He did nothing wrong; She doesn't want it, but Judge Issues a TRO Anyway
October 22nd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Here's an interesting personal story by a woman who's just learned a hard fact about life in our brave new world of VAWA (Crosscut, 10/19/09).
The author, Ann Bauer, drove their children from the mid-West to Washington State to join her husband, "J," who'd relocated there for work. After a bottle of wine one night, she and J decided to take a walk along a fairly busy thoroughfare.
Bauer was angry at her husband because she'd driven two hours to a furniture store that day with a locked trailer and without the key to unlock it. (Note that she unhesitatingly blames him for "pocketing the key" and not herself for failing to ensure that she had the key before she left, but that's neither here nor there.)
So, angry, a little tipsy and walking along a busy street, Bauer turned away from her husband into oncoming traffic. In the nick of time, he grabbed her and threw her onto the grass and fell on top of her in the process. Thankfully, no one was hurt. But a concerned motorist stopped and called the police who informed them confidently that this was a domestic violence incident. Bauer protested that the whole thing was her fault, only to hear the cop tell her that every DV victim says the same thing.
Bauer's husband spent the night in jail. At the hearing the next day for the issuance of a restraining order against her husband, Bauer told the DA that it had been her fault and that there was no reason for a no-contact order. The domestic violence counsellor said that she was certain that there was no DV involved, but the judge issued one anyway, for an indefinite period of time. The DA asked for one lasting two years.
So Bauer, her husband and two children live in an unfamiliar state, with unfamiliar schools, neighborhoods, etc., but are forbidden by law from helping each other deal with their new lives and surroundings.
Admittedly, this is a first for me. It's a case in which a restraining order was apparently issued on no evidence whatsoever. After all, the police officer hadn't seen anything and neither Bauer nor her husband wanted the order issued and in any event gave no evidence in support of it. The only "evidence" was the hearsay of the officer's report which was riddled with factual errors.
Let's be clear here. There are valuable constitutional rights at stake. For example, Bauer and her husband have, under the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech and free association. But the court sharply curtailed those rights by issuing an order denying them the ability to speak and associate with each other. So it must have done so via due process of law, right? Well, it's a strange breed of due process that allows rights to be violated by the state based on nothing but a report written by a person with no knowledge of the facts of the case. It's no due process at all.
But apparently the state knows best. It knows that a man whom his wife describes as "the mildest man I know," is a danger to her. It knows this because the police officer decreed it to be so. Here's what he told her:
“Listen. You’ve got to get it through your head, this guy does not love you. He controls you. Even if you were a great homemaker who kept the house spotless, he would hurt you. Even if you were taller and blonder, he wouldn’t stop.”
He's reading from the standard DV script. He's learned the lines flawlessly. Men are violent. Their only thought in marriage is to control the woman. They do this through a regime of violence that intimidates and terrifies the woman. The woman is so terrified that Stockholm Syndrome sets in and she denies her abuse. Therefore, when a woman denies being abused, it's proof she is being abused.
Andrea Dworkin would agree completely. Indeed, she could have written the script herself. Metaphorically, she did write it.
And if that doesn't cause concern for the society we live in, nothing will.
"));
19 queries. 0.366 seconds.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
“Listen. You’ve got to get it through your head, this guy does not love you. He controls you. Even if you were a great homemaker who kept the house spotless, he would hurt you. Even if you were taller and blonder, he wouldn’t stop.”
He's reading from the standard DV script. He's learned the lines flawlessly. Men are violent.
As you can see the "indoctrination" is complete.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Well, it's in with Big Big Big Government, and out with Freedom.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
My sincere hope is that one day these same policemen will be arrested for the exactly same thing (not that they do it, just that they are arrested for it - because as we all know, actually doing it doesn't matter anymore), and he will hear those EXACT lines read to him. That will be the only thing to wake those fools up.
Of course, the possibility of a policeman actually arresting a fellow policeman is pretty small...
