husband arrested, help!

[anearthw]

Criminology research is pretty clear in showing that, in reports of partner violence, the perpetrator is more likely to be arrested if the victim is female.

Still, that does not negate that primary aggressors tend to be male. They are connected but still separate issues. If we want to look at homicide statistics where he said she said is less an issue, this is an example.

 

[justalayman]

I don't disagree they tend to be male. The problem is that has been used as a blanket such that cops react to situations with the prejudice that it is the male and due to that, the man is doubted much more than the woman and that causes a very unfair result of the male being arrested even the facts presented to an impartial party would direct otherwise.

More and more states have rules, either there are official or implied, that if there is any claim of violence somebody will be arrested. I hate to burst the cops bubble but a person pushing another person that is so close to their face that they are spat upon when being yelled at is not domestic violence. It is the same action that would be afforded a person if confronted by a stranger on the street doing the same thing.
Yet that exact action has resulted in a successful conviction of domestic violence.

It has become so ridiculous that a man trashing property within his own home, with no threat to the partner, has resulted in a successful conviction of DV. All it takes is for the woman to claim she was in fear. It doesn't matter to the cop or court that there was no valid basis for the fear. Just that it was there.


Hell, I know of a case where something was thrown, not at the other person and not even ending close enough to believe it was thrown at them but merely to throw it into the room the other person was in that was adequate to charge and convict the man. It has become so ridiculously over charged in an attempt to be politically correct that innocent people are being convicted of DV

 

[CdwJava]

I'm not going to convince you. You want to be wrong. You have to be wrong to validate your decades of incorrect training.

Ah, so all the research is wrong. The DOJ is wrong, academia is wrong, everyone is wrong.

I see.

Okay.

If you acknowledge that you are wrong, you also have to face the probability that you have unjustly arrested and participated in convicting many innocent people during your career. So I understand that you cannot change opinion without shattering your world view.

It is Not my "opinion" that males are most often the the aggressor and are far more likely to kill or injure their partner than females. It is the facts.

It is YOU who are not open to the facts, my friend.

 

[justalayman]

Again, whether the male is most often the aggressor or not is irrelevant. The problem is that because that is what is probably true, that fact blinds the cops and courts to accepting the male isn't the primary aggressor, or that there was no aggressive action by the male when reviewing DV reports.

In simple terms: a guy is often seen as guilty regardless of the facts. It is often a case of guilty until proven innocent but due to other problems in the system, that is an insurmountable challenge

 

[CdwJava]

Again, whether the male is most often the aggressor or not is irrelevant.

When someone is claiming that they are not, it is certainly relevant.

The problem is that because that is what is probably true, that fact blinds the cops and courts to accepting the male isn't the primary aggressor, or that there was no aggressive action by the male when reviewing DV reports.

The crime still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. An arrest is based only upon probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the crime. It doesn't even mean that the person arrested is the ONLY guilty party, simply that he or she committed the offense.

Is there a presumption that the male is the guilty party, or the party most responsible as the aggressor? Probably so. Practically speaking, more often than not, he is; so the police tend to focus on the male.

In simple terms: a guy is often seen as guilty regardless of the facts. It is often a case of guilty until proven innocent but due to other problems in the system, that is an insurmountable challenge

Hardly insurmountable, but, it does happen where a guy can be railroaded by the system. However, keep in mind that the nature of DV is such that many victims (some three quarters of them) will recant, change their story and even risk jail in order to protect their abusers. So, yes, the victims lie! More often, to protect their abuser than to put their abuser in harm's way.

 

[tuffbrk]

It has become so ridiculous that a man trashing property within his own home, with no threat to the partner, has resulted in a successful conviction of DV. All it takes is for the woman to claim she was in fear. It doesn't matter to the cop or court that there was no valid basis for the fear. Just that it was there.

There are YouTube videos that actually provide scenarios (including the one you noted) as to how to get a guy arrested for DV. It makes it much harder for those truly in need of protection. But there is a huge difference between civil court and criminal court with jury trials. I think that is partially the reason for the chasm between your thoughts and CDWJava's thoughts.

Interestingly enough, in Jersey, a criminal case is not allowed to be introduced into family court. Thus, many folks are paying their abusers alimony (we have a reform bill that addresses this issue which we're hoping is addressed this session). So it's somewhat ironic. If DV is addressed in family court, men wind up getting the short end of the stick related to % of custody time. Whereas, if DV is addressed in criminal court, where 99 times out of 100, the offender is NOT falsely accused, women wind up getting the short end of the stick having to make alimony payments to their abusers (often suspended while the guy is in prison/jail but then resume upon his release).

