Study Shows Need for Unbiased Domestic Violence Services

fourthwire-

no problem my friend.

“jay.. the police sargeant… its good to know that the police are not just a middle class white women worship Kult, and are there to protect the equal justice clause of the constitution…”

I would encourage those who have not done so already to go to:
(And that goes for Police Sargeant Jay as well.)

go to:http://www.mediaradar.org/

From “Justice Denied-DV-Arrest Policies”
(I recommend you all download and read this file):

“In both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the government is commanded to not deprive any person of liberty “without due process of law.” Arresting a person for allegedly committing domestic violence has a profound impact on personal liberty–men who are arrested for domestic violence are detained an average of nine days.

“Arrest has serious legal and social effects as well. For that reason, police officers traditionally were not allowed to make an arrest for a misdemeanor—most instances of domestic violence are legally classified as misdemeanors—unless the officer actually witnessed the event or had an arrest warrant from a judge. That policy, a hallmark of a civil and just society, served to protect lawabiding citizens from arbitrary and unfair arrest.”

“But over the past two decades, states have enacted domestic violence laws that increasingly departed from these time-honored protections. This Special Report documents how arrest policies driven by the Violence Against Women Act violate fundamental notions of due process and equal protection under the law.”

“Over the last 20 years the criteria for arrest have experienced a complete turn-around. They have evolved from warrant-required arrest to warrantless arrest, then to mandatory arrest, next to arrest only of the primary aggressor, and more recently back to pro-arrest.”

Equal Protection Under the Law for Men no longer exists in the area of DV as well as in many other areas of life today.

Download: “Expanding Definitions, Vanishing Rule of Law”

“In 1780, John Adams of Massachusetts advanced the notion that the fledgling American democracy should be a “government of laws and not of men.” Indeed, rule of law is considered to be a prerequisite to democracy because it promotes fairness and justice.”

“Rule of law rests on the notion that legal offenses should be defined by concrete actions and verifiable harms, and are amenable to subsequent legal verification or refutation.”

“Beginning in the 1980s, feminist lawyers set out to reverse centuries of legal tradition. Attorney Martha Chamallas advocated that equal protection under the law should be phased out in favor of “an asymmetrical approach that adopts the perspective of the less powerful group with the specific goal of equitable power sharing among diverse groups.”

“Since civil law is less constrained by constitutional protections than criminal law, feminists found it to be a useful arena in which to advance their agenda. And a law that is defined by fear and emotional distress is inherently biased for three reasons:”

“1. Men are less likely to admit their fear of becoming a crime victim, even though young men suffer the majority of criminal victimization.”

“2. Even when men are genuinely fearful of harm from their partner, they are less likely to be believed by a judge.”

“3. If a woman claims to be fearful, it is almost impossible for the man to refute the allegation, since fear is not subject to legal verification.”

“An allegation that cannot be refuted becomes a clear invitation to abuse.”

There is an ever widening circle of persons in the definition of “domestic” violence. e.g., “any other person with a sufficient relationship “. The person claiming DV does not even have to live with the defendent…only to have and/or had a prior “sufficient relationship”.

The definition of “violence” in domestic violence is also going through an ever widening circle of what constitutes violence. “fear”, “reasonable apprehension” (and who decides what is reasonable with what is utterly unreasonable?), “extreme emotional distress” (again what is extreme?),…and so on. These words ENDORSE THE IMPORTANCE of the purported victim’s SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION, regardless of the alleged actions of the defendent.

In DV cases evidence is not required by the purported victim, only her word, and evidence provided by the defendent can and in most cases is summarily dismissed or ignored outright.

Guys, it is important to understand that we are in the midst of gender tyranny-a gender war. For a long time now.

My cynical view is that there will be DV reform when the police, lawyers, judges, counselors, advocates, politicians, get a taste of what Judge Weller got from Darren Mack.

The first efforts ought to be directed at working through the system-the “democratic process”. But what can we say about the democratic process when a Senior Senator in the U.S. Congress, Senator Joseph Biden, refuses to hear half the people, and in fact, deliberately shuts them out?

In the Nazi Germany era under Hitller, and during Stalin’s reign in the Soviet Union there were things called “show trials”. These trials were meant to provide a facade of “justice” being administered. It was only a show. The court decision was made prior to the defendent showing up in court. No justice was administered. Sounds a lot like today’s Family Court. Men have no say. They are branded before they walk into court.

Laws like the VAWA which has spawned 1500 domestic violence laws (30 on average per state), courts like our Stalinist Family Courts with judges like Judge Weller, and Senior Senators like Joseph Biden, all enforcing gender tyranny and this gender war, make it nearly impossible for the democratic process to work.

These should be on trial for attempted murder and not Darren Mack.

When the government gives a man injustice and does not provide for him a fair and just system to address the injustice, and the government does this on a large scale, it is creating the conditions for violent revolution.

I would like to think that if a man went to a police station that he would be listened to. Unfortunately in most cases the likely result is that HE will be charged and arrested and put in jail (and detained on average for 9 days).

We are in a gender war.