When law enforcement angencies are useless.

[Sepherose]

I am 25 years old, a parent, and in a long standing relationship that is healthy. And I can not stomach it when I see someone that abuses their children or spouse in any way shape or form. By abuse I mean hurling insults that makes them feel worthless at the drop of a hat, manhandling them constantly, etc. I'm not talking about when a couple get into a heated argument and then come to a conclusion later after they have calmed down, I'm not talking about when a parent has to hold a child when they are throwing a tantrum and are risking hurting themselves or their siblings. Now that that is out of the way, I'll get to my real point.

 

A friend of my girlfriend and myself has twice now had to temporarily stay with us with her two young children, because of her husband. What I mentioned earlier as abuse was part of it, on top of that he had pretty much forcibly cut them off from the world (we hadn't seen them in months leading to them need to stay here for a few days the first time), and the primary tipping point the first time was he had decided that cable and internet were more important than paying for electricity. Not only is this a plain example of misplaced priorities, but it is endangering the health and welfare of a child, in this case, two of them. The final icing on it was he would not let his wife and children leave to find a place to stay until the electricity was turned back on, and it essentially became a struggle to get them all here, even though without heat, it was still getting near freezing at night.

 

Our friend decided to call the police on him, and turn him in for a warrant that I was not aware of him having, so I asked for details on said warrant. It was apparently from a time years back where he had been accused of domestic abuse in another city in this state. He was to be on probation and had instead just ran to the current city I live in, which caused a warrant to be issued for his arrest. Now, here is where the law starts to fail severely: When a warrant is issued in this state related to domestic abuse charges, if that person shows up on the radar so to speak, the police are notified in the area and the person apprehended, at least that is the way it is supposed to work. Instead he was able to go to community college for two years, making it known on record at the school that he had a warrant. So anyway, she called the police and turned him in, telling them that he had also been abusive to her and their children, and they picked him up on it, saying he would be in jail for a minimum of a year. To clarify, the original charge did not involve our friend.

 

Well, two weeks later and he has been released, not only released, but no other action was taken. He is now back in town, and causing problems for our friend in the form of pounding on the door until 3 am, forcing his way into the apartment, almost injuring his daughter in the process and then blaming it on our friend, and generally being a terror.

Now that I have that out of the way, this next part is where my real problem is with the laws and regulations. The two of them, although separated, and the police told our friend she could legally kick him out and tell him to stay away, are still on the same lease. You would think it would not be difficult to remove him after an incident like this, but no, regulations in place are actually preventing it.

 

On top of this, the police have now outright told our friend that he could kick in the door and he would be within his legal rights. Also, he can apparently legally manhandle his children. At this point, I have to stop and take a step back to examine what is happening. This man has been charged in the past with domestic abuse in a different situation, and now, even with that record, the police are saying their hands are tied, because they are still legally married. To get a divorce in this situation, it will cost our friend $400, which she does not have after paying for his way for so long. I would think in a situation like this, with evidence, and witnesses that have told the police the same things, including neighbors and friends, it wouldn't cost a thing, but again, regulations don't allow that to happen.

 

Where the debate begins, I suppose, is now: I want to hear justification for this situation. In my opinion, this is not in any way just, as he is breaking the law for now a verifiable second time in his life in the same area as before. Anyone care to jump on the other side of the argument? Or am I completely right in this assessment?

[RZ1029]

Shoot first ask questions later.

 

That may actually work in some states, assuming they have a so-called 'Castle Law', which is basically you have the right to defend yourself and your house. I'll try and keep it brief, but Wikipedia has a fairly good article on it (with legal sources cited, as well).

 

In general, (one) or a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

 

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.

The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary

The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

 

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

 

I hit the main points in red which are relevant to your case. Though, note, not all states have these laws. The ones that do currently are...

 

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.

 

For instance, where I live, North Carolina, we don't have a 'duty to retreat' clause. If I feel reasonably threatened or have (good) reason to believe that the intruder intends to cause bodily harm or commit a felony, I have the legal right to defend myself.

 

That being said, as far as my opinion, I think child abuse and domestic abuse is as bad as murder. That child and your spouse (husband or wife, it can go both ways) are your duty to love and protect as a guardian/parent/husband/wife.

