New Column: Maine’s Adoption of Primary Aggressor Doctrine in DV Arrests Will Ensnare Innocent Men
August 6th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesMy new co-authored column, Maine’s Adoption of Primary Aggressor Doctrine in DV Arrests Will Ensnare Innocent Men (Lewiston Sun Journal, 8/5/07), criticizes LD 1039, a domestic violence bill. Combining with other misguided laws and policies, the bill essentially makes a street cop responding to a 911 call the arbiter of child custody, and of whether the children involved will have their fathers in their futures or not.
The column appears below.
New Column: Maine’s Adoption of Primary Aggressor Doctrine in DV Arrests Will Ensnare Innocent Men
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
LD 1039, which was recently signed by Governor Baldacci, requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a “process to evaluate and determine who is the predominant physical aggressor in a domestic violence situation.” While this sounds reasonable, in reality the predominant aggressor doctrine functions as a method of directing police officers to arrest men, not women, when responding to domestic disturbance calls.
The stakes here are high. Because Maine also has a mandatory arrest law in domestic violence cases, instituting the predominant aggressor doctrine will lead to the arrests of many innocent men. Since Maine family courts must consider evidence of domestic violence in determining child custody, an officer's decision on who to arrest can often determine who will get custody of the couple's children after the couple divorces or separates.
Under the predominant aggressor doctrine, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries, but instead consider different factors which will almost always weigh against men. These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others. Given these factors, it is very difficult for officers to arrest female offenders.
That women are frequently the aggressors in domestic combat cannot be reasonably denied. The National Institute of Mental Health funded and oversaw two of the largest studies of domestic violence ever conducted, both of which found equal rates of abuse between husbands and wives. Professor Martin S. Fiebert of California State University, Long Beach maintains an online bibliography summarizing nearly 200 academic studies that conclude that women are as physically aggressive in their intimate relationships as men.
Women often employ the element of surprise and weapons to compensate for men's greater strength. An analysis of 552 domestic violence studies published in the Psychological Bulletin found that 38 percent of the physical injuries in heterosexual domestic assaults are suffered by men.
Crime journalist Patricia Pearson, author of When She Was Bad: Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence, explains:
“The dynamic of domestic violence is not analogous to two differently weighted boxers in a ring. There are relational strategies and psychological issues at work in an intimate relationship that negate the fact of physical strength. At the heart of the matter lies human will. Which partner--by dint of temperament, personality, life history--has the will to harm the other?”
DV policies that ignore or minimize female aggression often mean men are arrested for their wives’ or girlfriends’ violence. The highly-publicized case of former major league baseball player Scott Erickson has come to symbolize the problems with current policies.
Erickson called the police during an altercation with his girlfriend in July of 2002. According to the Associated Press, the police concluded that Erickson's girlfriend Lisa Ortiz: initiated the fight by hurling objects; decided to come back twice after Erickson carried her out of the apartment; repeatedly kicked the apartment door; caused Erickson two minor injuries, one of them to his pitching arm; and herself suffered no injuries. Nonetheless, the police arrested Erickson. Afterwards Ortiz publicly stated that Erickson, who did not pursue her either time after carrying her out, "has never been physically abusive toward me.”
John Hamel, LCSW, author of Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse: A Comprehensive Approach, explains that under the predominant aggressor doctrine, ”Unless the officer can conduct a thorough psychosocial history on the scene, he/she is likely to make the arrest based on the potential for the man to cause greater harm…Arrests should be based on severity of assaults...without gender bias.”
LD 1039, sponsored by Representative Deborah L. Simpson (D-Auburn) and supported by the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, does have some good provisions. It mandates that the state create processes to ensure that victims can safely retrieve personal property, and that they receive notification of the defendant's release from jail. However, the system’s reluctance to view women as anything other than victims inhibits efforts to effectively curb domestic violence. LD 1039 will aggravate this situation, further stacking the system against men.
[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]
"));
19 queries. 0.449 seconds.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Fantastic. Thank you for this, Glenn.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Size has nothing to do with domestic violence. It's all about who WANTS to hurt the one they love. I could easily beat up my girlfriend, but I wouldn't dream of it! What's to stop her hitting me when she's annoyed? Nothing. And under these laws, she could assault me with full force and I would be punished!
August 6th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
What a ridiculous law. I can't even believe that they could get away with passing something so obviously biased. It seems akin to sending a convenience store owner that thwarted a robbery because he kept a weapon behind the counter to jail, simply because he has the resources to get out of jail, and allowing the robber to go free. Unreal.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Why didn't they just state that all men in domestic violence situations will be jailed.
I really like (not) the phrase "allegedly least likely to be afraid."
"These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others. Given these factors, it is very difficult for officers to arrest female offenders. "
Typical Scenario:
--------------------------------------
let's see....um .....let me set down my donut.....
ok...he's bigger.....uh....he's least likely to be afraid....likely....
um...he "probably" makes the money in the family....um....
we took the man in the last situation like this....um....
let's take macho man..... now where'd I put my donut?....
---------------------------------------------
That's PROBABLY not stretching the truth too much either.
Now you know what they mean by FatherTIME
August 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Laws like this are another reason why some men are so unwilling to report Violence.
If only Democrats could stop pandering to the feminist agenda......
