Dozens of US cities threaten to evict domestic violence victims if the

[TRoaches]

Boaresa, you have shown an impressive knack for taking a valid point and making it sound really dumb by digressing into a convoluted poorly constructed rant. You should consider a career in talk radio, or perhaps as someone's press secretary.

[Boaresa]

I'am not ranting neighter i'am angry at all.

 

Why don't you refer to the points i make rather than just tell me how bad i'am?

[TRoaches]

um......nobody implied that you are angry.

 

I'm not responding to the points because they are, at best, peripherally relevant to the topic being discussed.

[Boaresa]

You said i would rant, for me the definition of ranting about something includes to be angry.

 

I'm not responding to the points because they are, at best, peripherally relevant to the topic being discussed.

No, i rather think you don't know what "battered woman syndrom" is nor you know what "pathologic narcissism" means. If domestic violence itself isn't relevant to the topic, that also confirms my saying that people today just look for someone who solve problems for them rather than do it themself. I wanna go to the root of this problem and don't just look for someone to send the guards after. If you wanna stay on the ,population contest' debate level thats fine, but than don't acuse me of dumbing down things because you can't handle it.

[TRoaches]

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+rant

 

Notice the word "anger" does not appear in the definition. Neither does any word that is synonymous with "anger".

 

I wouldn't usually stoop to critiquing someone's grammar or spelling, but since you directly insulted my intelligence (popularity contest, dumbing down) I'm going to have to point out that you seem only partially literate. Further evidence is your misinterpretation of "peripherally related" to mean "isn't relevant". They are relevant, but only peripherally. The topic being discussed was not "what causes domestic violence?", therefore to attempt to steer the discussion in that direction is to hijack it. If that is the discussion that you want to have you could just start a new thread. To say that you want to "go to the root" implies that the answer to the initial question about nuisance evictions would be answered if we could only eliminate domestic violence. Following the same logic, any discussion would eventually end up at "why do bad things happen?", at which point you have long departed from politics and entered the domain of philosophy.

 

Its a shame, because I was enjoying the exchange with Marxist Bastard and looking forward to continuing it before you decided to join in.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TRoaches

[Boaresa]

I don't mind my spelling as long you are able to understand the points i make.

but since you directly insulted my intelligence

I didn't. You acused me of dumbing down things, i acused you of not knowing what i'am talking about. Between the lack of information and just being dumb is a big difference. But go on on the spelling issue even more away from the points i made... and the facts.

 

to continuing it before you decided to join in.

And you immediately decided to pick up on me rather than just ignore my "dumbing down". Why? Because you think you need to express you opinion on everything, if its based on facts or not. Thats why you also don't wanna talk about the causes of this problem. Edited May 2, 2013 by Boaresa

[TRoaches]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that everything in your rant was a fact. Even if this were true, it is still only of peripheral relevance to the topic of the thread because domestic violence is not the root cause of poorly drafted legislation. Even if we were to arrive at some consensus on what the root cause of domestic violence is, we would then have to move on to the next question: What is the root cause of the root cause of domestic violence? And, after we determine that, we would have to do it again to find the root cause of the root cause of the root cause. We could do this forever. If you reduce every question to "what is the root cause" we never get anywhere, because we are eventually reduced to the question "what is the root cause of reality?". It is an unanswerable question.

I will now, per your request, refute each one of your "facts":

You don't know what "positiv arrest policy" means don't you?

Yes, I do.

The Police will arrest the Husband/Man whatsoever

Assuming they are doing things "by the book" the police will only arrest someone if there is evidence of a crime. If they arrest a person without evidence they have violated the rights of the person being arrested, and that person may then take whatever legal recourse is available to them, including a civil lawsuit against the arresting officer and the city that employs them. If they choose not to exercise their rights in this way that is their choice, and their problem.

and created 10 new government agencies to deal with those cases such as Community Safety Units, Criminal Justice Units, Safer Neighbourhood Teams and so on.

The police do not create government agencies.

(battered woman syndrome)

This is not a real syndrome according to any medical classification. It is a psuedo-legal premise that has been used utilized in the defense of people who acted out after being abused in some way. Whatever either of our opinions may be regarding its legitimacy it has been successfully utilized in this way. If you find this to be an incorrect application of the law you should start working towards becoming a judge so that you may overturn it.

Also, the most likely part of victims who is threatend with homelessness by domestic violence are men. Over 90% of homeless people are men and even of amongs the homeless women there is just a very small percent that is homeles because of domestic violence.

Your statistics rely on the assumption that all violence is reported. It would be safer to assume that a fair amount of violence is not reported, and if this assumption is correct it means your statistics are inaccurate Also, all statistics become inaccurate when viewed critically.