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Historical note. Even evil Andrea Dworkin was astonished at the support for VAWA and said that the senators must not have even read it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
If we are being furnished with the totality of the evidence here, we are witnessing the shredding of the Constitution to serve the twisted interest of gender politics.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
In family court, the main purpose of a TRO is to protect the Judge.
If the Judge does not issue a TRO and "something" happens, then the Judge is in trouble. We can't have that!
If the Judge does issue a TRO one and "something" happens, then they can punish some guy and noone besides the guy will complain.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
re: Historical note. Even evil Andrea Dworkin was astonished at the support for VAWA and said that the senators must not have even read it.
...just like they're not reading the health care bill either. Their constituents are doing it for them. This health care mess certainly has brought to light how congress people vote the way their party leaders tell them and don't even bother to read their bills. Of course, how are they supposed to attend all those neat DC parties if they're bogged down with, um, reading legislation?
VAWA, health care takeover: Your wise leaders at work.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
My god what has happened with western civilization? Forget Al Quieda - our own governments have become a terrorist organization themselves.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Hmmmmm
The only way for him to "prove" he's not an abuser is to let her get run over?
And these morons think they're protecting women from men? Who is protecting these women from an unconstitutional power-hungry government?
I think this is indicative of something more insidious (possibly). Big "sugar daddy" government was previously interceding itself as "hired muscle" for women who no longer wanted a man as their protector--she instead chose big "sugar daddy" government as her protector--against her ex. As illegal as that is, I had at least acclimated to that battle for men's rights.
Now, big "sugar daddy" government is no longer happy with that.
Now they want to *punish* those women who thumb their noses at government "help" and remain "traditional" by choosing one man they love as their protector.
Government has now declared total war on men. Now they don't even need the weak standard of being called by the woman to air-strike the sh*t out of the dad, but now nuke the sh*t out of the couple when the woman is foolish enough to chose a man over big "sugar daddy" government.
These are dark days indeed.
Beware women--remain loyal to your man and you *shall* be punished for it!
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Actually I guess traditional shouldn't have been in quotes.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
So if he pulled a child out of the way of a moving car would he get charged with child abuse?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Hrm, possibly, he would have been charged with rape, statuatory rape, child molestation, and lewd acts with a child if he fell on top of her. Then, if they had time (they would make time) one charge of child abuse for every second until the police got there. Though, if it was a son, they might have both been charged.
The young son charged with one day becoming a monster, so they better lock him up now while he is in their custody.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
When I got out of the Marines, my ex wanted me to go into law enforcement. I absolutely told her to go pound sand on that one. Law enforcement is just that, "enforcement". You are a puppet and, no matter how ridiculous the laws, you have to apply them. I couldn't sleep at night doing what that cop did. I'm sorry if that sounds anti-cop. I know there are alot of outstanding men in uniform, some I have known personally. But, I couldn't do it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 am
Historical note. Even evil Andrea Dworkin was astonished at the support for VAWA and said that the senators must not have even read it.
That probably just means that she was ashonished that such a biased piece of legislation could pass. Maybe this means she thinks there is a limit to how much biased bull that can be written into law.
So if he pulled a child out of the way of a moving car would he get charged with child abuse?
Didn't that actually last year when a guy pulled an unrelated girl out of traffic and he was charged with assault but the charges were later dropped?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Haha! Even Andrea Dworkin understood the procedure of legislation! When will decent human beings "get it"?
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
I think decent human beings already get it. The problem is, we're grossly outnumbered and nearly unrepresented in our governmental bodies and agencies.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
I have a hard time believing we have the whole story here. I can buy a crazy cop, a crazy judge or a crazy DA, but all three at once? Suspect that either this couple has a history of DV incidents, or the husband has some kind of violent record.
That said, at least one of the public officials here has a real problem (most likely the cop, based on his quote) and should be fired.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Stan: "If the Judge does not issue a TRO and "something" happens, then the Judge is in trouble. We can't have that!" Bingo.
Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world where spineless judges are elected and refuse to risk having something go wrong if they let a man "off the hook" after the police say he did something. They would prefer to hide behind their TRO procedure and risk hurting an innocent man than risk something going "wrong" with their political career.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
DV funding corrupts justice The system craves victims. The peter principle in action "What happens, if social workers end poverty?"