August 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Cops are determining my daughters future while they pursue the POLICYS of the state and municipalities in pursuit of money. This is a POLICE STATE situation for fathers. The NYPD patrol guide has the same instruction as Maine. It is a9 all encompassing money grab for federal and state money which includes Family Court, Criminal Court, Child support enforcement units, Domestic Violence classes, Lawyers, Judges pensions, Municipal and State budget balancing and much much more. I have to convince a Federal Judge (in my answer to a summary judgement motion by the City of NY) my childs mothers cop friend had probable cause to arrest me and brutally put me thru the systen 3 times. The criminal court and family court have 'concurrent jurisdiction' in NYS and the protection order stated subject to family court orders but this cop was hell bent on making me a criminal and not allowing me to make a phone call to my 3 year old as provided by the family court order. The Family court set me up. I had to move to PA and they seem to have enlarged on the 'stay away' order to include state borders. From the top down my child is last on the list. I was acquited after trial but malicious prosecution still requires arrest without probable cause. I was calling my three year old as provided by the Family Court. When a private citizen can have another private citizen arrested solely on their say so, then we are living in a police state. The State is the primary aggressor.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Its not right to say that size doesn't matter at all. Women are more likely than men to be seriously injured than men, and my understanding is that this stems primarily from the size difference. But its obviously not the only important thing, and this "predominant physical aggressor" doctrine sounds really stupid.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Actually devnul, that's only because men are less likely to go to the hospital about it. Mainly due to the stigmas already attached to male victims.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Take a read of that if you have the time.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I am a 54 year old father of two, divorced, and I am an ICU nurse and a nurse practitioner. I have primary custody of both my 11 year old son and my 16 year old daughter as of a year ago, their mother is a teacher. I finished my exceptional masters degree in nursing three years ago from a renouned university, and for this I am grateful. As a matter of coursework toward professional requirement and responsibility, we covered domestic violence from a health provider's standpoint. When the professor mentioned Lacy Peterson (her body washed up on a California shore) the second time, I had to ask the class, "Has anyone tasted anti-freeze in their food lately?" Lynn Turner, in Atlanta, had recently poisoned a boyfriend, and she was then suspected of murdering a husband 16 years prior, also with anti-freeze. Lynn Turner has since been convicted of murder. I told the class that this subject is quite personal to me... while married and sitting on the sofa during an argument, my ex approached me standing, and hidden from behind her back she swung her fist from behind and ejected a pint of rubbing alcohol into my eyes and on my upper torso. A few seconds later, when I cleared the alcohol out of my eyes and could see, I saw a cigarette lighter in my face with her thumb on the trigger. I told this masters degree class that that's a death threat! And living in Gwinnet County Atlanta, I sure as heck didn't report it... I'd just get my kids ripped out of my life and be financially destroyed, both which happened shortly after, anyway. The professor insisted that domestic violence is primarily a male on female crime. I told the class that the domestic violence statistics are confounded, because men don't report and some women report falsely. I asked the professor then, what would be a good indicator of the gender propensity to commit domestic violence? I suggested maybe we consider fillicide, the murder of children. I roughly quoted some statictics that from 1985 to 1995: of the children (age newborn to four) who were murdered during these ten years, about 31 percent were murdered by their mother, and about 32 percent were murdered by their father. These are convictions in federal court. The genders tend to murder for different reasons, and by different methods, but the figures are irrefutable. This professor asked about the authenticity of my statistics... I told her this information is on the CDC website. And, not only is fillicide a strong indicator to the propensity for domestic violence, there is more. Of the mothers federally convicted of filicide, about 75 percent are in mental institutions, and 25 percent in jail. Of the fathers federally convicted of fillicide, about 75 percent are incarcerated, 15 percent in mental institutions, and about 10 percent executed.
I kept my children 45 percent of their lives as divorced younger children. It was a miracle indeed that I got shared custody, and my argument was that I am a nurse father... a caregiver by education, profession, and choice, not by gender. I went into considerable debt as a 45 percent part-time father of two, while also paying child support according to the paternally punitive laws of Georgia. This debt persists as evidence that I refused to be financially beaten out of the lives of my children. Now, through divine intervention exclusively, I have primary custory of both children based on my daughter's election. You might ask me why now, how a teacher (mother) doesn't have to pay child support to a nurse (father). That's about as occupationally neutral scenario as you can find. It became perfectly clear that Judge George Hutchinson of Gwinnett County Superior Court of Georgia would split my younger son from his father and sister and give primary custody of my son back to his mother, before a secondary custodial mother would have to pay child support to a primary custodial father according to the very laws of Georgia.
It's not just the paternally punitive laws of Georgia, it's the unbecoming and inhumane application of the law by Judge George Hutchinson and countless others like him. I would have suffered less had the humane society picked me up as a stray and had me lethally injected after no one would adopt me infested with debt. And, in our arrogance as a nation we want to consider ourselves holy and godly as we fight the cheuvanist tyrants in Iraq and other countries for reasons including the abuse of females... humans, no matter the gender. And, I will plead this case before the Mercy seat of God!
It is perfectly alright to publish this response.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:05 am
It used to be that the police would arrest the primary aggressor. When "too many" woman where getting arrested the feminists created this new law!
The elephant in the room is that there is an excuse for domestic violence when woman do it.
The police will knowingly leave children with violent mothers in order to "prove" the feminist theroy of the patriarchcal society.
The only shelter for men is the local jail.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Great comment Robert, the only shelter for men is jail! How true and so obvious. In nursing school the students had to give a class presentation on some pro bono, free help to the "underprivileged." Most female classmates covered the greater Atlanta women's shelters. I told the professor that I've about had enough of that bias crap, my presentation of pro bono societal efforts would be to cover the volunteers who teach at hunter/gun safety classes! Rather impressive and progressive movement, as opposed to the victimhood movement.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
devnull said:
"Its not right to say that size doesn't matter at all. Women are more likely than men to be seriously injured than men, and my understanding is that this stems primarily from the size difference. But its obviously not the only important thing, and this "predominant physical aggressor" doctrine sounds really stupid."