If a woman hits her man, it puts him in an impossible situation, because whatever he does the society will support the woman in legal issues and court issues and generally see him as the violent one.

If any person hits me and I am inclined at the time to do the right and legal thing I will first defensively remove myself from the situation, then report the action to the police. If I feel that my safety is in danger I am allowed to defend myself, but the goal of any self-defense situation should be, above all else, to remove yourself from it. Anything else is offense committed under the guise of defense. Society's view of my actions is of little relevance compared to the lawfulness of my actions. If the cops show up and I'm in the front yard screaming insults at the house I am not acting in self defense.

One divorce later, where he was robbed by nearly everything he as by the court, its most likely he will face homelessness.

If you lose everything in a divorce you were not robbed. You were legally beaten in court. Not all men lose everything in a divorce, and the ones that do either had poor representation or made critical mistakes at some point.

There are plenty of refuges for women who are victims of domestic violence, but not one for men.

There are plenty of refuges for people regardless of gender. Just because it does not have a sign out front that says "battered men's shelter" does not mean that a battered man cannot use it as such. Likewise, there are plenty of mental health services available to a man in this position. It is his choice whether to utilize them or not, but they are there.

Also, Erin Pizzey who opend up the first refuges for women who were victims of domestic violence in the UK said, that over half of the women who came to her were at least as violent as the men who abused them.

The opinion of a single person, regardless of their accomplishments, is not relevant if we are discussing facts.

Meanwhile the greatest group of victims of domestic violence ain't women, but children who get beaten by their mothers.

Again, this assumes that all violence is reported and included in your statistics.

But after all we need to look in the root of the problem, why choose people partners who ain't good for them.

If we were actually able to answer this question wouldn't it just lead to another "what is the root cause of this root cause?" question? And, if that is true, doesn't this illustrate that your initial "root cause" was not actually the root of anything?

Why do women choose narcistic men who beat them and stay with them?

Because human emotion is not always based in rational thought. In fact, it almost never is. If it were then nobody would ever get married. From a purely rational and materialistic point of view marriage or domestic partnership of any kind is always a losing proposition for at least one of the parties with very little chance of material gain.

Mostly even think, that they are the only one that understand him and can safe him.

You presume to understand the complexities of other people's emotions, and the decisions that they make regarding them. I propose that your understanding of what causes other people to do what they do is limited to your own perception of their lives and colored by your own cumulative experience.

He beats her, and she let him beat her.

I think even you would have to admit that this is an over-simplification of emotional human interaction. If this sort of thing were dictated by rational thought I would have cut off all contact with my little brother when he chewed the face off of my He-Man doll when we were children. As it were, I forgave him because he probably didn't even realize who He-Man was, was unaware of the damage that he was causing, and because I love him. the emotional component of our relationship is much deeper than the rational one.

I don't give a dry stick about the law because this is a highly complexe isue to sensible for any judge or buerocrate.

The same could be said for any issue involving the interaction of human minds, but judges and bureaucrats are the only ones who are in a position to pass legislation and apply it. If you have a better suggestion about who should have the power to intervene I would love to hear it.

Why do Men beat their wifes when there is clearly no physical threat from a woman against a man?

Because they are angry, emotional, irrational beings. In other words, because they are humans acting like humans. The specific reasons for an individual's lapse in judgement or lack of morality would be something that only that individual could ever hope to truly answer, and the answer would be different in each case.

And why in the world do mothers beat their children, the greatest group of abusers?

In reply to the first part of the statement refer to my previous point. Regarding child-abusing women being the "greatest group of abusers" refer to my earlier statement regarding the fallibility of statistics.

When you look at people like charles manson or joe stalin, they had some serios mother issue.

This may be true, but a correlation does not constitute a causal relationship. If having a crazy mother caused one to become a psycho or a dictator then there would be a lot more psychos and dictators in the world. If someone thinks their mother was perfect then they never knew her that well.

In most violent relationships there isn't a victim or a offender, because most of the times its two seriosly highly pathologic, narcistic, mentaly sick persons who need each other as the sadist needs a masochist and the other way around. They choose partners who treat them like garbage, because their ill mind tells them that this is what they are looking for to still their inferiority complex.

Again, you seem convinced that you have the emotional interaction between fallible humans all figured out. To reduce the complexities of human interaction down to a finite set of conditions is arrogant, and is debunked by finding a single exception to the stated premise.

There should be more focus on the psychology behind these acts than this "society plumbing" after it already happend.

Assuming that we did find the psychological causes of these problems, what would you propose as a pre-emptive response? Shall we criminalize specific emotions, then forcibly drug people to suppress them? Should there be an oversight committee that approves a coupling as compatible before they are allowed to spend time together? There must be some pre-emptive action that you have in mind, since you oppose dealing with it after it has already happened and I would love to hear what it is.