Just another indicator that Family Court really needs to be reformed in many states.

 

[justalayman]

tuffbrk;3269590]There are YouTube videos that actually provide scenarios (including the one you noted) as to how to get a guy arrested for DV. It makes it much harder for those truly in need of protection. But there is a huge difference between civil court and criminal court with jury trials. I think that is partially the reason for the chasm between your thoughts and CDWJava's thoughts.

nope and I'll explain as I address Carl's post.

 

[justalayman]

CdwJava;3269572]When someone is claiming that they are not, it is certainly relevant.

no, they aren't because each case is a separate case and using the prejudice that the man is guilty most of the time, it blinds those making decisions.

The crime still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. An arrest is based only upon probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the crime. It doesn't even mean that the person arrested is the ONLY guilty party, simply that he or she committed the offense.

No, crime does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the system we have. The system is very good at stacking charges putting an otherwise innocent person in fear of being incarcerated so when offered a deal, they take it. If you argue they don't stack generally invalid charges just to do that, then I suggest you spend some time researching what happens after you write up your reports. I know for a fact it happens and it happens a lot.

Is there a presumption that the male is the guilty party, or the party most responsible as the aggressor? Probably so. Practically speaking, more often than not, he is; so the police tend to focus on the male.

and that is exactly my point. Thank you.

Hardly insurmountable, but, it does happen where a guy can be railroaded by the system.

it happens..A LOT.

guy gets arrested for DV. Well, just so he won't fight it, let's toss on a few other charges. There isn't really enough evidence but what the hey, let's tack em on anyway. That way we can offer a special fantastic one time offer of pleading guilty to one charge and we'll toss in no incarceration or even an offer of a deferral and we'll make the other charges go away. The prosecutors are better at this than used car salesmen because if the guy says no, he is risking everything in his life. Absolutely everything.

so, do you accept cutting off an arm or do you risk having your heart removed. Given today's courts, it's no wonder there are some many convictions. It has nothing to do with justice. It is simply a tally of wins and losses. It has nothing ti do with justice and if you really think it does, its time to take the blinders off.

However, keep in mind that the nature of DV is such that many victims (some three quarters of them) will recant, change their story and even risk jail in order to protect their abusers. So, yes, the victims lie! More often, to protect their abuser than to put their abuser in harm's way

some of them recant because they actually realize that what happened simply does not justify what the other party is facing. Some of them recant because it is the truth but be careful with that since OMG, here comes filing a false report charges for what was simply an overly excited person, often to the point of being hysterical, realizing that they exaggerated the situation and now realize the system just doesn't give a damn about the people but about the tally of wins and losses.


the system is seriously f'd up. There is no way to put it any nicer. It is in serious disrepair and the problem is it is self proving that it is working. Look at all those DV convictions. We must be doing something right or we wouldn't be able to convict so many people.

the problem is that you do have all those criminal convictions. That is not proof it is working. It is proof it is so oppressive you just have little choice but to accept being clubbed with the gavel of guilt or accept your life it done.

If the courts really cared, there would be a much greater effort to correct the situation. That means recognizing that the couples need intervention. Not by locking somebody up but by counseling them, In that counseling it can be recognized whether the relationship is fixable or should the parties be counseled to dissolve the relationship.

The system has lost sight that the people involved here are people and they are partners in a relationship. Everything the court currently does works to injure a relationship. It causes divorces or separations and homelessness. By pushing prosecutions so fast as furiously, they have become blinded to the injury they do in attempting to prevent injury at all.

 

[CdwJava]

no, they aren't because each case is a separate case and using the prejudice that the man is guilty most of the time, it blinds those making decisions.

The implication was that men are not most often the abusers and this is simply, categorically and empirically untrue.

No, crime does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the system we have.

You must be operating in a different legal system then we have in the US as that is the legal standard and burden of proof that must be met by a prosecutor before a jury (or, a judge, in the case of a court trial - the defendant's option, by the way).

The system is very good at stacking charges putting an otherwise innocent person in fear of being incarcerated so when offered a deal, they take it.

If a defendant chooses not to avail themselves of the options available to them that's their choice. The standard is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the state does not have to prove their case, that's the defendant's call.

yes, some prosecutors tend to stack charges. But, stacking charges that cannot be proven is still a losing case. And stacking occurs everywhere and continues to be debated in every state for a host of offenses unrelated to DV.

it happens..A LOT.

I would think that your definition of "a lot" might vary from mine.

Quite honestly, in those instances where I have seen a guy likely "railroaded," he has been a fool to remain in a situation where - I the words of Gordon Graham - you can see that train a-comin'! A guy that stays in a volatile relationship with a woman who is always arguing with him and the cops are getting called by her or their neighbors is simply a fool.

