaker negotiating position
-an argument loud enough to cause the neighbors to call the police that results in the police filing charges because they are often required by law to do so, even if the wife refuses to press charges

The state is already empowered to act if the wife wants to bring charges for assault against the husband. The family can easily be broken up if the wife or husband wishes it.

All you are proposing is that the state has the right to intrude when neither spouse wishes it.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 09:17 PM
Actually, you're hearing what you want to hear. If a man beats a woman, or vice versa, the abuser should be arrested and sent to jail, the same way if a stranger attacks you, they should be arrested and sent to jail. I'm not sure what part of that is so difficult to understand. No one is saying the Lautenberg Amendment is a good thing..I argued against it when it was created, but going so far the other direction as to pretend that domestic violence doesn't happen or shouldn't make one eligible for arrest is ridiculous. Unless you're flat out denying that people get beaten by their spouses, in which case, this whole argument is about as sensible as debating with a member of the flat earth society, which, quite frankly, is what this feels like.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 09:23 PM
And as far as "negoiating" in this state, it doesn't have any affect at all. Marital property gets split right down the middle, regardless of any charges.

Cosmoline
June 26, 2005, 09:26 PM
The problem is, Hollywood aside, most of the time it's not a matter of one person beating another. It's MUTUAL COMBAT in the purest sense of the term. A lot of couples just get in fights, just like their parents and their parents before them to the beginning of time. The responding officers SHOULD arrest both or neither. But because of the way our system works they have to pick a victim and usually that ends up being the woman.

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 09:29 PM
And I think people should be allowed to stand in the middle of their front yard and beat the snot out of each other if they want to, and no one should get arrested at all (I saw a woman on television get arrested once because she was irked at her husband and was pulling out flowers she had planted earlier in the day. No argument at all that that's stupid.) But at the same time, those most vocal about the Lautenberg Amendment are the ones that deny abuse happens or that its a serious problem for women, and those are the ones I'll argue with till I'm blue in the face, because I see it, up close and personal, way too often.

2nd Amendment
June 26, 2005, 09:39 PM
*LMAO*

SO far I haven't seen anyone deny abuse happens or that it is a serious problem for women. What I have seen is people trot out emotionalism and bull???? "statistics", then run screeching back to emotionalism when more rational sorts look at those silly statistics and the media driven emotionality that supports them and laugh. And, of course, anyone who doesn't accept the crap stats gets labeled a wife beater by some people(one of who melsewhere has established that they and their lives are perfect). Why are they still members after the multiple ad-homs, again?

This thread needs canned about as badly as any that has come thru THR lately. :barf:

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 09:39 PM
Well, ok..I just had an epiphany..call me slow. Talking to some people about women is like talking to Sarah Brady about gun rights. No matter how right you are, or how plainly you make your case, they aren't going to listen.

Since I don't waste my time arguing with dead set antis, I'm not going to argue with those who feel this way about rape or domestic violence. I'll just make sure I keep doing what I'm doing and if they hate it, bummer for them. :)

2nd Amendment
June 26, 2005, 09:41 PM
Yup, we know how you feel. Some people would rather live with their preconceived notions and fantasy numbers. I guess it's easier than accepting how abuse really works.

Jammer Six
June 26, 2005, 09:42 PM
This thread needs canned about as badly as any that has come thru THR lately.
Oh, I don't know about that.

It seems to have captured your imagination, you're still here.

Intune
June 26, 2005, 09:46 PM
For the benefit of board tranquility I think both Barb & Beer are on parallel positions. Correct if in error. Barb is saying that if someone is physically abused the other party should cool their jets in jail & receive that which is deservedly coming to them. ‘Slurpy is saying that if LEO’s arrive on the scene & SHE says “HE hit me” and HE says “SHE hit me” LEO’s in some states say that someone is going to jail. HE has a scratch on the face, SHE received a punch to the diaphragm that doesn’t show. Someone has to go. They take her. Has justice been served? I know WHY they instigated this policy, to separate combatants & allow a “cooling off” period, but to strip someone’s fundamental rights on such a subjective call is waaayyyy overboard. None are saying abuse is acceptable. Am I close?

Barbara
June 26, 2005, 09:56 PM
I can't tell you..I'm done arguing. :)

But yeah..pretty close, as far as the Lautenberg thing goes.