Here in Maine there is a huge (pardon the pun) obesity problem and many women outweigh men. We have heard men who call our helpline say "she outweighs me by 100 pounds and she was the one that attacked me yet I got arrested." So size will only be used as a factor here, IMHO, if the man is bigger. If the woman is bigger they will use the "fear factor."
These laws are slowly being put in place across the country and there appears to be little that can be done to stop them. How can one argue that we shouldn't protect women to the general public that believes that this is all the women's advocates are after? Please consider helping the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women by volunteering or making a financial contribution. Male victims all over the country will be thankful that you did. www.dahmw.org
August 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Gentlemen,
I would strongly recommend you read two works. One is John Hamel LCSW "Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse: a Comprehensive Approach" and Donald Dutton "ReThinking Domestic Violence" Both of these do an excellent job of showing that DV is a complex problem that demands complex solutions. The simple answers of the DV Industry can't solve anything. The DV industry (which is feminists dominated) is notorious for denying the true scope of IPV (intimate partner violence). They deny 50% of the human race (men) can be OOV (objects of violence): they refuse to study FOV (female originated violence) which means another 30% of the human race is ignored and finally they ignore all violence women due in positions of feminists dominance (the fields social work, nursing, education, child protection, custody evaluators, mediators, head start, preschool, pubic aid, family services, policy/procedure experts to all governmental agencies and as the only "experts" of DV). I presented to the Chicago Police Department for over 7 years just after the "DV experts" presented and never once did they ever mention that there are no men's advocates or father/children advocates are never allowed to present a balanced presentation of the true nature of IPV.
Men must begin to demand "equal treatment" when confronted by police and demand men's advocated be present before any questioning proceed. It will only been when men demand that men's advocates be present, just like blacks and women demanded and got, will this whole sale male bashing start to end. I recommend that all men carry a simple card that says to the effect: "I can not have my constitutional rights be guaranteed without a male or father/children's advocate present during any questioning. Tell your commander I'm making this demand. I can not make any statement until this has happened"
August 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
LD 1039 is an essential step in a positive direction. A close (male) friend once said; "when a woman hits a man, she's playing a man's game, and men react INSTINCTIVELY to violence." This is NOT to excuse or condone violence to women, but far too many males have been physically (and emotionally) abused by personality disordered women,
who (unfortunately) lack any sense of boundaries; http://GettinBetter.com/blackmail.html
August 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
"Its not right to say that size doesn't matter at all. Women are more likely than men to be seriously injured than men, and my understanding is that this stems primarily from the size difference."
Size *only* matters with regard to injuries. It does NOT matter with regard to who INITIATES the violence. You're confusing injuries with initiation of violence, as so many people do. The two are absolutely NOT the same.
Size has nothing whatsoever to do with who is primarily the aggressor or initiator of domestic violence at all.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Good for you, Tim. How did the class react, and in what part of the continent did this take place?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Is this one of the reasons that Islamist hate us?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Just keep on whineing, it will do you not good.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Are you freaking kidding me?! how the heck can you stop stuff like this going in? What can men do? Leave the country and just go live somewhere else and leave this one in the hands of male hating femenists? Seriously? This is rediculas.
Anyone who has been married to even a half independant woman can tell you that women are just as likely to abuse as men if not more. Hell you can see it in regular main stream TV now where men are shown as sort of second class family members who are of course submissive to their wives.
The only punches thrown in my relationship were by my X at me. Some "people" are just violent and if you give someone power and they see no real consequences to their actions why wouldn't they throw things and beat on men? Hell if the man dares to even defend himself he goes to jail and is called a woman beater. Then you have to take a look at mental abuse.. which is supposed to be worse then physical no? It doesn't matter how big and strong you are, you can be beaten down like an animal mentally.
This stuff just sickens me inside. My children stand no chance...
August 8th, 2007 at 12:33 am
As a police officer in a state that already requires an arrest in a domestic situation involving physical violence I speak from experience when I say the law does work if the officers utilize it correctly. The term "primary aggressor" is used when determining who goes to jail and it's not always the one who struck first, rather the one who inflicted the more serious injury. If there are signs of physical abuse on both parties and the "primary aggressor" can not be established then the officer has two choices. The first would be to arrest both parties charging them equally and the second choice would be to make no arrest and leave it to the individual victims to follow up on prosecution...in other words the parties involved would obtain their own warrant for assault. The decision not to arrest must be documented in the officers report as to why no arrest was made. In my state we never consider who makes the money or who is most likely to be afraid. In cases of verbal only situations where no physcial violence has taken place the officers are required to offer safe housing to both parties in an attempt to seperate for a cooling off period.
Also required in our Domestic Violence law is the officer (s) are required to document in their report the names, ages and sex of all minor children living in the home, statements made by the children. A copy of the report is then forwarded on to the Dept. of Children Services for follow-up by a case worker within 72 hrs. The officer is also required to offer "safe housing" and assist with transportation if needed. The safe housing is offered to both men and women and any children in the home. Family Services follow-up with the victim (s) to assist in prosecution, obtaining an Order of Protection from the courts and temporary support for minor children.