 

As for the duty of the police, I think our justice system fails the ones it's made to protect far too often. I've seen someone who I believe (with very good reason to do so) was an accomplice in the murder and butchering of their daughter, a very young girl who had Cerebral Palsy (sp?). His wife is in jail and currently on trial, but her husband is off scotch-free so far, from what I've heard. I'd honestly shoot him myself if I knew I could get away with it, and I'd never lose a bit of sleep.

EDIT: 1) Fail using

tags. 2) My post looks like Christmas, all the green and red. 3) This edit line wasn't in green.

Edited June 25, 2011 by RZ1029

[Sepherose]

Well, Castle Doctrine is not applicable in our state of residence. All things considered, it seems more like to law enforcement here just don't care, and neither does the management at their apartments as she just got done being told that her husband is going to get her and her kids evicted.

[Aurielius]

The Castle Doctrine has one huge caveat..Imminent Danger meaning that one must be in immediate peril for your life. Some states are loose in their definition of imminent danger such as mine (Pa.) and others are very structured as to what that precisely means.

I checked Oregon's Laws and what I found was disturbing.Your life has to be directly threatened (or someone else's life) to justifiably use deadly force. But if you can flee a situation without using deadly force, then legally, you must try to flee before you shoot someone, is how I understand it. And if someone breaks into your house, that alone is not grounds to kill them. They must be a direct threat to you and your family, i.e. coming at you with a baseball bat, or a knife. My recommendation to the use of deadly force in Oregon is, the second call after the Police is to your attorney and wait silently until the latter arrives.

[Sepherose]

The Castle Doctrine has one huge caveat..Imminent Danger meaning that one must be in immediate peril for your life. Some states are loose in their definition of imminent danger such as mine (Pa.) and others are very structured as to what that precisely means.

I checked Oregon's Laws and what I found was disturbing.Your life has to be directly threatened (or someone else's life) to justifiably use deadly force. But if you can flee a situation without using deadly force, then legally, you must try to flee before you shoot someone, is how I understand it. And if someone breaks into your house, that alone is not grounds to kill them. They must be a direct threat to you and your family, i.e. coming at you with a baseball bat, or a knife. My recommendation to the use of deadly force in Oregon is, the second call after the Police is to your attorney and wait silently until the latter arrives.

 

Use of deadly force is not the optimal solution here. Optimally, I think the laws should be changed to accommodate a situation like this, where is a person has priors along the same line, married or no, immediate response by the police and at the very least jail until some measure have been put in place to prevent the abusive spouse from coming around. I don't just mean in this one situation either, overall the lack of response by law enforcement is appalling, especially with the comments "Legally he could kick the door in and still be within his rights" and "If you don't feel safe in your home, find somewhere you do". A person should not be forced to flee a home they pay for because of an abusive wastrel of a spouse.

[Aurielius]

The Castle Doctrine has one huge caveat..Imminent Danger meaning that one must be in immediate peril for your life. Some states are loose in their definition of imminent danger such as mine (Pa.) and others are very structured as to what that precisely means.

I checked Oregon's Laws and what I found was disturbing.Your life has to be directly threatened (or someone else's life) to justifiably use deadly force. But if you can flee a situation without using deadly force, then legally, you must try to flee before you shoot someone, is how I understand it. And if someone breaks into your house, that alone is not grounds to kill them. They must be a direct threat to you and your family, i.e. coming at you with a baseball bat, or a knife. My recommendation to the use of deadly force in Oregon is, the second call after the Police is to your attorney and wait silently until the latter arrives.

 

Use of deadly force is not the optimal solution here. Optimally, I think the laws should be changed to accommodate a situation like this, where is a person has priors along the same line, married or no, immediate response by the police and at the very least jail until some measure have been put in place to prevent the abusive spouse from coming around. I don't just mean in this one situation either, overall the lack of response by law enforcement is appalling, especially with the comments "Legally he could kick the door in and still be within his rights" and "If you don't feel safe in your home, find somewhere you do". A person should not be forced to flee a home they pay for because of an abusive wastrel of a spouse.

