Seattle's domestic batterers to lose guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

rwc

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
596
Location
Bainbridge Island, WA
Seattle's domestic batterers to lose guns

By HECTOR CASTRO
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Seattle police hope to make life safer for victims of domestic violence and the patrol officers sent to their homes with a new policy, announced yesterday, that is meant to remove guns from the hands of abusers.

Since 1997, nearly 300 Washington state residents have died in domestic violence homicides, and more than half of them were killed with a firearm, according to the state's Domestic Violence Fatality Review.

Laws passed in 1993 required law enforcement agencies to remove firearms from abusers. But concerns about property rights, how to safely keep the weapons and lack of money for enforcement made those laws all but toothless.

"Having a law in and of itself is not enough," said Kelly Starr, coordinator of the fatality review. "You need things in place for effective implementation."

Two years ago, the King County Sheriff's Office began a program to address the problem. Deputies began asking victims whether firearms were present, district court judges began issuing orders requiring some defendants in domestic violence cases to surrender their firearms and the sheriff's office established a place and a system to take the guns, returning them when ordered by the courts.

Their work interested other agencies and now, Seattle, Issaquah and Bellevue police have programs modeled after King County's.

"This is not some sort of citizen-disarmament program. The whole bent of this is to disarm batterers," said Mark Hanna, manager of King County's firearm forfeiture program.

Since May 2003, the county has taken in 662 handguns, rifles and shotguns. More than 100 of those weapons were returned to their owners after a judge found there was no lawful reason to keep them. Nineteen guns were destroyed by court order; the rest remain in the custody of the Sheriff's Office.

Seattle police have no way of knowing how many guns they will take in, said Capt. Ron Mochizuki.



"This is new to us," he said.

Seattle's policy took effect in late May, and most patrol officers have been trained in the new protocols on taking custody of firearms.

The guns will come to police in one of two ways, officials said.

Officers can take them at the scene of a domestic violence call if they have permission, a municipal court judge can order a defendant to surrender the firearms. City Attorney Tom Carr said two orders of surrender have been issued so far, both in criminal cases. In one instance, he said, the man has not yet complied with the order. In the other case, the man has signed an affidavit assuring the court he does not have a firearm.

At a news conference yesterday, Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said the point is to get the guns from people who should not have them.

"We are not going to take our eye off the ball, which is the gun," he said. "We want to get those guns out of these houses."

Firearms in homes where domestic violence occurs is a risk factor, Starr said, and makes a victim vulnerable to serious injury or death.

The next-most-frequent weapon of choice in domestic violence slayings is a knife. Knives account for about 16 percent of the deaths, according to the fatality review.

Though the focus is on misdemeanor domestic violence, such incidents can lead to increasingly violent outcomes.

Carr said he could recall five misdemeanor domestic violence cases he prosecuted where the defendant went on to kill.

"Domestic violence is a scourge on our society," he said.

And it remains one of the most frequent calls to which police respond.

On average, anywhere from 13,500 to 15,000 reports of domestic violence are made to Seattle's 911 call center annually. Last year, 7,140 cases of domestic violence were referred to the department DV Unit for investigation, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said.

If the program is meant to increase safety, King County has begun to see evidence it may do just that.

As of late last year, deputies have had second run-ins with someone who had surrendered a firearm in their program 13 times. In 11 of those instances, that second call was for another domestic violence incident -- rather than something potentially much worse.

That, Hanna said, is proof the program is working as intended, "to disarm batterers and make it safer for victims and law enforcement."

P-I reporter Hector Castro can be reached at 206-903-5396 or [email protected]
 
"We are not going to take our eye off the ball, which is the gun," he said. "We want to get those guns out of these houses."
Firearms in homes where domestic violence occurs is a risk factor, Starr said, and makes a victim vulnerable to serious injury or death.

Oh, those bad, terrible, awful, wicked, evil, dangerous killer guns!
 
In other words

Some spiteful wench gets it in her head that she is abused and your guns are gone.
 
The next-most-frequent weapon of choice in domestic violence slayings is a knife. Knives account for about 16 percent of the deaths, according to the fatality review.

The Police: "Uhh...the gun thing may just be feel-good claptrap, but it is another step in our unrelenting drive to Nerfworld."

Okay, I may have made that last bit up, but you know what they're thinking.
 
The next-most-frequent weapon of choice in domestic violence slayings is a knife. Knives account for about 16 percent of the deaths, according to the fatality review.
So ban the guns and knives move up to # 1, ban the knives and claw hammers move to #1, ban hammers and ball bats move to #1. Pretty soon all you're gonna be able to do is beat her to death with your hands, until they ban them
 
I'm really opposed to this business of confiscating people's property and wealth BEFORE they've been found guilty in a court of law.
 