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Stacy Says:
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
_ I'm thinking along the same lines. Maybe someone should investigate this a little further? If it really is the way it's laid out here, then lots of people should lose their jobs, but certainly the cop.
Is there no way to complain about the officer?
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“Listen. You’ve got to get it through your head, this guy does not love you. He controls you. Even if you were a great homemaker who kept the house spotless, he would hurt you. Even if you were taller and blonder, he wouldn’t stop.”
And here we see the danger of allowing these so-called DV "experts" to "educate" the judges, DAs, and police about DV. Remember their standard line, "Domestic Violence is all about the man trying to control his woman" and "if someone reports domestic violence then it must be true and the man MUST be arrested."
These people disgust me! It sickens me to see what extent they have been successfull in distributing their hateful propaganda. When I was lobbying for child support reform in my former home state, a group of these dimwits actually opposed our efforts claiming that having divorced parents share the expenses of raising their own children would somehow place battered women in jeopardy. So I have had first hand experience with their lies.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
The cops were called out on a DV, so an arrest must be made and prosecution is mandatory. That's standard! when have rights ever been a factor in DV court or proof had any thing at all to do with the out come in DV court.
These are kangaroo courts that have no interest in justice or the facts. It sounds like the only one with a case here should be the cop! How much mental abuse must he had to go through to make a trained investigator spew irrational crap like that. Welcome to Washington
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
someone linked this in the comments. It's good too. Another example of how they bully people into pleading guilty. http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-10-31/news/how-the-cops-and-courts-turn-abused-spouses-into-voiceless-victims
That is one reason I almost think they should make the punishments more severe, If people were harshly punished for pleading gulty of this stuff, they certainly wouldn't be willing to plead just to get home to see their wife and kids. They would fight for the truth.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I think that all three of these - the cop, the DA and the Judge, are kool-aid drinking disciples of the Reverend Stark. They believe, they "know", and the truth be damned, along with any unwilling participants of their proscribed remedies.
Really, this guy should be grateful. According to Rev. Stark, the court system probably saved him from a homicide from his wife. (In her own self defense, of course!) He Knows-Better! Just ask him! Presumption of innocence is an archaic patriarchial concept used by men to control and abuse women, and we need to moderninze our legal concepts.
Of course he's abusive and controlling - she wanted to step into traffic, and he wouldn't let her. Her body, her choice. Damn pro-life'ers - need to burn them at the stake!
Sarcasm aside, I think we'd get farther if, instead of "Nanny-State", we replaced it with a more feminist-marxist- styled term. The "Patriarchy State", maybe? "Dead-beat Daddy state"?
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Listen. You’ve got to get it through your head, this guy does not love you. He controls you. Even if you were a great homemaker who kept the house spotless, he would hurt you. Even if you were taller and blonder, he wouldn’t stop.”
Yep, that's the way to go--talk to a woman like she's stupid. Most women can sense when their men are not who they make themselves out to be. I'm pretty sure this woman could figure out for herself if her husband truly didn't love her. She doesn't need some DV-establishment-line-toeing cop telling her that. This cop basically told her that she is an idiot for even being involved with a man in the first place.
I know there are many cases where an abused woman will cover for her husband/boyfriend. But I don't think this is one of them.
It reminds me of that great line from "Oliver Twist": "The law is a a**"
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
# Chris D Says:
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
When I got out of the Marines, my ex wanted me to go into law enforcement. I absolutely told her to go pound sand on that one. Law enforcement is just that, "enforcement". You are a puppet and, no matter how ridiculous the laws, you have to apply them. I couldn't sleep at night doing what that cop did. I'm sorry if that sounds anti-cop. I know there are alot of outstanding men in uniform, some I have known personally. But, I couldn't do it.
----
Chris--I don't think you're anti-cop at all, just anti-moron.
