beerslurpy
member
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.
Legal trap - domestic violence - attorneys pay attention!
- Thread starter DCR
- Start date
- Status
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. 
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.
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
member
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.
"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.
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.
Cosmoline
Member
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.
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
member
*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.
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.
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.
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
member
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
member
Oh, I don't know about that.
It seems to have captured your imagination, you're still here.
Intune
Member
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?
Monkeyleg
Member.
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.
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
member
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.
And yeah, my wife will tell you just how big a fan of abusive people I am, too. I'm just horrible like that. 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.
And yeah, my wife will tell you just how big a fan of abusive people I am, too. I'm just horrible like that.
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
Member
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?
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
member
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:
Chris--thanks for the intelligent commentary.
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.
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
member
You'll live, you're not hurt.
Yeah, I'll get right on that.
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
Member
The Post I Tried to Post Was Better.
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.
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
member
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.
Uh......thanks, I think....
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