Curare
June 26, 2005, 11:10 PM
Yeah--I'm out of here too. It's much smarter to leave than to stay in an abusive relationship. Before we know it someone will state that a married man cannot "rape" his wife or other such nonsense.

Monkeyleg
June 26, 2005, 11:21 PM
Jammer Six: "Yeah, I know what you mean. Watching "Gilligan's Island" is better than trying to talk sense to wife-beaters.

If they had sufficient sense to listen and the ability to learn, they wouldn't hit the people they think they love."

You don't know me from Adam. Those are awfully strong words. They're insulting words. And you don't know my history, nor especially my wife's history.

I know more about domestic violence than most people on this forum. Just a few weeks after I met my now-wife in 1968, her dad beat her mom to within an inch of her life. It took all that my wife, her brother and I could do to restrain him. And this had been going on for years prior to my meeting them.

Her mom retaliated by stabbing him with a paring knife to the gut.

My wife, when she was just twelve or thirteen, saw more violence than I or anyone I know ever saw growing up. It's why, as talented and intelligent as she is, she still has no self-confidence today.

When she was twelve, her father sexually molested her.

Her mother had bruises on her every week.

And I saw the same sort of (insert expletive here) in my own extended family, from uncles to aunts to cousins to nieces and nephews. Did I mention that sumbich who locked my niece and her kids in the trailer? They were locked in there for two days, until the manager at the store she worked for got to worrying about her.

DO NOT PRESUME to tell me what I should or should not know. I know damned plenty.

I have another niece who's a pass-around for a bunch of outlaw biker types. She looks like she's sixty years old, but she's just 40. Her "man" trades her for booze or cycle parts.

DO NOT PRESUME that, just because you and your Significant Other waited years to get married, don't drink, don't smoke, invest in all the right mutual funds, get your hair done at Che' Chic Salon, drink Frappe's or do whatever else you do that makes you feel good, you're immune from this.

You ain't. Unless you're an orphan, it's going to pop up somewhere in your family.

How you deal with it is your decision.

How did I deal with my fiance throwing a pizza at me? I picked up the pieces of pepperoni off the floor and ate them; it was delivery, not DeGiorginio. And, half an hour later, we were hugging as usual.

How do I deal with my father-in-law, and all the ____ he did? He's dying, probably dead in a few weeks. I won't increase his suffering by reminding him of things I'm sure he remembers. He knows.

The question is, and has been, is it fair for Frank Lautenberg to strip the Second Amendment rights from my pizza-throwing fiance as easily as stripping those rights from someone who caused bodily harm?

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly THR members can go from "freedom for all" to boiling people in oil when the subject matter gets sticky.

2nd Amendment
June 26, 2005, 11:52 PM
Nice strawman, Curare. But hey, let's just stick with the sexism and hate-mongering: Men are evil cave-dwellers and women are an elevated form of life. Note that nobody is in the middle: Human. :rolleyes:

And yeah, my wife will tell you just how big a fan of abusive people I am, too. I'm just horrible like that. :rolleyes: And my friend, he definitely should be disarmed for losing his temper with his now ex. Hell maybe all of his buddies should, too, since we finally practically made him throw her out and were there to make sure he got the job done.

Hmm, I wonder if she ever got out of jail for using one of her subsequent boyfriend's head as a windshield removal tool? Maybe he should apologize to her for knocking her out cold and driving to the sheriff's office like a madman for help? Definitely better disarm that nasty tempered SOB.

Screw it. Some people are so wrapped up in their agendas reality couldn't penetrate with a titanium bit.

CAS700850
June 26, 2005, 11:54 PM
Why is it I alwasy get to these fun ones when they are just about over?

Time for my two cents worth. For all of you arguing about the government getting involved in D.V. cases, I say, Hello, I am the government. Yep. The Man. I am an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, a D.A. if you will, and I prosecute D.V. cases. All the time.