I agree with you 100%. After all, "I was just following orders" are the same thing Nazi soldiers said when marching jews to the gas chambers.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
That cop is very dangerous. In this PC world he is the guy that will round up the christians, or conservatives, or what ever the pc bad guy. He has already shown his ability to get todays PC bad guy men.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I suspect many of the people commenting here have been victims of a false charge of DV (my ex fired the "silver bullet" at me in conjunction with filing for divorce from me in order to gain the upper hand in getting custody of our children). There were no police involved. She merely went to the local district court, gave a wildly inaccurate account of a disagreement we had (that had occurred over 2 years before BTW), and received a protective order that kept me from anywhere near her or my children for 2 weeks. When we went to court a few weeks later for our initial hearing on the divorce, the whole focus from my attorney was to keep me from getting in front of the judge who would hear anything about the TRO. She deftly got the other attorney to persuade my ex to drop the whole thing. I have no doubt from hearing horror stories like these, I would have lived through hell as that judge would have protected his own behind and extended the order if pushed into a corner.
As far as the cop in this story, just another gutless lackey who does what he is told not unlike the officers in the German army of the Third Reich did. Yes, he did speak to that woman as if she were an idiot trying to convince her that her husband is a bad man. He learned that little speech from someone else who clearly WAS talking to an idiot when it was taught to the cop.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
.......oh, BTW. My ex, who is now re-married, is now getting a taste of how restraining orders feel. Her husband's ex is now being dragged through the system as HIS ex has a permanent restraining order against HIM and is making claims of abuse against one of his children. Not saying it's right, but karma is a b****.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I remember when Florida made it law that if a cop saw evidence of DV that charges were filed, even if the victim didn’t want it. I understand why that law came about because my now-former mother-in-law was beat, in front of the eyes of myself and her son, by her husband, my now-ex’s step-father. I had blood all over my house. He even came after me but my brother-in-law physically intervened. Anyway, cops were called, MIL refused to file charges and I was begged not to so that things “wouldn’t be made worse”. That was over 20 years ago; the Florida law came after that. But this case is over the top. There wasn’t any evidence. Once again people in a position of authority (the cop and judge) just knew they were right and nothing else could possibly be the truth. They are using their authority to push what they believe to be true on others. Which is wrong! The cops job is to observe and report the facts, the judges job is to pass judgment based on the law. Neither job description states “make things up as you go along and push your beliefs on others”.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Brian,
How right you are! Karma will bite you in the you-know-what hard. My BF's ex stole his children. The oldest, now 20, finally got back in touch with him recently. And guess what?! Her BF has a child with an ex-wife. His ex is doing just what her mother did, severe PAS, lies and all. So now my BF's daughter is seeing what I have been seeing for the past 8 years and NOW she understands where her father is coming from. Daughter also is no longer speaking to her mother, totally unrelated to her father, but when you treat other people like crap all the time this is what happens.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 am
David
There was a case where a guy scolded a little girl that was not his own about playing in traffic after he almost hit her.
I'm too lazy to look for the story but I think it is on this site somewhere.
He had to register as a sex offender...no joke.
So if you pulled a child out of the way of a car you would likely be charged with way worse than child abuse.
You would be living under a bridge and be a sex offender for life.
Welcome to America!
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
JIM:
I remember reading that story also.
Compare that story to the one of the adult woman who had sex with two 13y/o girls, taped it, is recorded saying "I feel like a peadophile!" and got no jail time & no offender list sentence.
Admittedly this was in the UK, but I am sure you could look w/out trying too hard to find a similarly lopsided story of **women** doing harm to kids with no punishment (not *even* a slap on the wrist).
This guy saves his wife, and gets a TRO that nobody but the judge & cop want.
It boggles the mind.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:53 am
There is a follow up article....