Moving on to your next post:

No, i rather think you don't know what "battered woman syndrom" is

I need to really drive this home to you: I understand you just fine, but I don't agree with you. More importantly, I found your post to be entirely devoted to a completely different topic than the one that this thread was meant to discuss. Even if I had never heard the term "battered woman syndrome" I could do a web search for it and figure it out if necessary. Your repeated statements that others disagree with you due to a lack the understanding that you possess sounds a lot like....

nor you know what "pathologic narcissism" means.

I've heard of this one too, but I actually did look up the classification to refresh my memory. Here are a few highlights that you may find personally relevant:

Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation

Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

Lacking empathy and disregarding the feelings of others

Being obsessed with self

Trouble keeping healthy relationships

Becoming easily hurt and rejected

Setting goals that are unrealistic

Wanting "the best" of everything

Appearing unemotional

If domestic violence itself isn't relevant to the topic, that also confirms my saying that people today just look for someone who solve problems for them rather than do it themself.

"People" is a very big group. I wouldn't presume to know what "people" are looking for. You do. See the prior point.

I wanna go to the root of this problem and don't just look for someone to send the guards after.

Then you should involve yourself in some way. Maybe you could start that battered men's shelter that you think is lacking, or donate your time to helping the child victims of domestic violence.

If you wanna stay on the ,population contest' debate level thats fine, but than don't acuse me of dumbing down things because you can't handle it.

I haven't felt a need to call you dumb for some time now. I don't point to the sky either and spread the news that it is blue.

And your last post:

I don't mind my spelling as long you are able to understand the points i make.

I can, but just barely. If I swallowed a handful of sedatives and hit myself in the head with a hammer a few times it would probably make more sense, but I can't guarantee it.

You acused me of dumbing down things,

Yes, I did. I stand by it.

i acused you of not knowing what i'am talking about.

I know what you are talking about. This may come as a surprise to you, but none of your points approach anything resembling a lofty intellectual premise.

Between the lack of information and just being dumb is a big difference.

It all sort of blends together in your case.

But go on on the spelling issue even more away from the points i made...

I just wonder what the root cause of poor spelling is. I WANT TO GET TO THE ROOT OF IT ALL!!!

and the facts.

I hope this post addresses these "facts" to your satisfaction.

And you immediately decided to pick up on me rather than just ignore my "dumbing down".

Nah, it wasn't immediate. I read the other post in this forum that you managed to get locked, and formed my opinion based on that.

Why? Because you think you need to express you opinion on everything, if its based on facts or not.

Not on everything. Just the things that interest me. Debating isn't always about determining who is right and wrong, but learning a little about the viewpoints of others. That is what I was enjoying with Marxist Bastard: I was providing a viewpoint that MB had perhaps not considered, and MB was sharing a viewpoint that I had perhaps not considered. We were learning from each other by challenging each other. You seem to be determined to be unanimously declared the winner of the debate, and that's really not what its about.

Thats why you also don't wanna talk about the causes of this problem.

I would love to talk about that. Let's talk about the the big bang, and whatever preceded it. Is matter a precipitate of thought, or the other way around? Once we have that figured out we can move on to the nature of time and how it relates to, or is an illusory by-product of, perception of reality. But wait, what is real? Ok, once we have that figured out we'll be able to work our way towards a discussion on municipal legislation.

So there you have it. Point by point, "fact" by "fact". I hope you are satisfied that you have been given the attention that you deserve, and are now willing to allow the original discussion to continue.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TRoaches

[Boaresa]

You again call it a rant when it wasn't. Why do you assume i was ranting?

 

 

If we were actually able to answer this question wouldn't it just lead to another "what is the root cause of this root cause?" question?

Most likely not. On one hand its a bit complex, but as soon you get to understand the relativly young field of narcissism research, it becomes very easy to understand. If you are able to understand the behavior and most important the masquerade, you can recognize people as mentaly ill and wouldn't form a relationship with them, wich could bring you in the position where are you the victim of violence.

 

The opinion of a single person, regardless of their accomplishments, is not relevant if we are discussing facts.

But so does the Family Violence Treatment & Education Association. Also says the NSPCC that more violence against children is commited by mothers. These are facts. And even it would just be that person alone, still would have weight in this case.

 

Again, this assumes that all violence is reported and included in your statistics.

Its the material availible and we can debate on these proofen facts or leave the ground of replicability and just make up stuff how we would it like to be.

 

You presume to understand the complexities of other people's emotions, and the decisions that they make regarding them. I propose that your understanding of what causes other people to do what they do is limited to your own perception of their lives and colored by your own cumulative experience.

At least i try. What do you think behavioral science is about?