Know what? It is my business, as much as violence on the street, in an alley, or any other location you can think of. Man on woman. Woman on man. Parent on child. Child on parent. Young on elderly. Elderly on young. I've seen them all. I've prosecuted them all. And I'll gladly do it again. It's a violent crime folks, and I take that stuff seriously. Gender is just a box checked on the intake form. it's all about the violence. And, yes, you can prosecute both sides for D.V. Funny, for people who are so defense oriented, we've seen very little about an attacker and a defender in these situations. Nah, write it all off as mutual combat, and the government shouldn't get involved. But, let me tell you, mutual combat is Disorderly Conduct in most locations, so the guy at the start may likely have been up the creek anyways.

Are more women victims than men. Forget the stats, because those are reported offenses. Ever talk to a D.V. victim? I have. A hundred times over. And, with few exceptions, the time that is reported is not the first, second, or third time. If the victim is a man, the number of reported incidents plummets, due to shame, embarassment, etc. not real manly to report getting beat up by "the little lady" is it. Male super-macho cops don't really help this matter. For that matter, I've seen a couple of female cops ruin a D.V. case with bad attitudes towards male victims. Not many "battered male shlters" out there either.

So, yes, I'll admit that a male victim has some hurdles in the way, but that garbage stops when the case gets presented to a Grand Jury, at least in my county.

As for our original "abuser/victim", I'm sorry he ended up in such a crappy situation. Yeah, he got screwed by teh Federal law, which I find wrong on all sorts of levels, Constitutional and otherwise. And, his lawyer didn't exactly do a bang up job of covering everything with the plea deal, now did he? But, know what. Tough. He cut a deal on a case he should have taken to trial because it was more convenient to cut the deal than take a stand. he made a choice to take the easy way out. Now, he has to live with the consequences.

My dad alwasy said that sometimes in life, you'll come across a choice: the right way and teh easy way. Just cause it's easy don't mean it's right. Guess this guy knows that now.

know how I feel sorry for in this whole mess? The kids, who had the great pleasure of watching all of this firsthand. Sounds like the wife needs counseling, some substance abuse treatment, and to grow up and stop taking a bad mood out on the whole family. And he needs to see that she has these problems, and if he doesn't make sure she gets help, then he needs to do what is necessary to protect the kids.

And, for what it is worth, I am married with two kids. We argue. We fight. We even yell and scream on rare occassions. But we never throw things, we don't hit each other, and we don't even yell around the kids. And, also, for what it's worth, I have caught a woman lying about abuse, and found out how she faked her injuries. Guess what? She went to prison.

Okay. Enough ranting. Anyone want to jump me for sticking my government work nose into iother people's business, fire away. But tell me this, why is it a crime only outside the house? Why shouldn't people be prosecuted for abusive behavior? Why shouldn't the government take a stand for these victims? Why am I the bad guy for doing what's right in these cases?

2nd Amendment
June 26, 2005, 11:55 PM
My wife, when she was just twelve or thirteen, saw more violence than I or anyone I know ever saw growing up. It's why, as talented and intelligent as she is, she still has no self-confidence today.

My wife is management. She models semi-professionally. She still thinks she's ugly and incompetent and wonders at times why I don't feel the need to check up on her every few hours. 13 years later. But hey, nope, we ain't got a clue. :banghead:

Curare
June 27, 2005, 12:11 AM
Your post makes me want to stay in the discussion. Would you say that domestic violence, while present in all levels of society, is more prevalent among the poor and poorly educated? It is probably analogous to the distribution of smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism, violent crime, etc--most common in the lower socioeconomic segments of society, but present throughout society.

Jammer Six
June 27, 2005, 12:37 AM
You don't know me from Adam. Those are awfully strong words. They're insulting words.
You'll live, you're not hurt.

DO NOT PRESUME
Yeah, I'll get right on that. :rolleyes:

When you raise your voice, stud, you just bore me.

Since you're going to live with me being the way I am, my suggestion would be to dial it back, have a seat, and get used to it.

The reality of our situation is that you simply don't have another choice.

Orthonym
June 27, 2005, 01:03 AM
But VBulletin made it evaporate. Just look up Erin Pizzey. She Invented the Battered Womens' Shelter, and is now an unperson in feminist circles for daring to be rational about the situation.

2nd Amendment
June 27, 2005, 01:07 AM
The reality of our situation is that you simply don't have another choice.

Of course we do. It's called the Ignore Feature. I for one shall avail myself of it with regards to your pomposity. You and centac can form a club or something.