I remember when California passed a similar law. It left a number of police officers holding desk jobs because there was no provision in the law to exempt the law enforcement community.
So all of these cops who had domestic violence charges on their rap sheets were unable to carry guns due to the jokers who make these laws not thinking things through thoroughly.
 
I remember when California passed a similar law. It left a number of police officers holding desk jobs because there was no provision in the law to exempt the law enforcement community.
So all of these cops who had domestic violence charges on their rap sheets were unable to carry guns due to the jokers who make these laws not thinking things through thoroughly.

I'm against such laws but if they do exist it would only be fair that LEOs be treated the same as everyone else.
 
Since May 2003, the county has taken in 662 handguns, rifles and shotguns. More than 100 of those weapons were returned to their owners after a judge found there was no lawful reason to keep them.

Oh hey, no sweat, they are only violating MILTIPLE constitutional rights 20% of the time. I mean really the 4th and 2nd amendments are more of a "suggestion" than actual rules... :rolleyes:

I was kinda wondering why we were seeing a downswing in police presence around here lately, i guess they are too busy making the world safe from guns, and making damn sure that your wearing your seatbelt.
 
Some spiteful wench gets it in her head that she is abused and your guns are gone.

Unfortunately, truer words were never spoken.

All it takes is someone who doesn't like you that day, who wants to hurt you as badly as possible to swear out a protection order. Then, mention guns.

All it costs is $50.00--and your reputation--possibly your livelihood, too.

:uhoh:
 
Some spiteful wench gets it in her head that she is abused and your guns are gone.


Unfortunately, truer words were never spoken.

Sorry gentlemen, but I fear that there are vastly more men who feel it is acceptable behavior to abuse women and children than there are women who would act in the manner you suggest. That said, the contitutional aspect of the law troubles me, but there has to be some middle course of action. I don't know a single LEO or prosecutor for whom domestic violence cases don't top the list of unpleasant work. For LEOs it is the most volatile and dangerous situation they encouter with the greatest frequency. For prosecutors it is the frustration of getting the victim to "stand up" in court and testify to put the jerk away.

While I don't read your comments as condoning abusing women or children, they do convey the message that somehow men are being victimized by "spiteful" women. While it no doubt happens, it also happens with far less frequency than the converse.

Some "bottom line" numbers:
1 in 50 women are abused
95% of abusers are men
there are 3x as many animal shelters as there are shelters for abused women
281 people were killed in DV assaults between '95 and '04 in WA alone.

I posted the article to see if it would prompt a discussion. I find it more than a bit sad that the dominant response is "we're the real victim."
 
The real victim is everyone because it is an erosion of due process. If they have been convicted then perhaps the government has some leg to stand on, but these people get their property confiscated on the whim of a claim, it sounds.
 
Domestic violence. A couple get in a fight, so the government is going to remove the gun that the weaker one might defend herself with?

300 died in eight years? How many of the deaths were justified, and how many were prosecuted as murder? We have a terrible shortage of facts here.

Now you are speaking of "abused wives"?

How did we transition from domestic violence to an abusive partner? The two terms are not mutualy inclusive, or exclusive.

apples on the left,,,, oranges on the right please :scrutiny:
 
I guess for me it's a tough call to decide if this is another nail in the coffin for RKBA, but it seems there are always stories of abused and battered women (and men!) who get shot by the spouse or ex-spouse or boyfriend in a heated argument.

The part that bothers me is that while I firmly believe in the RKBA, the issue of how to deal with people who have guns and have a propensity to violence against a partner.

Domestic violence is a problem and it appears to be getting worse throughout the country. This law may see some court challenges especially if somebody uses the law as leverage against somebody where there really is no history of threats (real or implied) with a firearm.

rwc presents a good argument in that there must be some way to protect abused people but still insure that a person's right are not trampled upon. Locking up the real abusers would be a big step, but unfortunately the State of Washington is having a hard time keeping real criminals in the jails. We don't have the room nor does the state, counties or cities have the money to build jails or even staff them. The city of Tacoma has a new big jail facility but the can't afford to hire correctional officers to run it.

I remember when California passed a similar law. It left a number of police officers holding desk jobs because there was no provision in the law to exempt the law enforcement community.
David Brame, the Chief of Police in Tacoma, WA shot and killed his wife a year ago then killed himself with his service weapon after a fight in a parking lot. It's coming out now that he had a history of abuse at home and he had also threatened other female officers during affairs with them. This deal has erupted into a scandal of huge proportion in Tacoma and this is a good example of how the law could have been used to prevent a killing.

Whether or not the law could have helped to take away a Chief's gun (much less any other officer's weapon) and prevent this tragedy is anyone's guess.
Unfortunately there was so much cover-up within city government, that the general public didn't know anything at all about what was going on until the news stories broke about the shooting.

