Legal trap - domestic violence - attorneys pay attention!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
Pathetically short-sighted

"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:
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
For the benefit of WT and others with similar opinions

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Transparent rationalization, Part Deux

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:
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Ducking the real issues

" 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.
 
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)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top