DCR
June 27, 2005, 03:09 AM
I'm saddened by the direction this thread went; I didn't intend for it to become a discussion about the relative merits of DV laws, but obviously it hit some nerves. Like the Second Amendment, there are some pretty strong feelings here, and intelligent (some more so than others) views.

I guess what I was looking for was any knowledge or cases that didn't go to the appellate level where a person who was not convicted of a felony, assault or battery, did not violate a protective order, and was not otherwise disqualified from possessing a firearm, was disqualified under Lautenberg. The direction I was kind of looking to go was more like this offense is more akin to playing a stereo too loud; that the fighting or quarrelling, as contemplated by the Disturbing the Peace statute, was at best an offense to peace and quiet, at worst mutual combat, and therefore outside the whole notion of "use of force against a partner/spouse" portion of Lautenberg. I know when I used to prosecute these types of cases and advise law enforcement on these issues, I wouldn't have given the advice the Ada County Sheriff is getting.

Thank you all for your thoughts, to date and any others that may post in the future; I intend to print the whole thread and file it when responses diminish.

Intune
June 27, 2005, 09:25 AM
Your post makes me want to stay in the discussion. Would you say that domestic violence, while present in all levels of society, is more prevalent among the poor and poorly educated? It is probably analogous to the distribution of smoking, drug abuse, alcoholism, violent crime, etc--most common in the lower socioeconomic segments of society, but present throughout society. The post of the year! My thoughts precisely! Jolly good show mate, stay the course. Don’t let the blighters drag you down!

Buffy and I just got back from the Hamptons after the most horrid experience ever. Picture this, should your impeccable sense of decorum allow, the help resided in the main building of the compound. Yes! Can you believe it? Please, it is common (such a gauche word yet delightfully flexible. Eh, wot?) etiquette to stable the help ANYWHERE but the main house. Some, alas, just don’t measure to their breeding, present company excluded of course. The horrors! I thought poor Buff would succumb to the vapors following an incident whereupon exiting the drawing room the clumsy oaf of a chauffer very nearly upset her snifter of Napoleon. Egads man, the swarthy cretin’s services were done for the day, clearly demonstrating the absolute necessity of separate quartering. I very nearly laid my riding crop across his backside but showed great restraint in not doing so. Buff was sorely disappointed and later admitted a certain excitement at the thought of it. I daresay I did also! Merely relating such banality has made me relive the dreadful scene. Oh well, mother’s little helpers will assuage my tattered nerves. My best to Chad, pip-pip, cheerio.

CAS700850
June 27, 2005, 10:15 AM
Curare,

In my experiences, the cases I present are more working class, lower socio-economic levels. But, we've had a few nasty ones from a couple of the high-end neighborhoods as well. My gut feeling is that it gets reported more at the lower end. Neighbors are closer, so they hear more. Both parties work outside the home, so the injuries get seen. That is why the numbers will be skewed towards the low end of the scale, as there are more reports. Incidents on the high end either don't get reported, or suddenly become something other than D.V., when the rich guy calls the mayor, who calls the chief, who makes it happen. (Ain't politics grand).

By the way, don't automatically associate crime with certain economic status. I prosecuted the son of two cardiac surgeons for Agg. Robbery with a loaded gun. No drug habit. Used the BMW he got for graduation, and Daddy's Colt Python. Did it for kicks, and to buy the new car stereo Daddy told him to buy on his own. And, I'm in mid-investigation of a crime ring involving upper class housewives who are doing methamphetamine for weight control instead of exercising, and are forging and cashing forged checks to cover the meth costs.

Sean Smith
June 27, 2005, 10:48 AM
I feel a "pox on both houses" post coming on...

My ideas on wife-beating aren't very wife-beater-friendly, insofar as I think that the wife should simply kill their physically abusive spouse, preferably with a firearm so she doesn't have to worry about the typical strength disparity between men and women. As a practical matter, I think this is workable advice, depending on your state's laws concerning self-defense and firearms in general, of course. I'm not sure I can come up with a much more hard-line attitude towards clear-cut wife beaters than "kill them." I mean, what's left?

At this point, if you try to argue that I'm pro-wife-beating, you are clinically retarded. I just wanted to point that out.

