CDZ Should Police Stop Responding to Domestic Disputes?

[Harry Dresden]

50 is not a problem.50 toddlers die each year from accidental shootings. That isnt a problem either according to the gun nuts on here.

whats a gun nut timmy?....

 

[MindWars]

50 is not a problem.50 toddlers die each year from accidental shootings. That isnt a problem either according to the gun nuts on here.

You are for those abortions though. A bit hypocritical. Which is typical.

 

[rightwinger]

Another killed by getting in between :

Police: Maryland officer shot, killed while intervening in domestic dispute @ Police: Maryland officer shot, killed while intervening in domestic dispute

All you have to do is conduct an internet search like the one @ police officers killed involved in domestic disputes - Bing to see page after page of reports about police officers being shot and killed while responding to domestic dispute calls.

Most officers will tell you they are the calls they hate the most. So, why do we keep sending them out for them?

Tell me what YOU think. No flaming please.

Domestic dispute is the most dangerous call a cop can get. People armed and shooting calls you know how to go in. Domestic you have to go in as if you're walking into your own home. And in most cases the wife starts defending her abusive husband when he is arrested.

That is why many jurisdictions have zero tolerance on domestic assaults

If someone has been injured, their spouse is going to jail to cool off

What's that have to do with the victim attacking the police?

Part of wearing a badge

 

[Weatherman2020]

50 is not a problem.50 toddlers die each year from accidental shootings. That isnt a problem either according to the gun nuts on here.

And 80 kids drown in 5 gallon buckets every year too, Dufus.

In Home Danger: CPSC Warns of Children Drowning in Bathtubs, Bath Seats and Buckets More Than 400 Deaths Estimated Over a Five-Year Period

 

[longknife]

Thank most of you for the on topic, non-flaming responses.

70 years ago, my foster father was an LA cop and he often complained about domestic abuse calls. The hypocrite beat up my faster mother a couple of times until she got him with a pair of scissors and tossed him out of the house.

I saw a couple of them happen.

Perhaps that's why I tend to feel more than a bit ambiguous about the topic.

There doesn't seem to be much that can be done about changing the spouse who uses violence on his or her partner beyond putting them behind bars. And, as someone pointed out, many abused women instantly defend their husbands.

While in the military, I was awakened in the middle of the night by a couple of MPs who told me to get dressed and took me down to the station, putting my in a cell until my Executive Officer came and got me out. Seems my wife showed up at the hospital all bruised and bleeding, accusing me of beating her. It was later proved that she slipped out while I was sleeping, went to a local bar, and got whipped when she got money off a guy and didn't do exactly what he paid her for. (I quickly got rid of her)

Should the MPs have hauled me in - without proof? They probably didn't have any choice.

So, with that off my chest, I guess my feelings are that what goes on between a husband and wife should stay between the husband and wife. If the partners had come from stable families, the abused one would have family to turn to for protection - the way things were meant to be.

If a partner accepts being abused, why should government step in?

Just my quick and unorganized thoughts.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thank most of you for the on topic, non-flaming responses.

70 years ago, my foster father was an LA cop and he often complained about domestic abuse calls. The hypocrite beat up my faster mother a couple of times until she got him with a pair of scissors and tossed him out of the house.

I saw a couple of them happen.

Perhaps that's why I tend to feel more than a bit ambiguous about the topic.

There doesn't seem to be much that can be done about changing the spouse who uses violence on his or her partner beyond putting them behind bars. And, as someone pointed out, many abused women instantly defend their husbands.

While in the military, I was awakened in the middle of the night by a couple of MPs who told me to get dressed and took me down to the station, putting my in a cell until my Executive Officer came and got me out. Seems my wife showed up at the hospital all bruised and bleeding, accusing me of beating her. It was later proved that she slipped out while I was sleeping, went to a local bar, and got whipped when she got money off a guy and didn't do exactly what he paid her for. (I quickly got rid of her)

Should the MPs have hauled me in - without proof? They probably didn't have any choice.

So, with that off my chest, I guess my feelings are that what goes on between a husband and wife should stay between the husband and wife. If the partners had come from stable families, the abused one would have family to turn to for protection - the way things were meant to be.

If a partner accepts being abused, why should government step in?

Just my quick and unorganized thoughts.

what goes on between a husband and wife should stay between the husband and wife.

For the most part, I agree. "The most part" stops at either party becoming violent. While I don't think authorities need to go about looking and listening for domestic violence/disputes and just sticking their noses in folks' business, if either partner calls for help, that person should receive help, and who're they to call but the cops? Certainly not Ghostbusters.

If the partners had come from stable families the abused one would have family to turn to for protection

???

1. Some folks do and some folks don't.
2. What kind of protection is one's family going to give? Does the term "stalker" mean something to you?
3. Are you advocating something akin to family-fomented vigilantism whereby one's family assumes the duties of law enforcement authorities? This is the 21st century, not the wild, wild west of the 19th century, so to speak.

