Comments: The Literature Corner: Desperate Love

I am afraid I have to disagree with police in the domestic situation. I have seen it abused and seen it wrongly convict innocent people.

An example, a son comes to the parents house. He is mad or high or charged with emotion for some reason. He gets verbally violent and this leads to physical violence with his father. The wife calls the police under the assumption that they will help. They certainly arrive and seperate the two, but then declare someone has to go to jail. The father takes the fall to prevent his son having a record and some stupid judge then reads the riot act to the father and puts him away. This actually happened to a friend.

Then there are the women I see that are abused. Somehow, they always find a man who will abuse them. They also seem to be able to trigger the abuse for whatever reason. In the past, they would actually attack anyone who came to their assistance and often still do.

The police have no place in someone's home.

Posted by david7134 at October 8, 2011 01:13 PM

You know what, David? You're right. I'm sure the majority of the public would much rather see people murdered than to have someone suffer the inconvenience of a DV charge. And who really cares if cops get battered either? I mean, it's their job and it's not like they're real people anyway.

/sarc off/

Posted by Walt at October 8, 2011 05:16 PM

There are some people who think that abuse means the abuser really loves them. We have a term for these people, disfunctional. It takes a lot of work to set them straight, and looking for a decent person to hook up with.

Posted by Alan Kellogg at October 8, 2011 07:55 PM

Dear David7134:

Perhaps I can provide a bit of background that might help. In the late 80's and early 90's women's "advocates" had quite a bit of power and were successful in pushing a wave of "must arrest" laws through many state legislatures. Such laws removed virtually all discretion from police officers, forcing them to arrest someone. Most such laws use language like "the most culpable party," or something similar. They also commonly mandate heavy penalties for officers that don't arrest anyone.

On one occasion, I had to arrest a tiny, harmless woman who was provoked past the point of sanity by her utterly evil husband and slapped and scratched him. I was able to help her by recommending a plea bargain to something lesser, but one should not assume that the police are always wrong--they aren't--or that they approve of some of the laws they have to enforce--they don't.

Posted by Mike Mc at October 8, 2011 07:56 PM

I reviewed the comments above and still stand by my position. In answer to Walt, freedom is not free. People may get hurt in the process. We have given up too much freedom to prevent people from harm. Often, the harm occurs regardless, yet we still lack the freedom. If a woman is abused, she should leave the house. If she doesn't, then that is her problem, not the cops, not the courts, not mine or yours. Then you state that a DV charge is a simple thing. Do you have any concept of the effect of a felony or high misdemeanor charge on a person? We had a kid that got a DWI around the corner. Looked up the charge and consequences, his life is essentially ruined. His ability to move is society and achieve is very restricted. The same is true for DV or any other charge. The fact is, we need the cops, courts, government, feds, everyone out of our lives. I sense that we are in a pressure cooker now, if something does not give, we are looking at another civil war. We did not have domestic charge like this in the 50's. We don't need them now.

We don't need little old women being arrested for issues like you described. Cops can alter this through their unions better than any other group. But look around, cops go around dressed in tactical gear and acting like any ordinary citizen is a criminal. If I had the power, one of the first things I would do would be to eliminate the tactical gear. Then I would eliminate SWAT and the whole concept of cops using extreme violence against presumably innocent people. We had a SWAT team come into Louisiana to take on a factory that the EPA had targeted and the end result was that the EPA acted wrongly in the whole issue. This all came about with the war on drugs and we need to eliminate that concept as well as the ability of cops to enter a home without due process. Now we have the ability to target a citizen and kill him on the authority of the president and a committee. We no longer live in a free society.

Posted by david7134 at October 9, 2011 01:40 PM
There are few people more despised by the police than those who harm children or women—maybe people who hurt animals

Find one and you find the other.

As for the rest, it's a simple matter -- we have law enforcement officers now instead of peace officers. The must-arrest laws exacerbate that problem. Badge heavy cops love law enforcement, but they aren't big on the whole "peace" thing.

I've never met a cop that didn't know the difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. If their department pushes peace keeping over law enforcement, the Good Guys get corrections (usually just a verbal reality check and orders to go someplace else a few hours and cool off) and Bad Guys get arrested. They don't end up back at the Good Guy's place -- they will be back to the Bad Guy's place in just a few weeks.

If the department pushes law enforcement, someone goes to jail. You're not enforcing, after all, without force.

Posted by Phelps at October 9, 2011 06:54 PM

It wasn't his usual duty, but sometimes- usually weekends- some PD or the Sheriff's Office would call him to assist on a domestic: all the officers or deputies were tied up. He flat hated it, partly from despising people who do that, and second for the reason you mention: all too often the female would wind up jumping on him when he handcuffed the male.

He did tell me about one where she jumped him before the cuffs were on, and the hubby started fighting. Got fairly desperate, said that for a minute there he was wondering if he'd go home that night.

Posted by Firehand at October 9, 2011 09:09 PM

"Cops can alter this through their unions better than any other group"

Not quite. If there are laws on the book telling them the MUST respond and MUST arrest and charge, not doing either or both makes them in violation of the law themselves.

And that's the case of course.

Also (and maybe something here can be changed by changing reporting systems, procedures, etc) police "efficiency" is often graded by the number of arrests made as compared to the number of cases started, and the number of convictions as related to the number of arrests.
So an agency with a lot of cut and dry cases (like DV cases, with their "must arrest" and "must convict" clauses) and traffic violations are excellent ways for police forces to "cook the books", appearing very successful in their mission when in reality the success rate in battling "real crime" like home invasions, murders, etc. can be abysmally low. But take the 10 or so cases they have in a year and pad them up with several hundred DV cases and a few thousand traffic cases, and it never shows.

Posted by JTW at October 10, 2011 02:54 AM