The problem is, many people who get especially excited about DV have a habit of not merely stating that male-on-female DV is more common than female-on-male DV, but completely trivializing the existence of the latter. This includes trivializing any individual incidents cited, no matter how badly the male was victimized or how clear-cut the guilt of the woman was. Guys claiming abuse were sissies or had it coming. Anybody pointing out the mere existence of these abused men is a woman-hater (and probalby wife-beater themselves) with a neanderthal agenda. Pointing out that statistics, and indeed the law itself, sometimes lump together shouting matches and trivial physical contact with beatings, stabbings and murders under the catch-all title "domestic violence" is treated as some kind of mindcrime. Suggesting that a shove is not morally equivalent to caving in someone's skull with a blunt object is greeted with shocked indignation. The same human factors that are embraced to explain how rapes of women are under-reported, are treated as laughable when used to explain how female-on-male DV is under-reported. Or just ignored because it is inconvenient to think about. Funny, that.

Funny, too, how it isn't enough for people to say: asaulting, battering and killing your spouse is bad, just like it is bad to do those things to anybody else, and people who do it should be punished as voilent criminals either way. It has to become: men are a monolithic threat, and women are all innocent victims, and when men are victims, it is their fault anyway. Insinuating women who are victimized had it coming: completely evil tactic. Insinuating men who are victimized had it coming: acceptable tactic.

This is extremely stupid. Of course, the over-reaction to this, that domestic violence is almost entirely a female fabrication, designed to explot the presumption of male guilt in the judical system whenever there is a male-female domestic dispute, in order to get a financially exploitive divorce settlement, is just an inversion of the same kind of stupidity. The only difference is that you have to ignore even more bodies to buy into that point of view.

Derek Zeanah
June 27, 2005, 11:01 AM
Look guys, you're facing a huge cultural issue here.

Case in point: remember Lorena Bobbit? At the time, I didn't meet a man who didn't cringe at the news, and I didn't meet a woman who didn't giggle (was working in Atlanta at the time).

Same issue.

Probably best to understand it's there, and move on.

Sean Smith
June 27, 2005, 11:08 AM
The upshot of all this is that getting married is insane. >50% of marriages end in divorce. Some proportion of the remainder SHOULD end in divorce, but don't. Thus, the odds that you will get married, stay married, not hate it, are about 25%. That means I have a 75% chance of, at best, being miserable for years, and then giving away half my income and assets to somebody I don't even like anymore. That's my best case scenario if I'm in that 75%! :eek:

For me, that's scary not becuase I hate and distrust women, but because I don't.

CAS700850
June 27, 2005, 12:34 PM
Sean,

You nailed it on the head on two points. First, a male victim does have an uphill battle. And I, as prosecutor on the case, have an uphill battle convincing a jury that woman on man violence is as bad as man on woman. It can be done, and I've managed to do so. Not always easy, but it can be done.

As to the whole "woman as victim, man as abuser" syndrome, I will agree that there are those who engage in this type of stereotyping, occassionally to teh point of fanaticism. Some of the support groups are very bad that way. So, imagine the surprise on the part of one local group when I walk in and introduce myself as the prosecutor, then go into court and the first words out of my mouth are "This case has nothing to do with male or female. It has nothing to do with gender at all, other than to identify who the parties are. This case is about violence." They went to the boss, complaining that it was a woman issue. As the boss said, if you put a woman prosecutor in the court, it is a woman issue. You put a 6'2", 230 lbs male prosecutor in their, and it is a violence issue. Which is what it is. Those who politicize the issue aren't doing it justice. Then again, they aren't out for real justice, are they?

By the way, I've not won over all of them, but several will now agree that it is a genderless issue. It is a violence issue.

2nd Amendment
June 27, 2005, 12:50 PM
Well said!

BluesBear
June 27, 2005, 08:58 PM
Don't forget that domestic violence isn't always spousal.

What happens when a 6'3" 17 year old in great health decides he doesn't have to abide by Daddy's rules anymore and takes a swing at him? What if daddy is smaller and weaker?

That my friends is also Domestic Violence and it happens a lot more often than you'd imagine.