If a partner accepts being abused, why should government step in?

??? -- Does any actually welcome/accept being abused?

 

[JoeB131]

No profiling needed, first time cops show up at a house with a beaten spouse the other party goes to jail, and gets prosecuted for assault.

And the DA's should have a policy to require at least some jail time, no pleas down to something more minor.

And for the abuse victim set up some counseling to make them realize they don't have to be with a person who uses them as a punching bag.

what? Government telling people what their relationships should be like? Isn't that the kind of big government nanny state fascism you are against?

 

[gipper]

No profiling needed, first time cops show up at a house with a beaten spouse the other party goes to jail, and gets prosecuted for assault.

And the DA's should have a policy to require at least some jail time, no pleas down to something more minor.

And for the abuse victim set up some counseling to make them realize they don't have to be with a person who uses them as a punching bag.

what? Government telling people what their relationships should be like? Isn't that the kind of big government nanny state fascism you are against?

Again Joe your logic fails to hold up.

Marty clearly stated if a person beats up their spouse, they have broken the law. As such, they face consequences for harming another person. The government is not telling people what their relationships should be, by arresting this person.

Do you get that?

Are you an Islamic man, who thinks it is your right to beat the shit out of your wife?

 

[JoeB131]

Marty clearly stated if a person beats up their spouse, they have broken the law. As such, they face consequences for harming another person. The government is not telling people what their relationships should be, by arresting this person.

Okay. When someone refuses to bake a cake for a customer based on their sexual orientation, they have broken the law.

But to hear Marty tell it, that's a MASSIVE VIOLATION OF FREEDOM!!!!

Clearly, if someone stays with an abusive partner, they have chosen to do so.

 

[martybegan]

No profiling needed, first time cops show up at a house with a beaten spouse the other party goes to jail, and gets prosecuted for assault.

And the DA's should have a policy to require at least some jail time, no pleas down to something more minor.

And for the abuse victim set up some counseling to make them realize they don't have to be with a person who uses them as a punching bag.

what? Government telling people what their relationships should be like? Isn't that the kind of big government nanny state fascism you are against?

Once someone lays a hand on someone else, the State has to get involved. unless you want to go back to dueling.

 

[martybegan]

Marty clearly stated if a person beats up their spouse, they have broken the law. As such, they face consequences for harming another person. The government is not telling people what their relationships should be, by arresting this person.

Okay. When someone refuses to bake a cake for a customer based on their sexual orientation, they have broken the law.

But to hear Marty tell it, that's a MASSIVE VIOLATION OF FREEDOM!!!!

Clearly, if someone stays with an abusive partner, they have chosen to do so.

because one is actual violence, and the other is government taking sides in a butthurt fight.

 

[Picaro]

Given the number of lawsuits filed against police officers and police depts. arising from domestic violence disputes , I would say they should never respond to any at all; they should just show up to handle paperwork after whatever happens, happens. Let people call the ACLU or the local Democratic Party HQ, and let them handle it all. Police should be avoiding answering any calls that might involve violence or criminal activity, because police response and involvement in anything is only going to increase violence and racism, so by all means let the 'Social Justice Warriors' handle it all, with the police just showing up and handling paperwork after the fact, since their pay around the country justifies little else. They should be barred from responding to calls in majority minority communities altogether, because that only causes more problems; just give everybody black Al Sharpton's, or Obama's, personal phone number, and all will be well.

Literally anything police do will generate a lawsuit, or criminal charges against officers, so they would crazy to risk that for what they get paid, so why is there anybody applying for the jobs in the first place? they should just wait until the violence is over, and then just walk around the scene with clipboards checking boxes or taking pics, and that's it.

 

[JoeB131]

Once someone lays a hand on someone else, the State has to get involved. unless you want to go back to dueling.

Why? Frankly, I think that's kind of stupid. A good punch in the mouth is what some people need.

because one is actual violence, and the other is government taking sides in a butthurt fight.

No, one is someone who has chosen to be in an abusive relationship.

They picked that guy, KNOWING WHAT HE WAS. I kind of have no sympathy for them when they get slapped around. Probably ignored everyone in her family who told her it was a terrible idea, and they all showed up for the wedding, anyway.

But some cop is supposed to risk his life getting in the middle of that? I'm kind of with Longknife on this one.

 

[JoeB131]

Literally anything police do will generate a lawsuit, or criminal charges against officers, so they would crazy to risk that for what they get paid, so why is there anybody applying for the jobs in the first place? they should just wait until the violence is over, and then just walk around the scene with clipboards checking boxes or taking pics, and that's it.

Oh, the BS factor.

Here's the thing, after the LaQuann McDonald Shooting in Chicago (Four years, that POS still isn't in prison yet!) the Justice Department did a review of complaints,and found that 50% of complaints could be assigned to 143 officers (About 1% of the force.) And yes, the guy who shot McDonald had 20 complaints against him.