The law does work and if properly enforced gives both parties involved equal treatment under the law.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:22 am
John, please! Do you do the drugs you arrest people for?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:16 am
John is correct that the law works if properly enforced, absolutely. However, if law enforcement officers are trained to see the woman as the victim in 95% of the cases (battered women's advocates use the 95/5 stats still to this day in their training even though that stat came out of the early 1990's and it was only found in ONE study) then through "perceptual accentuation" (a person sees and hears what they want to see and hear) male victims will be arrested. I have seen the most recent trainings for police officers on predominant aggressor determination here in this state. Basically, IMHO, they will be trained to look for fear in the victim...no matter how much injury one party (the man) has. Most men don't show fear or speak about fear because it's not manly (and what man would want to appear "unmanly" in front of police officer?) so even if they are on the receiving end of the abuse they will be the one arrested. I know that sounds like an over simplification but having viewed a good portion of the training I do not believe I am too far off the mark on this.
Recently, a police officer told me of a situation where the polcie were called to the scene of a domestic disturbance. The man's ex-partner punched him in front of witnesses and broke the man's nose. The officer on the scene chose not to arrest her. Had the genders been reversed I believe he would have gotten arrested. This state has mandatory arrest laws. It is my understanding that some police officers in some counties have gotten a lot of flack from the battered women's advocates about arresting women so they tread lightly when arresting women for domestic assault. The battered women's advocates blame (all) the increase of arrests in women on women defending themselves. There has been a significant increase in women getting arrested over the last five years so if the police are arresting women they must be arresting victims defending themselves. I am sure that's the case in some situations (just as it is with men but men are not allowed to defend themselves in these situations). This black and white thinking really needs to change if we are to stop dv in the near future.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Jan in my state an officer can be sued for "failure to protect" if the officer sees signs of physical abuse (a.k.a. a broken nose) and fails to make an arrest. The law leaves the officer no option for opinion, sex of the victim or aggressor, history of violence, or whether or not the aggressor is claiming self-defense. If there are signs of physical abuse somebody is going to jail. Period.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:46 am
John, if "The term "primary aggressor" is used when determining who goes to jail and it's not always the one who struck first, rather the one who inflicted the more serious injury," then that is a problem. Very often the larger person inflicts more injuries in defense. If a woman is striking a man and coming at him with a knife, which is exactly what happened with my friend repeatedly, and if he finally hits her in the face to stop her and she is bruised (which didn't happen yet with my friend), by the standards you describe, he is the one who gets arrested, because *he* made the injuries. Plus he's probably "bigger" so now that works against him too. That is simply wrong.
Jan is correct about the police training. Alot of it is VAWA funded and is totally biased.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Taking into account the man is being attacked by a woman with a knife which is agg. domestic assault then yes there are circumstances where the attacker would receive injury from the victim. However, once the attack had ceased the victim would no longer have a right to inflict further injury in self-defense. We were not speaking of aggravated domestic assault where there were weapons involved other than fists, nails, feet, etc.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hi John,
Thanks for your response. It's good to know that the domestic violence laws in your state are enforced no matter what gender the victim is. As a national agency that specializes in offering support and services to male victims of spousal and intimate partner violence, I am very interested in learning more about what state you are in so that I may know of the "safe" places to send our clients that need assistance.
We have spent the last seven years building up a resource list for our clients and in many parts of the country we are hard pressed to find help for male victims. To our knowledge there are only a half dozen or so domestic violence shelter programs that will assist a male victim beyond phone "support."
I have spoken with numerous advocates in dv victims centers across the country looking for services for our clients and have often heard, "We don't help men." My personal opinion is that this response is a "throw back" from years ago when dv centers routinely referred men who called their hotlines to batterers intervention programs because it was believed that a man calling a women's hotline must be a perpetrator looking for find out where their victim was. I have even had a women's dv program director tell me that this was the protocol for male callers to their hotline until recently. So if you wouldn't mind sharing where you are located privately it would be a tremendous help to us.
You can email me at: director@dahmw.org Thanks
August 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The Canadian Police Hand Book produced by the government of Canada has policies that mirror this bill. The fact that a policy like this exists is only evidence that bills like we're seeing here are merely the next stage. While this is not law, yet, make no mistake - it is being practiced as such already and will continue weather it is law or not. Policy is always practiced first.
"Police are being asked to investigate which party, if either, is the dominant aggressor, and avoid arresting both parties where one is clearly mor dangerous."
"If it cannot be determined immediately who the dominant aggressor is, remove theremove the biggest threat in that instance." (Men are bigger threats because they're bigger, right?)
"Separation from their mother may heighten children's sense of insecurity and worry following the violent incident." (This is in regard to dual arrest policy. It's ok if the children see Dad arrested for mom's violence. Children having a sense of security is all because of mom.)
"Children's Services should be contacted to assist THE WOMAN in making plans for children's care." (If we have to arrest them both, probably because a witness got in the way, we should at least help woman establish custody.)
"When the facts of the case initially suggest dual charges, police should apply a 'dominant aggressor' screening modal." (Yes, arrest the man, not both)
"Abused women refrain from seeking police protection for fer they may be arrested and separated form ththeir children." This is what police are suppose to consider, it is found in the dual arrest section (page 26) and apparently the police are expected to think she must be abused if she is violent and just hasn't reported it in the past. Arrest the male. Men must not fear arrest so feel free to report your abusive wife. This is what a woman worries about, not a man - this is what the police are taught RIDICULOUS
"Charges against the most violent and dangerous abusers are routinely dropped because victims are also accussed."