But, as the police are simply required to act upon probable cause and not absolute proof, the burden for an arrest is relatively easy. Many DV cases are not prosecuted for a combination of reasons - most often because the victim refuses to cooperate (75%+ of the time) or the matter is objectively impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, and abusers lie, too.

some of them recant because they actually realize that what happened simply does not justify what the other party is facing.

Most recant for reasons to involved to get into here. DV victims are victims in more ways than just the physical violence. There is a psychological component involved as well that plays into their actions and explains why they act in the way they do and will eve risk jail to protect their abuser. More often than not the abuse is far more insidious than merely the physical aspect and includes excessive, OBsessive, and controlling behaviors in a host of other realms in addition to the physical.

There are some excellent studies and books out there on the topic.

the system is seriously f'd up. There is no way to put it any nicer. It is in serious disrepair and the problem is it is self proving that it is working. Look at all those DV convictions. We must be doing something right or we wouldn't be able to convict so many people.

And you would suggest ... what? Given the number of filings vs. the number of guilty verdicts or pleas, I would suggest that traffic offenses have a far greater guilty rating. But, I know that guilt in DV cases is no greater than guilt in other cases ... why? Because the DA gets to choose what to file, and with some few exceptions (such as a DA who has a policy to file on ANY DV) they file only on those cases they believe they can win. And most cases plead out - very few go to trial. Ever.

An arrest is still based upon probable cause (as are ALL arrests). Proof at trial must be beyond a reasonable doubt (as is the burden for ALL convictions). And the DA doesn't file on cases he cannot prove, so of course the wins are exceedingly high ... but, this is true for ALL crimes, not just DVs.

In CA a great many DVs do not get filed for a host of reasons. i can't speak for other states, but I suspect the numbers are similar.

If the courts really cared, there would be a much greater effort to correct the situation. That means recognizing that the couples need intervention. Not by locking somebody up but by counseling them, In that counseling it can be recognized whether the relationship is fixable or should the parties be counseled to dissolve the relationship.

Take a moment to read up on the ACTUAL sentences for the majority of first offense DVs in the US. You should find that most of them end up on probation and counseling, NOT imprisonment.

Once upon a time we granted the police and the courts much greater discretion in dealing with DV issues. This hands-off "it's a family matter" policy not only created an ongoing perpetuation of domestic violence, but resulted in far greater injury and death. Yes, death.

The cycle is insidious and passed on to succeeding generations; it is a learned behavior by both girls and boys. It is insidious, destructive, and must be stopped.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

We all (many of us here) just went through a massive multi page discussion on another forum, proving the government gives grants to those agencies that prosecute men as the aggressors. I even provided links to some of the actual Federal Gov't grants.

 

[CdwJava]

We all (many of us here) just went through a massive multi page discussion on another forum, proving the government gives grants to those agencies that prosecute men as the aggressors. I even provided links to some of the actual Federal Gov't grants.

No, they don't!!!

There are grants to pursue prosecution of the offenders but they do not state they are to prosecute MALES!!!

But, since the majority or defendants are males (gee, since the majority of abusers are ales - by a huge margin - language might state a generic masculine term, the grants can be used to support the prosecution of even females!

There are a number of grant programs out there, only a small number of which encourage vertical or dedicated prosecution of offenders; most end to provide for the assistance to victims. And, yes, victim assistance programs tend to focus almost exclusively on females. Why? Because it is mostly women that seek such services. Men - for reasons that that can be complex and varied - tend NOT to seek out such assistance. Since it is hardly cost effective for an NGO to offer separate and equal services, men often get the short shrift.

<sigh>

Look, if you guys want to insist that men are equal victims, knock yourselves out. The facts don't support that contention. But, this has gotten old, and I have two students graduating tonight so this is enough for me.

Have at it guys.

 

[cbg]

I don't recall that we actually proved any such thing. The claim was made, certainly, but it was not proved to MY satisfaction. Nor was I alone in my disbelief.

 

[stealth2]

of course not but the woman is believed more often than the man. There is a prejudice, quite possibly justified, that is applied to most cases. Facts are ignored. Defense statements by the man are more often disbelieved than a woman's statements.

It's like the cops want to be the knight in shining armor and save the damsel is distress and damn the truth, they are going to do just that.

There is a serious problem in the system today. I see it as an overreaction to the not too distant past where a blind eye review of a report of DV was the norm. Yes, too many women were injured and those situations ignored, sometimes resulting in the death of the woman.

