I am glad that you acknowledge the fact that "pro-arrest policies" do exist. Obviously they can influence the Officers.
Many things influence officers. But, pro-arrest statutes and policies (as we have in CA) does not circumvent the basic legal principles that already exist. What they are meant to do is encourage a custodial arrest in a situation that might otherwise result in a discretionary separation of the parties or a citation and thus allowing the problem to continue to fester rather than afford the victim an opportunity to seek aid.
Is it true that Police use certain tactics, trickery, including lying during an investigation in order to influence a suspect? Don't tell us its not true. It does happen on occasion.
If you think you know the answer why ask?
Of course there are tricks that we can use, but they are limited by legal constraints. Whatever methods used cannot be seen by the court as potentially compelling an otherwise innocent person to confess to an offense they did not commit. But, we rarely have to employ such deceptions as the direct approach tends to work followed by confronting a suspect or witness with inconsistencies. It is very rare that we have to do anything unusual to try and elicit a potentially damning statement.
Sir, that is not what I am saying. You are trying to put words in my mouth or you are simply misinterpreting the conversation. I never claimed that all cops were liars.
Here is what YOU wrote:
"If they must make an arrest they must be able to justify it and they will regardless of the reality or truthfulness of either party. Do you see the problem now? If "probably cause" doesn't exist then they will make it exist."
This statement - the last sentence in particular - does, indeed, imply that the police will make up evidence or lie. If you did not intend to imply this, then perhaps you should reconsider your own statement and rephrase it.
The Officer did not witness anything. He made an arrest based on the OP's accusation and a broken chair.
And, very likely, the suspect's admission to breaking the chair.
Is breaking or dismantling a chair a crime?
In the context of the state laws charged, and coupled with what was likely threats (again, given the offenses charged), apparently it is.
The testimony that will make or break this case will be that of the victims. If the victim admits testimony that there was no real crime then reasonable doubt exists.
Not necessarily. The state can cast doubt on the victim's testimony at trial by suggesting a motive for her to lie to protect her abuser. very often that motive is financial, or it can be emotional. A skilled prosecutor can usually discount the victim's flip flop and present expert testimony that will demonstrate the greater reliability of the statement provided at the scene.
However, in misdemeanor cases, most prosecutors are not going to to the mat. If the victim wants to be a human punching bag, sometimes all that can be done is to allow it. But, we do not have to permit the children to remain in the home to witness it. Very often the avenue to stopping the cycle of violence is to lay the groundwork to potentially seize the children should the violence continue. Often that is sufficient to compel one or both parties to change their ways.
The defense will not have to argue much of anything. Again, the victim's own testimony will make or break the case. No one should ever take a plea bargain if they are not guilty of a crime.
Of course they should not take a plea if they are not guilty. The reason most people plead is that they ARE guilty and they do not risk the greater sentence at trial.
Other posters made commentary that she may try to hide the truth.
Which is very common in some 75%+ of DV related cases.
I agree that thinking you should duck a subpoena or lie is not the right way to handle anything. Just to clarify she was refering to "spousal privilege."
Which does not exist in many cases for DV.
Remember though, she said there was no real domestic violence to begin with. If it were me, i'd simply state the truth and to a jury if need be.
Because she is claiming he never HIT her. But, he has not been charged with striking her, he has been charged with menacing. You forget the code sections he is charged with violating.
In the end we agree. Unfortunately though, most DV charges cannot be set aside or reduced which may have the opposite affect as intended by the law makers.
I don't know about your state, but in mine they certainly CAN be set aside, reduced, appealed, and even expunged! The only thing that cannot be done in some states is expungement. Not all states have a process to do this.
It may possibly compel even guilty parties to turn down a plea bargain and possibly compel real victim's to lie in order to save their family members constitutional rights, his or her employment, the costs and possible jail time involved, and so on.
Yes, very often the victim will lie in order to follow the false notion that by doing so they will save the family, or, maybe save their financial situation, or, just as likely, in the false belief that he will change his ways (assuming a pattern of behavior). Sadly, we find that the stats show we will be to the home again ... and again ... DV is rarely a one time event.