Is that event worth losing your Constitutional rights? :confused:

2nd Amendment
June 27, 2005, 09:38 PM
Then Daddy picks up a 36" Craftsman breaker bar, chucks it up under 17-year-old's chin, backs him up against the garage wall and says "I didn't spend 6 years in the Corps and 20 years with the government to come home and take a bunch of lip off your inexperienced, overbearing ass so maybe you'd like to self-adjust right about now?"

Well, at least when things go the way they are supposed to that's what happens...Not that I know first hand or anything...

And no, losing any rights whatsoever for such a thing is insane.

Sean Smith
June 27, 2005, 09:42 PM
What happens when a 6'3" 17 year old in great health decides he doesn't have to abide by Daddy's rules anymore and takes a swing at him?

What happens is, he'd better hope his daddy is nothing like my daddy was (and hell, still is)! :eek: :eek: :eek:

BluesBear
June 28, 2005, 02:56 AM
And what happens when that same 17 year old decides he just doesn't want to listen to anything you have to say, says "I don't have to listen to you", walks the three blocks to the Police Department and tells them that Daddy had him in a choke hold? He also told the police that he wanted both Mommy and Daddy arrested.


That's also considered domestic violence. And both parents COULD be arrested for that.


Oh yeah, he also told the police that there were several guns in the house.

BluesBear
June 28, 2005, 03:12 AM
An arrest or two would have been made...



Except for the fact that Mommy had called the police department as soon as he walked out the door. So they were expecting him.

And the fact that the police officers he told the sob story to, said he was so overly dramatic in his presentations as to be comical.

He was given a lecture by the police officers and driven home.

Where has given another lecture on the very real possibilities of being arrested for falsifying a report.


All in all it was a very close call.
Two people nearly lost their gun rights and carry permits because of a lie told in anger.


Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease.

igor
June 28, 2005, 08:18 AM
Sean S. hit it on the head.

IMNSHO, the most heated sector of this discussion seems to involve quite a bit of... well... projection. Violence and irrationality are ubiquitous, inherent in human nature, I say. Nobody is immune no matter how carefully one builds one's little cocoon of perfection. This really seems to chew on some who seemingly have little spectator let alone first-hand experience of the game of Pathologically Dysfunctional Families.

Recognizing this uncertainty and accepting it as another contingency of life can free up a lot of one's resources. Denial and transfixation are consuming processes that produce nothing. But those should only be a phase.

And, for the record, I quite viciously but bilaterally pummel my wife just about every week. In the dojo. :scrutiny: Can't tell whether we live our harmonious life because of or despite that.

CAS700850
June 28, 2005, 11:58 AM
Hey, I got one. the 17 year old argues with daddy about taking the car. Daddy puts his foot down and says no, it's aftre midnight, you have school in the morning. !7 year old throws Daddy down the stair, breaking his collarbone. I prosecuted the 17 year old when I was just ending my time in Juvi in 2002.

The juvi gets out next month.

And, for what it's worth, Daddy got up and put the kids head into the drywall. Literally. Darn it if we lost the report the kid filed against Daddy for D.V. ;)

Self defense rules still apply in the home. In this case, Daddy was former Army, a football coach, and big enough to put kid in the wall one handed.

No different than husband and wife D.V. Only thing different is which court handles the charges.

DRZinn
July 3, 2005, 10:28 AM
Doens't sound like this guy is a responsible citizen.And those are the only ones who should be allowed to own guns, right? The teetotalers?

peacefuljeffrey
July 3, 2005, 04:45 PM
I just became aware of a strange application of the Lautenberg amendment that expands the definition of domestic violence. It may well be in effect in your jurisdiction.


I kinda had trouble following exactly how the laws were applied in your example, but the following occurs to me:

Isn't it possible that this overzealous, idiotic application of the law might some day have the unintended consequence of "pushing a guy too far," and that some day some guy might actually go out and kill his spouse BECAUSE her stupid, misguided call to 911 over a pushing match that did no harm brought down the weight of the law on him for no good reason, and got his rights taken away from him?

I could see a guy going on a rampage due to suffering the indignity and humiliation of being powerless before a totally senseless district attorney's crusade.

If the idiots who want to call every goddamned thing a "violent crime" even when it is not a violent crime end up causing violent crimes, it will serve them right.

-Jeffrey

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal trap - domestic violence - attorneys pay attention!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!