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19138/
October 24th, 2009 at 2:17 am
A little more research....she has a number of articles out as a writer. In one she says her husband is an alcoholic, unless this is her second husband that was arrested. Son is violent and autistic. Sounds like a family with issues. I think that I am going to take this one with a grain of salt. 75% of me thinks she got a crazy raw deal, 25% percent of me now wonders if there is more to the story. She writes at Salon.com.....why am I not surprised? http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/06/17/bauer/
October 24th, 2009 at 2:20 am
OK, more research, this is her second husband. Now it stands at 85% to 15%.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I normally agree with this site, but this one sounds fishy as hell. Little more research needed.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The police here in my state of south australia seem to pick and choose how they interpret the law and are a law unto themselves. When i was going for custody of my daughter i called them out to the ex's house at 4.00am one morning, where my then 7 yo daughter was abandoned alone in the house for the umpteenth time while her mother was at a local hotel, in clear breach of family court orders which they were shown.When they had ascertained that she was on her own and didn't know where her mother was, with "leading the way to a safer community" proudly emblazoned on their vehicle, they ordered me from the property and just drove off and left her there , in clear breach of the child protection act in my state. When i contacted one of the community aid lawyers in town about what could be done about this i was told that as i live in a relatively small city/town, if i took them to task for it and made an official complaint i would find myself being picked up or stopped in my vehicle at every opportunity etc.etc. When i questioned a police officer recently as to why they acted as they did, i was told that i was LUCKY they even attended my call. Later after i got custody, and after being abused and threatened every time the ex came round to pick our daughter up for access visits [ witnessed by several people including our daughter ] i was forced to get a restraining order out on her. I had to beg and plead for one, whereas a woman in this country only has to say that she is afraid that her husband MIGHT do something and she will be granted one with no evidence at all. It was known that the ex used to carry a knife around in her bag and i had been told that she had been trying to get hold of a handgun from one of the members of the local pistol club. Yet when she came round and put a concrete statuette through my car windscreen and then came round later threatening to kill me in front of our daughter and also witnessed by my neighbour who is a sherrifs officer in the local court, the police just drove off and did nothing.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This is how we brainwash men to promote the feminist agenda. The officer involved is a product of that and I've met many men who feel similarly. They have since early school and constantly through media seen themselves portrayed as the oppressor and perpetrator.
Oddly, this demeans women by defining them as unable to define their own dignity and have the strength to make their own judgments of reality. Only the self appointed protector can.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:16 am
David M. Says:
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
So if he pulled a child out of the way of a moving car would he get charged with child abuse?
..............................
If he did nothing he would also still get the blame!Man can't win either way!
October 25th, 2009 at 12:19 am
dave aldridge Says:
October 24th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Dave you should hide a video camera or two and put her on Youtube!
BYW
October 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
In family court, the main purpose of a TRO is to protect the Judge.
You called it perfectly. It is not about right and wrong anymore. It is not about guilt and innocence.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Thought the update was good:
[]
The councilman cleared his throat. “Do you remember the officer’s name?” he asked in that same voice. It was like something coming from the back of a wet cave.
I thought for a moment, then remembered: the large, bald man had given me his card. He’d handed it to me, along with a pamphlet about domestic violence. I pawed through my backpack, found the crumpled documents, and read the name out loud. The councilman sighed.
“Christ,” he growled. “I knew you were going to say that. Let me make some calls.”
(To be continued)
[]
-Anon
November 9th, 2009 at 5:48 am
This has flown off into misinformation now:
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19147/
[]
Since the first installment of this story appeared last Monday, I’ve had a steady stream of calls and emails from men who claim that they, too, were wrongly charged. Most of them, frankly, have made me cringe. Especially the two that claimed most domestic abuse is committed by women — which is simply untrue.
Statistics compiled by the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence show there were nearly 50,000 cases of domestic violence in 2006 (the last year for which rates are available), and 85 percent of them involved a woman being abused by a man. What’s more, police are more likely to be injured or killed when intervening in a domestic than almost any other time.
My husband was not abusing me that night in August. Neither were the police trying to bully or railroad us. They erred — extremely, perhaps — on the side of caution. But given the statistics, it very well may have been the right thing to do.
The only thing that grieves me still is that J is the one who paid the largest price — in terms of comfort, dignity, and personal safety — though he was the least culpable. Luckily, he is a decent enough man to put it behind him and move on.
[]
They were able to get the charges dropped she says there though.
- Anon