The problem (at least here) with domestic violence is they take it way too far. The majority are not physically beat up like this.
I'd say in cases where there is assault and battery with serious harm, then yes should be required without the victim pressing charges. That is easy enough to prove.
Thing is here though, is a neighbor could call the police on a noisy neighbor arguing the police show up and if it meets certain criteria, such as a broken item (someone dropped a plate) or something has been broken forever, they are REQUIRED by law to arrest someone. Since there are other forms of domestic violence, that are non-physical such as destroying their favorite flower or plate set, etc... to cause emotional damage.
When in fact there may of not been anything going on other than a bunch of yelling or in one case the couple wasn't even fighting or arguing the man was playing a online game and she was watching TV, police showed up cause neighbors said the TV was too loud, they arrested the man for domestic violence.
Of course they didn't know who called the police on them until later when the neighbor admitted, that calling for a noise violation didn't get anyone out but calling for domestic violence does.
They asked the woman if she wanted to press charges the next day and she said no, there was nothing going on... so should someone be charged in that case?
An update to what I'm talking about, this is a mother who is going to jail on domestic violence because her and her daughter got into an argument and the mother tore up the daughters W-2 Form (Don't know why) that is all she did, nothing physically violent at all but because it destroyed something, it is considered domestic violence.
So now the mother gets to lose her job and be denied 2nd amendment rights forever, for simply ripping up a piece of paper and have a domestic violence charge on her record forever.
@OddBeMe Weird, I replied to this yesterday but its gone today.
She got Domestic Violence Class C, lowest level which is up to 30 days in jail, sentenced to 30 days with credit for time already served, so should be out a week early.
She'll also have a fine and some community service.
well, if he beat her like that and she didn't press charges and leave him she will be dead soon enough because any one that can beat you that badly and say " I love you you " will kill you sooner or later. Honestly if more women stopped being pussies about guns and learned to use them properly more of these scumbags would be in the ground were they belong.
@goaded clearly it is not easier to testify, or like most humans, she would take the path of least resistance and do it.
@theothersider you are right on with this post. I work in a gun store and love showing new shooters what’s available, especially women who are done waiting for a government savior or being a damsel in distress. God made mankind, but Samuel Colt made them equal. When seconds count police are minutes away, and it’s unlikely that they will beat a response time of 1100 FPS even if the station is in your neighborhood. If more scumbags start taking dirt naps, even the stupidest of them will take notice as the risk involved has gone up vs the reward. You can’t force people to be good or honest, but if you can put your finger on the scale in their cost/benefit analysis, you will be doing women everywhere a favor.
The knee-jerk answer to this for most people is of course they should be charged, but we’ve had zero tolerance for a lot of things in schools now, and look what that’s done to Black and Hispanic boys in school settings. Do you really want to give the state another club to beat people it hates with and deny them a future over another feel good liberal talking point? There is a seismic shift going on in who the state wants us as a society to hate based on voter population demographics, so be careful about punishing boys for being born Black or Hispanic now because eventually the state will decide to hate other races.
If the victim thinks they are being abused there is an existing system that they can voluntarily decide to make use of or not. You might have noticed how making racism or rape mean whatever the accuser thinks it should mean has actually harmed real victims by making cases harder to prove, do you really believe this issue would not turn into that same swamp creature if the state got its claws any further into it than it already has?
I mean you’re right on zero tolerance being a boon for the prison industry. I guess the issue is so much is dependent on a psychologically accused victim. It’s like if we made murder charges a complaint only crime.
Nobody is twisting the definition of murder for political or financial advantage like professional victims or their professional advocates do whenever well-meaning but Insufficiently cynical or jaded people give the state new toys. Google Johnny Depp or Marilyn Manson abuse allegations. The women involved, and countless other women on the daily are using allegations of abuse to get resources or validation or attention or ego victories over men because as a species humans are hard coded and WILL respond when a female cries or indicates distress. Both men and women will come to her rescue, and women know this, and frequently abuse. I am not saying all women do, but the phenomenon is common enough to generalize. If the word abuse became as meaningless as racist or rape have in 2022, how would this help people like the woman in the picture? If anything, she would suddenly have less incentive to come forward and less belief or help if she defied the odds and did. I completely understand the good intentions behind giving the state more tools to prosecute and hold accountable people who commit heinous and senseless acts of violence, but the state abuses people too.