A lot of women have figured out how to use the system to their advantage. They use a threat of making a report to the police of DV to attempt to control their partner. It's a shame it has been as it is long enough that that could even happen.

There is a middle ground and hopefully some day the pendulum will swing back to it, and not swing passed (but it is a pendulum so stopping in the middle is unlikely).

The thing to remember is that the pendyulum has already swung. It isnot the distant past where MEN were given the benefit of the doubt. Because women and children were chattel. So, sorry, but I have little sympathy. Time will come when it is more even but now? Suck it up, boys - you're paying for your predecessors.

 

[justalayman]

CdwJava;3269604]The implication was that men are not most often the abusers and this is simply, categorically and empirically untrue.

I never said that but I did say it is irrelevant as it causes responders to be blinded by that fact.

You must be operating in a different legal system then we have in the US as that is the legal standard and burden of proof that must be met by a prosecutor before a jury (or, a judge, in the case of a court trial - the defendant's option, by the way).

nope. same ol' system. that is the purpose of stacking the charges so you never get to the proving it situation. So far it's been working for the courts.

If a defendant chooses not to avail themselves of the options available to them that's their choice. The standard is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the state does not have to prove their case, that's the defendant's call.

again, it becomes a lesser of the evils, even if none of them are actually valid.

yes, some prosecutors tend to stack charges. But, stacking charges that cannot be proven is still a losing case. And stacking occurs everywhere and continues to be debated in every state for a host of offenses unrelated to DV.

with every charge tossed on you increase the cost of defending yourself and you increase the odds of one of the charges sticking. Our system is very flawed. Too many innocent people have been proven guilty.

I would think that your definition of "a lot" might vary from mine.

I doubt

Quite honestly, in those instances where I have seen a guy likely "railroaded," he has been a fool to remain in a situation where - I the words of Gordon Graham - you can see that train a-comin'!

OH HOLY ****. So now it's a: the guy deserves it because he wanted to make the relationship work or there were very few alternatives when there isn't a lot of money laying around so he can just go and buy another house or a million reasons he stayed.

for all that is Holy and Sacred, that is the most unprofessional thing I have ever heard you say.
He deserved it. Great attitude.

A guy that stays in a volatile relationship with a woman who is always arguing with him and the cops are getting called by her or their neighbors is simply a fool.

but that doesn't make him a fool guilty of domestic violence.

But, as the police are simply required to act upon probable cause and not absolute proof, the burden for an arrest is relatively easy.

yep, PC is pretty easy to see, especially with a jaded attitude.

Many DV cases are not prosecuted for a combination of reasons - most often because the victim refuses to cooperate (75%+ of the time) or the matter is objectively impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, let me tell you a story about somebody that decided not to cooperate.

this actually happened to a family not far from where I live. Son and father got into a fight. Not serious. No injuries. Police were called. (not by the parties involved) Father was arrested. Son, not wanting dad to go to jail and having a reasonable mind seeing that this was not proper given the situation decided to not show up for court. He was arrested for contempt of court. The charges against dad had been dropped, and yes, quite likely due to the son not showing up. Son sat in jail for a week, (last time I had heard since he was in jail at the time I learned of the situation and I'm not so close I keep close absolute up do date info of the issue and this was not but a couple months ago) awaiting a hearing on the contempt charge.


It's a system that is going to exact its' vengeance upon somebody, no matter if it is truly deserved or not.

Oh, and abusers lie, too.

absolutely agreed/

Most recant for reasons to involved to get into here. DV victims are victims in more ways than just the physical violence. There is a psychological component involved as well that plays into their actions and explains why they act in the way they do and will eve risk jail to protect their abuser. More often than not the abuse is far more insidious than merely the physical aspect and includes excessive, OBsessive, and controlling behaviors in a host of other realms in addition to the physical.

and sometimes it's because they realize that what is about to happen is much more severe than anything that happened during the incident that brought them to this point.

There are some excellent studies and books out there on the topic.

I'll have to do that.

And you would suggest ... what? Given the number of filings vs. the number of guilty verdicts or pleas, I would suggest that traffic offenses have a far greater guilty rating.

in my county, the courts have a 98% conviction rate. You can try to compare anything you want to anything you want. It is irrelevant when you have numbers that high.

and no, it isn't because they arrest only guilty people. The system in my county is excellent at stacking the Hell out of charges so as to make the offer that follows the only real alternative. I would love to see a comparison of actual guilty verdicts from a jury and guilty verdicts from plea bargains though. I think that would be quite telling.

