Are Republicans "Pro Domestic Violence"?

“Our amendment is much broader. It says you can’t recognize or validate these relationships at all.”

In the absence of any legal recognition, unmarried couples — whether gay or straight — could conceivably see courts invalidate their domestic violence protections. Eichner says it would depend on how judges read the amendment, but a broad interpretation is certainly possible.

“What we have here is untested language that would need to be interpreted by the courts,” Eichner said. “On its face, it would be interpreted with far-reaching effects.”

In August, he likened gay marriage to both incest and polygamy.

Between 2005 and 2007, Ohio’s courts heard cases wherein some defense attorneys successfully argued that domestic violence protections could not apply to unmarried couples.

North Carolina marriage amendment will ban civil unions for gay and straight couples

LOVE the USMB Republicans:

We don't hate the gays. I guess just their party does.

The burning question? Whose next?

Who will Republicans screw over next?

Mitt is in North Carolina. What does Mr. Etch a Sketch have to say? Or is this his first "etch a sketch" moment?

"domestic violence"?

Edit: Threats against other members is strictly against the board rules, even joking.

I'd help you!

Take a number!
 
Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

Quick question, why is a woman who's a stranger to the person conducting the assault less of victim than a wife who gets punched in the face?

Please provide a detailed response as to why someone who assaults a woman should get a lighter penalty because he's not married to her.

Thanks in advance
Because you just know that somehow, the wife deserved the pop.

(There are a lot of Archie Bunker-types in the world, and it looks like Deanie-do and others fit that.)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbCv6b96OK0]RALPH & ALICE: TO THE MOON! - YouTube[/ame]
 
With all respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Prosecutors come into court with stacks and stacks of cases - as do public defenders. Deals are made, pleas are entered and the next case is called. 1203.097 details specific terms and conditions, future court reviews, anger management classes, protective orders and even requires probation officers to evaluate the safety of the victim. A DV conviction is much different than a conviction for battery.

With all due respect, I've probably worked with cops and prosecutors as closely (if not more closely) than you have. The amendment in question applies to North Carolina, and my points are accurate, with regard to North Carolina laws. California laws are irrelevant to the discussion. Even in California, victims would have recourse, even if the DV laws were stripped from the books.

Perhaps you should read the OP before posting.

But, we all know this thread isn't REALLY about DV. It's about attempting to villify NC Republicans.

Do I support this amendment? OF COURSE NOT. Am I going to engage in panicky hyperbole to combat it? OF COURSE NOT.

You should consider using that strategy.

Point taken. I've never been in NC Courts. I have been to DV Court in Brooklyn NY and it is no different than is court in CA - overwhelmed. I also do not know NC Law, I have written and managed VAWA grants and supervised my agencies unit in investigating DV cases, coordinated my agency and all other CJ agencies in providing protection to victims and treatment of offenders in and out of custody.

I'm not attempting to vilify Republicans, they do a pretty damn good job without my help.

The sense I have of the NC law is it is a product of prejudice. Pointing out the law in CA demonstrates for all the basic idea of dealing with a very serous and epidemic problem in our county, by protecting all victims and holding all perps accountable.

We investigated and prosecuted offenders who killed the pets of victims, one who held the victim underwater in her bathtub - she was able to save her self by 'pulling the plug'. Several creeps lived, actually lived, in the attic or crawl space of victims homes; others followed the victim wherever she went, one even went to her church every Sunday and sat behind she and her family.

CA law doesn't' single out only legally married victims for protection. All victims of such horrendous behavior deserve the protection. NC law seems to believe only some people deserve protection.

PS to Drock, CA does not discriminate, see above the definition of 6211 of the Family Code for a definition which includes dating, elder and child abuse. A stranger who attacks a women is prosecuted differently for the motivation and intent of such a crime is different than the power and control issues inherent in DV.
 
Last edited:
Point taken. I've never been in NC Courts. I have been to DV Court in Brooklyn NY and it is no different than is court in CA - overwhelmed. I also do not know NC Law, I have written and managed VAWA grants and supervised my agencies unit in investigating DV cases, coordinated my agency and all other CJ agencies in providing protection to victims and treatment of offenders in and out of custody.