I certainly don't want domestic abusers to get away with what they do I would hate that honestly with a passion but I would also hate with a passion the idea that someone who just happens to be really kinky to have charges pressed against him for quote unquote beating his wife when they were actually just having some hot sex
I know this sounds like a dramatic thing but if we're not careful with how we place the laws then yeah that could actually happen like one day your husband is going at you with that new whip you bought off Amazon and the next day he's getting hauled off to jail because someone saw I don't know a scratch on your back I guess and was like this person is abusing her he's evil when that's not the case
That’s why the founders put a vetting process in for new laws, generally run by lawyers who are much smarter about designing laws and how to beat them than either of us are likely to be. When laws get rammed through by executive fiat which is becoming far more common as time goes on, that process of check and balance is deleted from the equation and A LOT of unintended consequences are taking place.
@Sixgunsound well…yeah. I pay for boxing lessons. So I get a bruised face but the reasons are different. So much DV goes unpunished because victims are too emotionally unstable.
Domestic violence is such a tricky thing. That photo is horrifying but quite a lot of domestic violence victims aren't physically abused. They're emotionally manipulated to the point where they think that they need their abuser. You can't blame a victim for not leaving their partner because in their minds, everything is fine. It's so difficult for victims to come to terms with the trauma they've faced. Additionally, there's a stigma against domestic violence and victims often face victim-blaming. When they finally come to terms with it, they might not want to press charges out of fear of their partner or fear of rejection and disbelief. Additionally, it's just flat-out scary to press charges about something so intimate. In a perfect world, domestic abusers would be prosecuted, (well actually they wouldn't exist). But in this world, innocent until proven guilty and with sexual violence, it can be hard to prove that they're guilty. There's more to an arrest than just jail time. There's court. And for that, I don't think domestic abusers should be prosecuted without victims pressing charges. As much as I would want that person to be locked away for life, the victim doesn't deserve to be dragged through a trial. They shouldn't have to be put on the stand and invalidated in front of a jury during cross-examination or face their abuser all over again. And if the jury doesn't find their abuser guilty, that is absolutely crushing.
Besides, domestic violence victims often lie to protect their abusers. It'd be inane to prosecute someone when the "supposed victim" says otherwise. It's unfortunate but it's the heartbreaking truth.
At least in the Netherlands, it is not necessary for victims to press charges to have public prosecution open an investigation (and prosecute). The exception to this is libel and alike. Moreover, there is a legal obligation for anyone witnessing murder (any degree), rape or terrorism to press charges. But again, if it has not happened, investigation and prosecution can still happen.
So far, we have a functioning legal system with high standards, so I don’t really see why they should not be prosecuted even if victims don’t press charges
Here in California, the district attorney will usually press charges whether the woman wants to or not. One of the only good things about California besides the weather. Back in the 90's (sounds funny saying that now) in my neighborhood, we used to kick the shit out of guys that would smack their girls around. Unfortunately my friends and I have settled down a bit, and you can't do that sort of thing and get away with it anymore. The cops can't or won't look the other way anymore. They used to let us dispense street justice if it was fair and warranted.
Did you know if a man and woman argue over the phone and she says "he put me in fear", he can be arrested and convicted of "Domestic Violence" in many states?
A conviction for "Domestic Violence" means: -You can never own a firearm. -You cannot get student loans. -You have a conviction for a crime of "moral turpitude", which will preclude ever having a security clearance, working for almost any government contractor, and is worse than many felony convictions.
All because you told her "no" over the phone.
As a former cop I can tell you the overwhelming majority of "Domestic Violence" complaints are about the woman feeling scorned rather than actual abuse/injury. Also, women are JUST AS LIKELY to abuse a man as a man is to abuse a woman.