I love how this is written as though the police actually have factors to take into consideration. It's completely bias. Everything clearly leads to the mans arrest regardless. The only thing police are asked to consider is what excuse or theory can be used to avoid arresting a guilty female aggressor. What a Fraud. Oh Canada
August 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Marc, I agree that suffering less injury doesn't qualify someone as a victim. Being a 'dominate self-defender' so to speak, is not suppose to be a crime, it's (self-defense) a right.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
An officer can be sued for "failure to protect" John who do you think you are speaking to? What officer has been sued for failure to protect? You are the one that is protected. Show me (the complete lack of) cases inwhich an officer was sued. The fact that would be extremely difficult isn't because officers usally have it right but I'll bet that's the reasoning. How in the hell to you prove you were falsely arrested, that you are the victim when someone like you makes it there job to pick just one person and stick to it. The police call these victims liars before they ever get to court and who gets believed other than the protected police and abusers pretending to be the victim. Mandatory arrests, john, does that mean if your not sure who is guilty then you have to arrest someone anyway? Of course it does, which means that you ARE NOT required to have the right person otherwise you would be sued everyweek. Are you sued everyweek? Don't make excuses about some burden placed on you that prevents you from making 'mistakes'.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Why do I post so much on Glenn’s Blog? Because the stuff that people post here has happened to me first or second hand about 99% of the time. Take my life, PLEASE...
Divorce in Gwinnet county, Georgia? Yep! My college roommate went through that. The Salem Witchcraft Trials were more fair.
At age 45, after lifelong successful, continuous employment supporting his family with a very nice income, he was left with the sum total of three pieces of clothing and sandals. It was all very carefully pre-planned and he had no idea it was coming.
She had a garage sale the day after he was escorted out of the house by the sheriff for no cause in the middle of dinner. Sold or gave away absolutely everything that belonged to him.
Everything, including any visitation with two daughters was lost. She even changed the kid’s first and last names.
He’s paying $2200/month to support Ex, her worthless mother, three worthless brothers and an assortment of wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends and about 15 kids of which no two, except for his, have the same mother and father in a large new house, purchased with just this in mind just a few months before the Sheriff's visit.
All the women keep getting pregnant and it could be by anyone in the house (and presumably anyone else). His daughters, once very beautiful kids, now very bitter and hardened. Her attorney an extremely vile, radical feminist who strives to force the husband into suicide, views this outcome as a smashing victory for women the world over.
He just writes the check and refuses to even look back over his shoulder at it all.
DanH
August 8th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Hi John.
If you wouldn't mind, I have some questions that I am dying to ask you. I don't doubt that you believe that these laws are fair but I have some problems with them, perhaps you can set me straight on a couple of issues.
A little history.
My ex had me arrested twice so I have a little perspective on this whole issue.
The first time we where married and I was defending myself when she attacked me, and the second time was after we where divorced and she "revoked" my visitation in writing with our son and then claimed I had threatened her, which wasn't true.
1) In your state where do you shelter abused fathers and their children and where do the funds to shelter them come from?
2) Since domestic violence is really about control, who is hurt more when you get there tells you nothing about who the real abusive person is in the relationship. Would you agree or disagree, why? I don't think these laws "help" couples that are dealing with DV. yet the states profit from court costs required DV classes and fines.
3) I have read that when a woman goes to a shelter she has to agree to divorce her husband before the let her stay there. Have you seen or heard this? Do you know of any women that has gone back to their husbands after staying at a shelter?
4) How often are drugs and alcohol involved with these cases in your experience?
5) How often did you arrest someone for DV just on the one parties word without any other evidence?
6) How many men and how many woman have you arrested for DV?
7) Does your state use the "Duluth" model for "re-education" of those convected of being abusers?
Thanks...
August 8th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Lane I can't speak for Canadian law, nor it's officers. Here in my state I can think of two local officers, not from my agency, who were recently sued for failing to protect ie.. they failed to get a warrant charging DV and later that same day the abuser came back and literally burnt the house down around the victim. The victim survived and with help from an attorney succesfully sued the agency and county involved. As for just picking someone to arrest and sticking to it...that doesnt happen. As I said earlier if we can't determine primary aggresor then either both parties are arrested or prosecution is left to the individuals involved. Nobody is "picked" out. I take pride in my work and have every confidence in the men and women assigned to me to do their job in a professional and ethical manner. Those who don't usually don't stay around very long.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Hello Robert
I will do my best to answer your questions...
Q 1. We have shelters set up for both men and women (different locations) and both are equipped to handle single individuals or familes and they are usually funded from the city/county budgets kicking in funds and by the United Way foundation.
Q 2. I can't say I would agree that the more injured party is always the true victim. Meaning the more injured party could very well be the true aggressor, maybe not so much in physical forcre or abuse but rather mental abuse which lead to the physical part. As for the state profiting from court costs etc. I can't say I agree with that either because you have to take into account the costs involved in case management, instructior fees for the classes, outreach programs funded by the county/city and the judges aren't working probono either.
Q 3. I can't speak for all shelters but those in my state do not require a woman or man to divorce their spouse in order to stay there. In fact, more times than not the shelter is used as a place where parties can have time apart in order to cool off and get some intervention started...parenting classes, counseling or whatever may be needed.
Q 4. Substance abuse runs rampant through every segment of society be it upper, middle or lower class households. You would be amazed. I hope that answers your question.
Q 5. We have never arrested without evidence be it physical (bruising, redmarks or a doctors report) A good abuser can put a choke hold on you and not leave a mark. Only by Xray and medical exam will it be found. So sometimes the arrest is delayed but with time the truth comes out.
Q 6. I have been in law enforcement for 22 yrs so I have lost count on my arrests. Sorry.
Q 7. Per our DV law the abuser is required to take an anger management course but I am not involved in that aspect of the law so I cant answer exactly what method of instruction is used.