None of these things are relevant to the amendment in NC or NC law.

The sense I have of the NC law is it is a product of prejudice. Pointing out the law in CA demonstrates for all the basic idea of dealing with a very serous and epidemic problem in our county, by protecting all victims and holding all perps accountable.

It is not my sense that cops and prosecutors in NC are less serious about holding perpetrators accountable, and this amendment is not, by and large, going to impact how they go about doing their jobs.

We investigated and prosecuted offenders who killed the pets of victims, one who held the victim underwater in her bathtub - she was able to save her self by 'pulling the plug'. Several creeps lived, actually lived, in the attic or crawl space of victims homes; others followed the victim wherever she went, one even went to her church every Sunday and sat behind she and her family.

Also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

CA law doesn't' single out only legally married couple. All victims of such horrendous behavior deserve the protection. NC law seems to believe only some people deserve protection.

A constitutional amendment limiting marriage is not going to keep cops and prosecutors from protecting victims.

Try to control youself.
 
Wry is defending the most moronic poster in calling the GOP "Pro Domestic Violence" and he calls me names.

LOL
 
Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )


Yeah I'm an ass. So fucking what. I'd rather be an ass that a full blown moron.
 
Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )


Yeah I'm an ass. So fucking what. I'd rather be an ass that a full blown moron.

You don't support everything Obama does in an unquestioning manner, that's the only thing Wry needs to determine you being an "ass."
 
Point taken. I've never been in NC Courts. I have been to DV Court in Brooklyn NY and it is no different than is court in CA - overwhelmed. I also do not know NC Law, I have written and managed VAWA grants and supervised my agencies unit in investigating DV cases, coordinated my agency and all other CJ agencies in providing protection to victims and treatment of offenders in and out of custody.

None of these things are relevant to the amendment in NC or NC law.

The sense I have of the NC law is it is a product of prejudice. Pointing out the law in CA demonstrates for all the basic idea of dealing with a very serous and epidemic problem in our county, by protecting all victims and holding all perps accountable.

It is not my sense that cops and prosecutors in NC are less serious about holding perpetrators accountable, and this amendment is not, by and large, going to impact how they go about doing their jobs.

We investigated and prosecuted offenders who killed the pets of victims, one who held the victim underwater in her bathtub - she was able to save her self by 'pulling the plug'. Several creeps lived, actually lived, in the attic or crawl space of victims homes; others followed the victim wherever she went, one even went to her church every Sunday and sat behind she and her family.

Also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

CA law doesn't' single out only legally married couple. All victims of such horrendous behavior deserve the protection. NC law seems to believe only some people deserve protection.

A constitutional amendment limiting marriage is not going to keep cops and prosecutors from protecting victims.

Try to control youself.

You bet.

I work in the court system down here in Florida and man DV is handled every day.

Both the Cops, the PD's and prosecutors take it very seriously.
 
Ok to the OP, if you get convicted of DV, what should happen? This is my gripe with liberals they always want to add laws, but then no punishment. So if you're convicted of it what? probation? pick up litter? jail time with an Xbox?
 
Are Republicans "Pro Domestic Violence"?

No, but many of their policy positions could place some at risk, however unintended or inadvertent.

Once again we see republicans reaching back some 4 decades to resurrect yet another non-issue, in this case ‘co-habitation,’ or ‘living in sin.’

The idiotic premise of the legislation is to deter couples from moving in together without ‘benefit’ of marriage.

Last fall, before the amendment had emerged from the House Rules Committee, Eichner and her colleagues sought to testify before the legislative panel. They were told there would be no public comment.

At least conservatives are consistent in their authoritarianism.

Mitt is in North Carolina. What does Mr. Etch a Sketch have to say? Or is this his first "etch a sketch" moment?

The first of many to come as he backpedals and flip-flops away from being a ‘severe conservative.’
 

Forum List

Back
Top