But, I know that guilt in DV cases is no greater than guilt in other cases ... why? Because the DA gets to choose what to file, and with some few exceptions (such as a DA who has a policy to file on ANY DV) they file only on those cases they believe they can win. And most cases plead out - very few go to trial. Ever.

and the prosecutor is the one that adds on the additional charges so they can bargain a win. I have seen it in too many cases around me to know what they do. Cases I actually know enough true facts about so I do know the truth behind them. Sorry Carl but I think you are buying into "the system" too much. I have always respected your opinion but on this one, I know for a fact you are way off base.

An arrest is still based upon probable cause (as are ALL arrests).

PC is nothing. example; police report to a DV call. wife has a bruise on her forehead claims husband hit her. Husband claims she walked into the door. We have PC for an arrest for DV. The problem, the guy was telling the truth but he still gets arrested because of that tilted view the cops have; the guy has to be guilty because his wife said so.

so don't bother with arguing PC. The hurdle is so low I would be bothered if the cop couldn't find PC. He would have to be blind to not be able to find something reaching the level of PC in almost any DV call.

Proof at trial must be beyond a reasonable doubt (as is the burden for ALL convictions). And the DA doesn't file on cases he cannot prove, so of course the wins are exceedingly high ... but, this is true for ALL crimes, not just DVs.

at trial, yep. Care to research how many plea bargains compared to trials there are?

In CA a great many DVs do not get filed for a host of reasons. i can't speak for other states, but I suspect the numbers are similar.

I suspect my area is very different than yours. The prosecutors around here seem to have no problem filing anything that comes close to DV.

Take a moment to read up on the ACTUAL sentences for the majority of first offense DVs in the US. You should find that most of them end up on probation and counseling, NOT imprisonment.

sure. that is how the system is designed. We file 4 charges. offer to dismiss all but one and offer probation. The court has it's conviction and it's because the guy figured he might be able to defend the one valid charge but the others stacked on? How much is he willing to gamble he wins all of them?

Once upon a time we granted the police and the courts much greater discretion in dealing with DV issues. This hands-off "it's a family matter" policy not only created an ongoing perpetuation of domestic violence, but resulted in far greater injury and death. Yes, death.

yep and a perfect example is the case that happened about 40 miles from me. Wife was actively (and I mean actively) being pursued by her husband. She feared for her life. Cops ignored her pleas. They found her body the next day. what is worse is this was an ongoing issue with them. There was a restraining order but she was told unless he is physically in her presence, he has not violated it (and we know that is wrong but like usual, what proof is there he violated it).

so, unless she actually waited for her husband to catch up to her (and she had a fear of her life so that is a pretty dumb thing to do), the cops would not respond because he was not in her presence and therefor violating the order.


talk about f'd up.

The cycle is insidious and passed on to succeeding generations; it is a learned behavior by both girls and boys. It is insidious, destructive, and must be stopped.

absolutely and the courts have determined it is stopped by putting somebody in jail, or if not, separating them for a very long time so there can be no counseling, quite possibly causing homelessness (even more so now than ever before due to the economic climate), and often a divorce because it pushes the people apart. The system doesn't give a damn about the relationship. All it cares about is:

well, one more DV win on the record. Aren't we being a responsible government and boy do we provide for a safe place to live.

bull****.

 

[CdwJava]

The thing to remember is that the pendyulum has already swung. It isnot the distant past where MEN were given the benefit of the doubt. Because women and children were chattel. So, sorry, but I have little sympathy. Time will come when it is more even but now? Suck it up, boys - you're paying for your predecessors.

I just want to add, before I retire to housecleaning and entertaining relatives, that I recall a time in my career when an arrest for DV was a rare thing, indeed. Why? In CA we only had a felony section and absent clear probable cause or a private person's arrest (by the victim) of their abuser, we could not make an arrest for DV. Even if we saw that the victim was cowed and afraid we could not make the arrest for a misdemeanor at all, and the felony could be hard to show when the victim looked away and mumbled she was fine and nothing happened. "I fell ... I walked into the door ..." that sort of thing.

Only in recent years has the law changed to allow for a probable cause arrest by law enforcement (at least in my state) for a misdemeanor DV not committed in our presence, the incorporation of primary aggressor standards, and a requirement for a LOT of documentation to include past history, statements from neighbors and others with knowledge of the event and past events, etc. Prior to these recent years, we had to leave the victim in the clutches of their abuser. And, yes, it was almost exclusively a man that was the abuser.

Sorry guys, but that's the way t has been.

Now, I have my grades in for my high school class, and I have to go home and clean ... and smile for the family invasion ... and then it's off to graduation and then the sober grad night until 5 AM. So, I'll be exceedingly cranky at work (at the police department) tomorrow afternoon! DV suspects, beware.