I hope I have been of some help to you.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:16 am
John your saying nobody gets picked out yet my comment was in reference to your statement ...."being in a state that already requires arrest in domestic violence situations..."
Resonse to answer #2
" I can't say I would agree that the more injured party is always the true victim. Meaning the more injured party could very well be the true aggressor, maybe not so much in physical force or abuse but rather mental abuse which lead to the physical part." The first sentence sounds as though your on the same page as the rest of us until you 'clarify' your meaning. Did I misinterpret this or are you infact saying that true aggressor might only be the agressor as far as mental abuse is concerned and that is why this person was physically attacked. So of course you arrested the right party. Or are you actually saying the mental abuser/true aggressor became the physical aggressor. I doubt it's the later interpretation but I could be wrong.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:17 am
John your saying nobody gets picked out yet my comment was in reference to your statement ...."being in a state that already requires arrest in domestic violence situations..."
Response to answer #2
" I can't say I would agree that the more injured party is always the true victim. Meaning the more injured party could very well be the true aggressor, maybe not so much in physical force or abuse but rather mental abuse which lead to the physical part." The first sentence sounds as though your on the same page as the rest of us until you 'clarify' your meaning. Did I misinterpret this or are you infact saying that true aggressor might only be the agressor as far as mental abuse is concerned and that is why this person was physically attacked. So of course you arrested the right party. Or are you actually saying the mental abuser/true aggressor became the physical aggressor. I doubt it's the later interpretation but I could be wrong.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Thanks John.
Sounds like the DV program in the state you work in is working pretty well, what state are you referring too?
August 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Lane there are two types of DV or abuse. The first being mental abuse which by itself, though wrong and can lead to physical abuse, is usually not cause for immeadiate arrest in my state. Now if it can be proven that death threats, or threats of serious bodily injury have been made then yes we can usually obtain a warrant for DV.
The second type (physical abuse) is grounds for immeadiate arrest. As a law enforcement officer it is my duty to determine , if possible and not always easy, who the primary aggressor is and by definition that would be the one who inflicted the more serious injury. I agree that men are often seen as the primary aggressor due to the fact that men are generally stronger and larger than their counterpart and therefore can inflict more serious injury with less effort.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:04 am
john is an example of our modern brain washed selfrightous police force. Any law on the books, john knows best, just ask him. john will make you sit on the back of the bus or go to his church, whatever it takes, cops, why are 99.9% SMF's.
I thought I made a mistake when I did not report the smaller wife bashing and spitting, but I was a little afraid she might get me while I was asleep, looking back now, maybe they would have arrested me.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:04 am
john is an example of our modern brain washed selfrightous police force.
Agreed Johnny!
The facts are that the VAWA gives NO money to abused men and their children. As far as I know there is one shelter for men in the country and it is self funding.
Congress or domestic violence organizations won't even allow speakers who talk about womans violence on men.
Until last year the common notion was that 95% of domestic violence was men on woman.
The Duluth model which most states use defines the cause of domestic violence as the social construct of the "patriarchy". (Men use violence to control woman, and if she hits him it's because she is defending herself.) aka she is always the victim.
Accusing your spouce of DV during a custody battle is so common it has a name, "The Siver Bullett".
I guess John can sell his "fairness" ideas to those people who haven't seen the police and judges contempt for men and fathers in action.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
You all are getting a perspective rarely shared from a police officer willing to calmly discuss his experience working in the system so it would be nice if you wouldn't attack the messager IMHO. I realize that many of you have experienced negative effects of our domestic violence laws but John didn't make the laws, he is there to uphold them and from what he says his department does so in an unbiased way. Rather than attack him perhaps it would be better to find out how it is that his department has come to be so open minded about the dv laws so that we can learn something from this blog topic. I don't see how attacking him is benefitting anyone.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Thanks for the support Jan but in all honesty I have heard it all before and just let the comments roll off my back. About the only advice I can give to those who have had negative experiences with law enforcement is to look into any programs offered by their local law enforcement agencies such as a Citizens Academy where participants attend classes one night a week and ride along with a patrol officer. These programs usually run about 8 weeks and give citizens an insight to the law and what officers deal with on a daily basis. Our department offers such a program and the waiting list to attend remains constant. Graduates of the program come away with new insight and usually state "man I wouldn't have your job". You have to love the work because you sure are not in it for the pay.
August 11th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Here's an interesting article.
http://tinyurl.com/32jj3o
Reports like this leads me to believe that John isn't being completely candid about his experinces as a police officer.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Interesting article Robert, but the article seems to make it easier to arrest someone for DV than in reality. Just beause we get called to a house on a DV call doesn't mean someone is going to jail. In cases where the DV is verbal only in nature then no arrest is made, unless the verbal tones turn to threats of serious bodily injury or death threats. In cases where there is physical abuse, and we have a primary aggressor then of course we, as law enforcement, are required to effect an arrest. Pretty much common sense.
If you live in a state that supports a mandatory arrest law and you have concerns with that I would suggest contacting your local state representative and voice your concerns. You might even e-mail them a link to the article.
Law enforcement doesn't write the laws....but we are sworn to enforce them.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
John,
I know the distinction between who makes the laws and who enforces them.
Having you say that the laws that you enforced, where, are fair is such BS I don't even know where to begin.
What state, who's laws did you enforce? You won't say, what are you afraid of?
The whole DV industry is baised on the feminist idealogy of the patriarchy and now you are here to tell us that after 22 years as an enforcer of these laws you know nothing about the bias and the sexism in them?
http://www.batteredmen.com/batdulut.htm
August 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
A member of the House of Represenitives son was arrested per the automatic DV arrest laws in our state. When she tried to intervine, she was almost arrested too.