I agree that it is a poor substitute for the legal system functioning as it should do. Are there grounds for a restraining order? Or is that something you have yet to explore?

[Sepherose]

The Castle Doctrine has one huge caveat..Imminent Danger meaning that one must be in immediate peril for your life. Some states are loose in their definition of imminent danger such as mine (Pa.) and others are very structured as to what that precisely means.

I checked Oregon's Laws and what I found was disturbing.Your life has to be directly threatened (or someone else's life) to justifiably use deadly force. But if you can flee a situation without using deadly force, then legally, you must try to flee before you shoot someone, is how I understand it. And if someone breaks into your house, that alone is not grounds to kill them. They must be a direct threat to you and your family, i.e. coming at you with a baseball bat, or a knife. My recommendation to the use of deadly force in Oregon is, the second call after the Police is to your attorney and wait silently until the latter arrives.

 

Use of deadly force is not the optimal solution here. Optimally, I think the laws should be changed to accommodate a situation like this, where is a person has priors along the same line, married or no, immediate response by the police and at the very least jail until some measure have been put in place to prevent the abusive spouse from coming around. I don't just mean in this one situation either, overall the lack of response by law enforcement is appalling, especially with the comments "Legally he could kick the door in and still be within his rights" and "If you don't feel safe in your home, find somewhere you do". A person should not be forced to flee a home they pay for because of an abusive wastrel of a spouse.

I agree that it is a poor substitute for the legal system functioning as it should do. Are there grounds for a restraining order? Or is that something you have yet to explore?

 

As utterly incompetent as it sounds, yes there is the option, but it will cost her $400, same as the divorce option, and she has to wait till sometime next week to even put the paperwork in, then it will take at least a week to find out if it even went through. That is as far as I understand what she has said and the info she brought to me to look at. All of these things contribute to my opinion that the legal system fails where it is most needed, and excels where it is not needed. It is a bit backwards.

[HeyYou]

She should be able to file legal separation papers for a lot less than 400 bucks.

 

If she can't get her husbands name off of the lease, move. I know that is not always an easy solution, but, so long as his name is on that piece of paper, he has legal rights to be in the residence.

 

Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I have yet to see one actually accomplish anything, other than annoy the person named.....

[grannywils]

Another temporary option would be for her to find a woman's shelter. They will take her in, along with any children and keep her protected from this abusive person while she attempts to sort out her alternatives. As long as he knows where to find her, he will continue to harrass her. Once she is in a safe place her stress level may be sufficiently diminished so that she will be able to consider what steps she needs to take or is able to take. These shelters can be extremely helpful during these times, and they will under no circumstances allow the abuser access or knowledge of her whereabouts.

[Sepherose]

She should be able to file legal separation papers for a lot less than 400 bucks.

 

If she can't get her husbands name off of the lease, move. I know that is not always an easy solution, but, so long as his name is on that piece of paper, he has legal rights to be in the residence.

 

Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I have yet to see one actually accomplish anything, other than annoy the person named.....

This is what I mean. She pays the rent there, and was paying his debt off and paying his way. Now she was okay with that until he became abusive (I don't really see why). But what is really the just solution here? I don't think that she should be forced to move out, that is not just in any way. This is what I mean by failure of law enforcement.

 

Another temporary option would be for her to find a woman's shelter. They will take her in, along with any children and keep her protected from this abusive person while she attempts to sort out her alternatives. As long as he knows where to find her, he will continue to harrass her. Once she is in a safe place her stress level may be sufficiently diminished so that she will be able to consider what steps she needs to take or is able to take. These shelters can be extremely helpful during these times, and they will under no circumstances allow the abuser access or knowledge of her whereabouts.

 

I had actually initially suggested the same thing to her, but there are not many of them around here, and they are all currently full. Again though, as I said, this is not a just solution, as the result is still most likely going to be her moving. Essentially the law is allowing him to do exactly what he is trying to, which is cause her a lot of trouble.

 

Those things said, there is now some solid standing room for her, as she was able to finally reach the owner of the place she is living at and the owner has now decided he is not welcome on the property, so now the police have something to use if he tries to show up again.