No. The person needs to LEAVE. Its that simple. They play victim because they love the highs and lows of it all and the attention. This is why they dont leave or if they do they end up with another abuser. And by the way. Half the time the "abuser" is lashing out with violence as a response to emotional financial sexual other kinds of abuse. Ie finds his wife cheating he punches her in the face. You never hear about the cheating just the black eye. There 99% of the time is no victim in an abuse situation just two abusers.
If the victim will not push charges then there is no way to make it hold up in court unless you have video evidence or eyewitness that can attest to the assault. So I voted no, because without the victim pressing charges... then you would have to rely on some third party accusations and that is not a good thing, because there needs to be a great or higher burden of proof before convicting someone.
Yes, despite all the arguments against and some valid points here and there... I still think people should be prosecuted for domestic violence and also other types of assault
It could be seen as prosecutors inferring the crime, since their victims are too psychologically depends. But I think some sort of psychological assessment could be enough to enforce treatment at least.
I think MAJOR therapy needs to be involved for both female & male victims. There's a reason that we as individuals are attracted to the people we are. Upbringing heavily impacts this as well as trauma.
A lot of women won't say anything even though everyone can see what is going on. So for their own good the perpetrators should be prosecuted as it will not stop on it's own.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
i'm gonna say yes. Usually I'd go with a hard no, because then it becomes more big government controlling people's lives and determining when someone's been hurt too much or not enough. But in severe, provable cases I'd say something needs to be done when the victim won't step up and press charges.
No. While I also disagree with harming anyone outside of self defense or cheating, If one isn't going to stand up for themselves, they know what they're in for..
I guess my Q is if we should move past relying on the victim to file a complaint. If the wife has a face like above and the hubby has bruised knuckles…would you convict?
Yes I’m a firm believer of innocent until proven guilty and for every action there is a reaction I’m not saying pieces of shit don’t exist that there aren’t guys who just beat women because they can I know there are guys like that but most normal guys wouldn’t do that to a woman unless provoked
Yep. I believe the police will press the charges. If they show up to a scene for domestic violence and there is evidence of it, someone has to go to jail.
What happens when you get home from work and 2 of your kids are dead and she is in the middle of drowning the 3rd in the bath tube, can you pop her one then
@goaded Defense Lawyer: Your honor, we can find no witnesses to this crime that will come forward and testify under oath that the victim was actually punched by the defendant. While there is evidence of a black eye, my expert witness has testified that there are at least 100 different ways to get a black eye.
What, that you think that forensic evidence from a living person is not as good as the same from a dead body? Or that the victim would never testify honestly when under oath?
@goaded the whole premise of the OP's question is should DA be prosecuted without the victim pressing charges. Without the victim willing to press charges, you're not going to get them to testify, either.
Stand them there and put them under oath to tell the truth and they might. There's also, as I said, as much forensic evidence as if he'd killed her. Just take your loss and FO.
Maybe you did, but pointing out that the victim was unwilling to identify her assailant and that the forensic evidence pointed to the person most likely to be the culprit could lead to a conviction, as long as the jury members weren't all as stupid as you.
@goaded A jury could not find a defendent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I understand you don't know much about the US judicial system. Thankfully the rest of us aren't autistic.
It's the same system as in the UK. You'd have to be a moron to expect that people can't be convicted on the evidence, whether the victim were alive or dead.
You're such a denier of facts. If you can convict someone for murder without witnesses based on means, motive and opportunity, you can convict for assault on the same basis.
@goaded I punch the wife, the cops come, she refuses to press charges, therefore denying them the ability to collect any evidence. How are you trying the case, perry mason?
Are you really proving yourself such an idiot, yet again? If you can show means motive and opportunity, you can get a conviction (at least from a jury that isn't nullified).
@goaded So your mom walks into a desk and bruises her hip, you have motive, means and opportunity. You should be convicted of domestic abuse. You're mad you can't move out of her basement and you've been fighting with her since she won't let you play video games. The neighbors all heard you two yelling. And you do seem like a weirdo, mumbling to yourself about covid-19. Enjoy being passed around in prison.