She held a meeting with DV shelter personal government officals and the public to see about having these laws changed, I was there.
As far as I know, nothing came from this.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Robert I don't mind anyone knowing I live and work in Tennessee. Our DV laws changed to a "primary aggressor" system back in the mid 90's, prior to that it was left completely up to officer discretion as to whether or not an arrest was made by the officer. I think what assisted in the change was back before the mid 90's the phrase "don't make us back come again" was very popular among officers answering a DV call. The DV activists knew this and pressed legislation bringing about the change.
As for the sexism in the law I can't say I agree with you. It's pretty cut and dry. The one who inflicts the greater amount of physical harm goes to jail. If weapons are involved, and it is proven, then the one with the weapon is jailed regardless of the physical injury sustained.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am
The problem, once again is that cut and dry means black and white thinking. Who ever inflicts the greater physical harm shows complete disregard for the the intent of the person. Circumstance and reasoning are unimportant. It suggests that successfuly defending oneself could land a person in jail. A persons ability to determine how much force is needed to over power an attacker is limited. It also changes with the situation. What if an attacker jabs at a person with a knife. The victim isn't cut and manages to deliver a strike to the face of the attacker which prevented further assault. The perpetrator denies possession of the knife. How do you prove a knife was involved? Do you care? The person with the bloody nose swears there wasn't a knife. You can't fail to protect the person that prevented harm from coming to himself. What if he's not so lucky next time and gets stabbed or the house he's in mysteriously goes up in flames. (The scenarios obviously get more complicated than this.) Do you arrest him?
August 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
As for the sexism in the law I can't say I agree with you.........you live in a bubble John.
http://www.shatterdmen.com/Family%20Violence.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/baskerville/baskerville10.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13996
http://stephenbaskerville.net/domestic_violence_awareness.htm
http://stephenbaskerville.net/truth_about_child_abuse.htm
http://stephenbaskerville.net/why_is_daddy_in_jail.htm
August 14th, 2007 at 1:23 am
No Robert...apparently my department does a better job of enforcing the DV laws in an unbiased manner than other departments. Just because we don't assume the victim is female and the aggressor is male doesn't mean I live in a bubble.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:15 am
True John.
But because your department may be unbiased in the enfocement of the DV laws doesn't mean the laws themselves aren't biased and are written in such a way as to have the judicial expectation and approval of sexism.
This is my point that you keep saying isn't so.............. what more proof?
http://www.ancpr.org/amazing_nj_legal_journal_article.htm
Below are some quotes from a 1995 NJ legal journal about the training sessions being conducted in NJ for judges on the issue of domestic violence. These quotes are amazing and astounding but not surprising. The full story is printed following the quotes;
"If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties' rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners," Russell told the judges. "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya' around.' Your job is to be a wall that is thrown between the two people that are fighting each other and that's how you can rationalize it. Because that's what the statute says. The statute says that there is something called domestic violence and it says that it is an evil in our society."
August 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
This may be a stupid comment, but you mentioned bruises. I gave have always wondered why women mark up so bloody easy. I have been a victum myself where my X came abord my face and head and I could only just get out. In the end it was so bad (I believe she was trying to push me to fight back) that I couldn't even get out and feared even moving her away from the door. I hardly ever got marked up really bad. A cut lip, a bloodied tongue and a few bruises. I am 100% sure had I even touched her that hard once she woudl have been black and blue.
So my new wife and I were discussing bruises her daughter had (she was suspicious about abuse by her X) and i did a little test. i simply pushed in on her arms with three fingers firmly. She said owe. The next day (or so. can't remember) she had nice bruises.
I think that those with a higher % boddy fat may bruise easier. Is this true? It sure seems that if you have a healthy layer of fat around you, you mark up allot easier.
If true, is that sort of thing taken into consideration?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
"Lane Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am
The problem, once again is that cut and dry means black and white thinking. Who ever inflicts the greater physical harm shows complete disregard for the the intent of the person. Circumstance and reasoning are unimportant. It suggests that successfuly defending oneself could land a person in jail. A persons ability to determine how much force is needed to over power an attacker is limited. It also changes with the situation. What if an attacker jabs at a person with a knife. The victim isn't cut and manages to deliver a strike to the face of the attacker which prevented further assault. The perpetrator denies possession of the knife. How do you prove a knife was involved? Do you care? The person with the bloody nose swears there wasn't a knife. You can't fail to protect the person that prevented harm from coming to himself. What if he's not so lucky next time and gets stabbed or the house he's in mysteriously goes up in flames. (The scenarios obviously get more complicated than this.) Do you arrest him?"
I know what i would do now.. I'd let them give me a good poke but try to avoid dieing.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Robert if NJ is so quick to deny men their constitutional rights, then why hasn't someone taken the lawmakers to task by filing a lawsuit in federal court against the state? I cannot foresee men just lying down and taking it while activist groups achieve their goals by denying men equal representation and rights.
The laws also need to be changed that protect judges from civil and criminal liability in regards to their judgements where civil liberties and rights have been denied. However, I don't see that happening since laws are usually passed by lawyers for lawyers in that respect.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Robert if NJ is so quick to deny men their constitutional rights, then why hasn't someone taken the lawmakers to task by filing a lawsuit in federal court against the state?
Doesn't doing that cost a bunch of money?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Jan’s right, we should welcome the insider scoop we’re receiving from John, the cop, and try to gather realistic information from him.