99% of cops are good guys trying to do a difficult job. and 1% are bullies, racists and insecure jerks who should have checked something else on Career Day. The problem is, because of public attitudes towards police (among white people, anyway) and union rules, it is very difficult to fire a bad cop.

Again, the guy who shot McDonald, caught red handed on videotape, he and 3 other officers lied to investigators, and he was still kept on the job for two more years before they finally got around to firing him. And only then because the videotape was made public and the public was screaming bloody murder.

 

[Pete7469]

Sometimes when I watched "Cops" it seemed to me the best interest of society would have been for the police to throw a pistol into the room then back off and wait for a while.

Just sayin'....

 

[martybegan]

Once someone lays a hand on someone else, the State has to get involved. unless you want to go back to dueling.

Why? Frankly, I think that's kind of stupid. A good punch in the mouth is what some people need.

because one is actual violence, and the other is government taking sides in a butthurt fight.

No, one is someone who has chosen to be in an abusive relationship.

They picked that guy, KNOWING WHAT HE WAS. I kind of have no sympathy for them when they get slapped around. Probably ignored everyone in her family who told her it was a terrible idea, and they all showed up for the wedding, anyway.

But some cop is supposed to risk his life getting in the middle of that? I'm kind of with Longknife on this one.

We have given over to the State the privilege of handling certain disputes. this is one of them. Your view on this is more "Big L" libertarian/anarchist.

While I do not understand why some women put up with it over and over, once violence is involved our society has decided it becomes an issue for the State.

 

[Picaro]

Once someone lays a hand on someone else, the State has to get involved. unless you want to go back to dueling.

Why? Frankly, I think that's kind of stupid. A good punch in the mouth is what some people need.

because one is actual violence, and the other is government taking sides in a butthurt fight.

No, one is someone who has chosen to be in an abusive relationship.

They picked that guy, KNOWING WHAT HE WAS. I kind of have no sympathy for them when they get slapped around. Probably ignored everyone in her family who told her it was a terrible idea, and they all showed up for the wedding, anyway.

But some cop is supposed to risk his life getting in the middle of that? I'm kind of with Longknife on this one.

We have given over to the State the privilege of handling certain disputes. this is one of them. Your view on this is more "Big L" libertarian/anarchist.

While I do not understand why some women put up with it over and over, once violence is involved our society has decided it becomes an issue for the State.

This essentially what drove the Prohibition movement, rampant domestic violence and women getting tired of it. Don't blame them at all.

 

[JoeB131]

We have given over to the State the privilege of handling certain disputes. this is one of them. Your view on this is more "Big L" libertarian/anarchist.

While I do not understand why some women put up with it over and over, once violence is involved our society has decided it becomes an issue for the State.

Fair enough.

We've also decided to hand over to the state the ability to resolve public accommedation disputes.

So I'm not sure why you want the government to intervene in a relationship that two people have consented to, but get all up in arms when they have one party that has a valid and legit complaint.

 

[martybegan]

Once someone lays a hand on someone else, the State has to get involved. unless you want to go back to dueling.

Why? Frankly, I think that's kind of stupid. A good punch in the mouth is what some people need.

because one is actual violence, and the other is government taking sides in a butthurt fight.

No, one is someone who has chosen to be in an abusive relationship.

They picked that guy, KNOWING WHAT HE WAS. I kind of have no sympathy for them when they get slapped around. Probably ignored everyone in her family who told her it was a terrible idea, and they all showed up for the wedding, anyway.

But some cop is supposed to risk his life getting in the middle of that? I'm kind of with Longknife on this one.

We have given over to the State the privilege of handling certain disputes. this is one of them. Your view on this is more "Big L" libertarian/anarchist.

While I do not understand why some women put up with it over and over, once violence is involved our society has decided it becomes an issue for the State.

This essentially what drove the Prohibition movement, rampant domestic violence and women getting tired of it. Don't blame them at all.

Plenty of men were part of the temperance movement as well.

That had more to do with the desire of some people to control other people, like any attempt to control vices.

 

[martybegan]

We have given over to the State the privilege of handling certain disputes. this is one of them. Your view on this is more "Big L" libertarian/anarchist.

While I do not understand why some women put up with it over and over, once violence is involved our society has decided it becomes an issue for the State.

Fair enough.

We've also decided to hand over to the state the ability to resolve public accommedation disputes.

So I'm not sure why you want the government to intervene in a relationship that two people have consented to, but get all up in arms when they have one party that has a valid and legit complaint.

My issue is what is, or is not a public accommodation. Public accommodations are places you invite the public into to perform a transaction. So a baker where there is a point of sale transaction, a gas station, a supermarket, a movie theater things like that. A person has to be accommodated in a space open to the public.

A contracted service or good is not that. Renting out your own property for events is not that. You are not inviting the public into an area for a transaction, you are performing a transaction between two parties only.