Having the ability to remove firearms from a home where there is a definite risk of a shooting can be of some help. The problem is how to apply this law in such a way that only those people who WOULD use a gun in a domestic violence situation should have weapons removed. While the police may decide to remove guns in response to a DV call, there must be some method to insure that any incorrect action on their part can be rectified.

Maybe this is one of those things where it is better to be safe than sorry. Shaky ground, yes; but arrranging for an innocent's funeral is never a good option.
 
Simple solution: Don't beat your wife. If you and SWMBO are even getting into frequent arguments, it's time to grow up and read the handwriting on the wall.
 
Sorry gentlemen, but I fear that there are vastly more men who feel it is acceptable behavior to abuse women and children than there are women who would act in the manner you suggest.

The few divorces I have seen, have all turned nasty as each party tied to ruin the others lives. Nearly everything one side said about the other, in one case, turned out to be made up or exaggerated. I have no reason to believe anything else would happen in the domestic violence cases. Also, as the article indicated, at least a sixth of the cases have turned out that there was no reason to remove the gun, as it was returned. Methinks, that would probably indicate the threats were exaggerated or made up.

If one party is a threat to the other, they probably should be hauled off to jail. I don't see how removing firearms, but leaving the threatening party in the house makes any sense at all.
 
For facts see:
http://www.wscadv.org/projects/FR/index.htm#FR_Reports

apples on the left,,,, oranges on the right please

Sorry, but a bad analogy. More like Red Delicious apples on the left and Fuji apples on the right.

The vast majority of DV incidents are initiated by men. DV is largely inclusive of abuse by male partners of females and children. To put it another way, if the Venn diagram large circle is all DV then the circle that is entirely contained within that cirlce and occupies 95% of its volume are acts of violence by men. To put it another way, only one of the homicides commited during that period was commited by a woman.

To put it bluntly, yeah, I do think DV is largely men beating the crap out of women and children. The converse occurs so rarely that it's almost silly to talk about.

I freely admit my bias. And yes, I spent time doing criminal prosecution and dependencies long ago. Saw and heard things that made me decide I didn't have the stomach for it long-haul. My colleagues who still do the work putting away these scumbags and trying to help their kids get my utmost respect.
 
To put it bluntly, yeah, I do think DV is largely men beating the crap out of women and children. The converse occurs so rarely that it's almost silly to talk about.
Horse-pucky. I direct your attention to this web site. http://www.batteredmen.com/

Personal experices with this:

1. A co-worker/neighbor got mad at her then boyfriend for some reason one night, attacked him verbally, attempted to throw his mountain bike from the balcony, picked up and tossed a large, heavy night stand at this head. Cops were called, and wanted to take HIM to jail that night.

2. Two school friends were in a rather volatile relationship, most of the disagreements instigated by the female. During one such argument, she picked up a carved stone statuary and ment to use it as a bludgeon on his head. He blocked the blow, but it broke both of the bones in his forearm.

3. My younger sibling has an issue with control of her temper. As a teen, she would routinely verbally attack and degrade our father and myself. As a mother, she has a pattern of verbal and physical abuse of her daughter.

Contrast to those three items, I've only personally witnessed one example of male on female DV.
The real victim is everyone because it is an erosion of due process. If they have been convicted then perhaps the government has some leg to stand on, but these people get their property confiscated on the whim of a claim, it sounds.
+1
 
You cannot be serious? You've managed to find three examples of women harming men and cannot find more than one of men harming women?

Because you know, if you say women who harm others should be punished, I agree. When you say that VAWA is sexist, I'm not going to argue. But when I hear that women running around beating up poor innocent men at huge rates, when my own eyes, as well as DOJ and CDC statistics, say otherwise, you kind of lose me. Men beat women much more than women beat men. Women die much more often than men. If you want them treated the same, I agree 100% but it gets silly when facts are called lies because they make you uncomfortable.
 
John Venn? I haven't heard that name in nearly 40 years. But that's beside the point.

I'm always amazed that when one person is determined to be a serious threat to another person...the solution is to lock up the guns instead of the person. I suppose life doesn't always make sense.

John
 
Barbara: Those are examples from my own life, not a statistical sampling of the whole population. I don't debate that men assult women. The legal case evidence supports that it does. What I take issue with is the notion that "The converse occurs so rarely that it's almost silly to talk about." put forth by rwc.

Abuse of one person by another is wrong, no matter the genders of the parties involved.
 
The stats I've seen say about 19% of the perpetrators are women. Significant, yes.

Personally, I don't think locking up the guns is the answer. I think the solutions have to start with our kids.
 
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps those stats are skewed as men are not likely to report it unless it gets bad. I've been hit by girls plenty of times. Not hard enough for me to worry, but hard enough to hurt and think twice about continuing the relationship. When it happens to you, rwc...then go on and say that it's an insignificant number... :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top