John,
Why do police officers usually give warnings to female speeders when it appears they automatically ticket male speeders?
Why do grand jury cases show favoritism for female offenders over male offenders with regard to fines and jail time for the same crime conviction?
Why do government employee’s refuse to use FBI statistics over the NCVS information, which is primarily information from one gender, based on NCVS own methodology used for gathering that information, as well as information from “unreported crime”?
Why do police departments reporting to the FBI for UCR get left by the wayside while weighted information is used to determine policy by legislators, among others, from the NCVS?
Why, why, why, John?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Jeff,
It appears that you misunderstood my comment or you are making fun of it. Please let me know which so I can clarify what I said if necessary.
Let me ask, who here is involved in finding solutions to the problems that face male victims and their children? I know Glenn is and I also sense that you can trust that if you are male victim and John gets called to your house, you will not be arrested as the perp.
Instead of making excuses i.e. who has the money to fight? which I agree is a big problem but dwelling on it is not going to change it, what are we all doing to change the current problems for men and their children? Are you offering your time and talents volunteering to work with others towards solutions? Things will not change unless people with a common cause come together and make society recognize that change is needed...that's what the battered women's advocates did...and it work well for them didn't it?
August 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Jan Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
“You all are getting a perspective rarely shared from a police officer willing to calmly discuss his experience working in the system so it would be nice if you wouldn't attack the messager…Rather than attack him perhaps it would be better to find out how it is that his department has come to be so open minded about the dv laws so that we can learn something from this blog topic. I don't see how attacking him is benefitting anyone.
To answer the question of whether or not I’m making fun of your post or misunderstood it, neither or both, take your pick. I’m simply asking John, the cop, if there is a valid reason why officers of the law let women go while they continually ticket men, while what you see in the papers in district court section shows prejudice, and why a nations worth of DV statistics is based on myth. Valid questions without fear from intimidation or reprisal.
Are you asking me, or all what we’re/I’m doing to change the current problems for men and their children? If you’re asking me, then my answer is that you can see my efforts on a weekly, if not daily basis in the BDN or the PPH under ‘reader responses.’ That’s all I’m good for as I can’t volunteer time or money, but I can criticize every effort from the women’s advocates who receive my tax dollars with a blessing to use as they see fit. Imagine what just a few men could do with the amount of money they receive.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Jeff said:
That’s all I’m good for as I can’t volunteer time or money, but I can criticize every effort from the women’s advocates who receive my tax dollars with a blessing to use as they see fit. Imagine what just a few men could do with the amount of money they receive.
When you say you can't volunteer what do you mean by that?
I can surely imagine what I could do with the amount of money they receive...build a shelter that will primarily house male victims and their children. I know that I will make this dream a reality in the not too distant future. However, I could not do it without the commitment and hard work of all my volunteers.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Jeff, Now here's a case that needs LOTS of comments on the Maine Today website:
http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/014641.html?com_sent=1
Cleared in death, woman back in jail for probation violation
E-mail this page
Reader Comments (below)
By Dennis Hoey Portland Press Herald Staff Writer
August 14, 2007 02:53 PM
WISCASSET—A former midcoast woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband in 2005 was back in court Tuesday where she admitted to assaulting her new husband at their home in Tennessee.
Justice Roland Cole ordered Amy Pelletier, whose maiden name is Bowen and who was formerly known as Amy Dugas, to serve four months in a county jail cell. Pelletier, 38, had been on probation when she assaulted her new husband earlier this year.
Her probation was related to a prior conviction for assaulting Mark Dugas, her deceased husband, and a Lincoln County police officer during a domestic dispute in 2004. Pelletier was later acquitted of murdering Mark Dugas in a separate incident after testifying she stabbed him with a foot-long kitchen knife in self-defense.
After her release from jail in January of this year, she married Brian Pelletier, a former corrections officer at the Two Bridges Regional Jail in Wiscasset whom she had known years earlier.
Reader comments
yamo of Portland, ME
Aug 15, 2007 8:42 PM
If you were on here jury the first time...how stupid do you feel now?
Nonny of Gainesville, FL
Aug 15, 2007 5:45 AM
Perhaps, leaton, she was GUILTY and the jury was wrong! We women often get a free pass when it comes to abuse; remember, we're all helpless victims who need protection & men are all evil. It's not our fault we make horrible choices at times and then refuse to take responsiblity. The fact that this woman is abusing a husband after killing a first husband should be suspect to EVERYONE. But the fact that anyone would marry her in the first place after being charged w/ murder shows that people "make their own bed and must lie in it." Hopefully this guy will just lie in it and not die in it:)
reader of Portland-Boston, ME
Aug 14, 2007 10:51 PM
4-5 years ago when this witch's picture first appeared in the newspaper, she was not too bad looking. But seeing her photo today in 2007, Father time has surely paid her a visit over the years.
fattubbo of Winthrop, ME
Aug 14, 2007 9:01 PM
This report has to be wrong. There's no way she could have assaulted her husband. Only men are capable of committing acts of domestic violence.
Show all 7 comments
RSS Subscribe
August 20th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
[...] recent co-authored column, Maine’s Adoption of Predominant Aggressor Doctrine in DV Arrests Will Ensnare Innocent Men (Lewiston Sun Journal, 8/5/07), criticizes Maine's LD 1039, a domestic violence bill. Combining [...]
August 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
[...] recent co-authored column, Maine’s Adoption of Predominant Aggressor Doctrine in DV Arrests Will Ensnare Innocent Men (Lewiston Sun Journal, 8/5/07), criticizes Maine's LD 1039, a domestic violence bill. [...]