 

I hope you are satisfied that you have been given the attention that you deserve, and are now willing to allow the original discussion to continue.

Half of your responses are polemic and you addmit that you don't care about the problem itself, but how we as society should react as a collectiv to get their nose in cases they ain't involved from the begining. Yeah sure, lets make laws.... awesome.

 

If you don't look into these things, than the end of the day you just help to created a huge income sector that i call "The Abuse Industry" wich includes not just those courts and judges who pass new laws and government agencies profiting to make a big deal out of the domestic violance issue, but also the loosing of general rights of indiviuums who are in relationships where especaly the man is always the suspect when it comes to domestic violence.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Boaresa

[bben46]

This seems to be getting way off topic. If you want to argue the definition of definitions please start your own topic. :rolleyes:

 

My own take on the ORIGINAL topic.

 

The point of these laws is that the same people call 911 over and over for the same problem. After being kicked out, the man asks his woman for forgiveness and SHE (not the landlord) allows the jerk to move back in. Often the woman refused to file any charges. And without charges there can't be a restraining order. A week later, the cycle repeats. She gets beat up (or far more likely having an argument with her live in) and calls 911 again. The cops come again and lock him up again. She refuses to file charges again - then when he gets out (she often pays the bail) a few weeks later it happens again - she calls 911 etc. The Law gets fed up and has her kicked out - she rents a new place and the cycle starts over again. :pinch:

 

In the small city I live in, if someone living in city owned subsidized public housing calls 911 more than 3 times for certain things, including domestic violence, OR has 911 called on them, (for such as disturbing the peace) they are subject to being kicked out - based on the circumstances - This ordinance is not always enforced. But in the case of repeated domestic violence it is far more likely to be acted on. This is highlighted in the lease contract they sign when they move in, and explained verbally by the rental agent so should not come as any surprise to them.

 

Yes, I'm certain this law gets abused by law enforcement just like many others. But not nearly as often as the complainers would like for you to believe.

 

Note: Police hate to go on domestic violence calls - more often than not the woman refuses to file any charges and the cop has put his life on the line and wasted police resources for nothing more than to break up an argument. I have a friend who was a cop. He was nearly killed three times answering a domestic violence calls.

[Tidus44]

The point of these laws is that the same people call 911 over and over for the same problem. After being kicked out, the man asks his woman for forgiveness and SHE (not the landlord) allows the jerk to move back in. Often the woman refused to file any charges. And without charges there can't be a restraining order. A week later, the cycle repeats. She gets beat up (or far more likely having an argument with her live in) and calls 911 again. The cops come again and lock him up again. She refuses to file charges again - then when he gets out (she often pays the bail) a few weeks later it happens again - she calls 911 etc. The Law gets fed up and has her kicked out - she rents a new place and the cycle starts over again.

 

In the small city I live in, if someone living in city owned subsidized public housing calls 911 more than 3 times for certain things, including domestic violence, OR has 911 called on them, (for such as disturbing the peace) they are subject to being kicked out - based on the circumstances - This ordinance is not always enforced. But in the case of repeated domestic violence it is far more likely to be acted on. This is highlighted in the lease contract they sign when they move in, and explained verbally by the rental agent so should not come as any surprise to them.

 

How does forcing a land lord to evict the tenant solve the domestic violence problem? Exactly what is achieved by making the victim move to a different location or making them homeless because land lords won't want to rent to the victim?

 

Victims cannot file charges - only a prosecutor can file charges. The victim may only file a complaint.

Under most state law and the VAWA an officer can arrest someone for abuse without a warrant if they have probable cause that abuse has taken place within the past 12 hours, regardless of whether they witness the crime or a formal complaint has been filed. They can also set conditions for the person arrested, such as no contact with the victim, upon release of the perpetrator before they can be charged or appear in court.

If a police officer believes that domestic abuse is occurring (and there is a lot of things that are defined legally as abuse), they can enter the criminal complaint. It isn’t required that the individual being abused or attacked enter the complaint. If a police officer were responding, the officer would have the power to make the complaint, as in any other crime.

Yes, I'm certain this law gets abused by law enforcement just like many others. But not nearly as often as the complainers would like for you to believe.

 

Note: Police hate to go on domestic violence calls - more often than not the woman refuses to file any charges and the cop has put his life on the line and wasted police resources for nothing more than to break up an argument. I have a friend who was a cop. He was nearly killed three times answering a domestic violence calls.

 

If a police officer abuses the law once, then that's too often. As for responding to complaints, my thought is "boo hoo" for the poor police. If you don't like your job, then quit and go do something you are more suited for, like selling shoes or vacuum cleaners. Responding to complaints is their job and the excuse about "wasted resources" is just an excuse. If a crime is taking place then that's what the police are there for.