@goaded I exactly did what you said is needed for a conviction. physical evidence, means, motive, and opportunity. Do you start to realize now why circumstantial evidence isn't good for a conviction? Or are you going to quadruple down on being a retard?
You still don't understand that people who are much smarter than you make the decisions, do you? They'd only bring a case if there was an obvious victim and perpetrator.
@goaded They don't bring the case, precicely as I said, because there isn't good evidence if the victim won't press charges and won't testify. Thanks for playing.
@goaded you didn't. Ever. Not in the slightest. Just admit you started typing bullshit and don't even understand the OP. for once in your miserable life be honest.
@goaded You forgot the key piece, again you do not understand the OP. Just admit as such. The key piece of context is "in a domestic violence situation where the victim refuses to press charges". I get it, your autistic brain doesn't understand what OP typed. So you go off not understanding the context and act like you understand what you're talking about and you think you're making valid points.
@goaded you're stuck on stupid, aren't you. I am correct. You're an idiot who is trying to save face because you didn't understand the question, but you're just making yourself look even more foolish with every reply.
Wrong about almost everything, but unwilling to admit it, aren't you? If a man killed a woman, would there be more or less evidence against him than if he'd simply beaten her?
@goaded oh Christ, you’re still trying to pull this one back out? I would have thought a night’s sleep would give you some self reflection on how stupid you were being.
You've demonstrated that you don't. But OK, why don't you spell out for me why there would be less evidence for him abusing her than killing her? Let alone your claimed "no evidence".
@goaded I've stated it several times and gave examples. If a victim is unwilling to press charges - first, you don't have a victim of a crime. Second, you're unlikely to get enough evidence to convict if the non-existent victim refuses to testify.
So you were completely wrong when you said "You'd have no evidence to convict." and changed your story to "unlikely to get enough evidence" rather than admit it. Typical.
@goaded And if they don't press charges, there's no victim from a legal perspective. How after two days of you saying the same stupid shit don't you understand that.
How do you not understand the question at all? "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?"
It's not about what the current system is, it's about how it might be changed. Also, your response: "You'd have no evidence to convict" is obviously wrong.
You don't have a victim to testify in a murder, either, and somehow convictions are obtained without eye witnesses. Like I said: you'd have as much evidence against the abuser as if he'd murdered her. Your "You'd have no evidence to convict." is obvious bullshit. As usual. And you've proved, over and over, that you don't even understand the simple question: "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?"
@goaded yeah because a murder usually has evidence associated with it. Even though I'm capable of smacking the soul out of you, doens't mean I leave finger prints on your face. idiot.
I love the fact that you think you could beat me up. You're still ignoring the fact that you can't answer the question and keep accusing me of not understanding it: "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?"
Once again, for the terminally stupid (that's you!): it's not about how it works now, but how it might be changed. Hence the question: "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?" Which you don't seem to understand, even though you've accused me of not understanding it multiple times.
Once again, for the terminally stupid (that's you!): it's not about how it works now, but how it might be changed. Hence the question: "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?" Which you don't seem to understand, even though you've accused me of not understanding it multiple times.
The question is not "how does it work", it's "how should it work".
@goaded They would be prosecuted in the exact same judicial system. Do you have marshmallows for brains? Ok, gee, if we completely change the US justice system where you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, and circumstantial evidence is weighed as heavily as real physical evidence and despite the main witness to the crime refusing to testify we just take the cops word for what happened then yeah, you'd see a conviction.
Nope, you're just trying to defend your own bullshit, and ignoring the fact that the question was: "Should domestic abusers be prosecuted even without victims pressing charges?". "Should", not "Are".
@goaded And if the 'should' is yes. The convictions still wouldn't happen because of a lack of evidence and having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You're slow, but I really had no idea you were that slow.
Strangely, you've taken a day or so to realise that your initial comment is crap (and also, basically, "no"). If justice is difficult, we shouldn't bother, right?
@goaded lol, you'd need the judicial system to wholly change, including the common law practice of 'innocent until proven guilty'. So if you want to live in a fantasy world.. be my guest.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
u +1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
