It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Deluded Judge Suggests Domestic Violence Victim Wanted to Be Hit


alternet.org

A cop pulling into an Exxon station saw a man hit his girlfriend in the face three times, called in back-up and had the man arrested.

But according to Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul Harris, who is "probably as against domestic violence as anybody, when the case is proven," one can't simply assume that a woman who is being hit didn't consent to the attack. "Sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up," the judge reminded the courtroom--then acquitted the man.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   
So, a cop see's a man beat up his girlfriend, she refuses to testify and the judge acquits the man on the grounds that the woman might be into S&M and ENJOY being hit - on the forecourt of a petrol station.

Now I don't know too much about S&M, but I do know that people practice it in private and that it usually doesn't involve this level of physical, public violence - this seems more like she was scared to testify, which often happens with victims of domestic violence.

This judge should be ashamed of himself - the judgement is nearly as bad as saying rape victims "ask for it" because of how they are dressed.

Does the fact that it was a female cop who witnessed the event (he dismissed her testimony) also have a bearing on this?

alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26/10/2007 by budski]



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Unbelievable. What is the world coming to? I think this story says more about the judges sexual preferences than anything else



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
so you get this dude that is seen by a cop whailing on his woman and is let off, and there are others where no contact is made at all, and someone gets sent up for DV.

this whole system is jacked



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I needed a restraining order, applied three times and was turned down.

It turns out that in my state, judges routinely turn them down, and often don't give reasons.

domestic violence is very common, and can involve more than just hitting, but judges are so jaded by how much of it comes through their court rooms that they end up treating the victims as liars or worse, and people -- women and children particularly -- are not protected.

All it does is encourage the abuser to do more of the same, and often escalate.

In my opinion, if someone applies for a restraining order, they should be granted one. Protecting the criminal's rights is not as important as protecting the victim's. But that is the way court tends to go -- protecting the abuser's rights.

it really makes me angry and depressed to think that the past 18 months of hell I've been through could have been prevented, but the judges in my county decided I was making it all up and refused to protect me.

For all the advances in law, we still have a long way to go.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
domestic violence is very common, and can involve more than just hitting,

For all the advances in law, we still have a long way to go.


i absolutely, 100% agree with ya major. the one thing i have a problem with, is from what i have seen, the DV laws are still very much more jaded against the male in the situation....

in this state, the police arrive after the fact and then they have to interprit what happened(what else they supposed to do? can't blame them for that one at least. they can't b everywhere)....that said, i think there are many a female that never sees cuffs having committed a DV

i know personally my ex(sons mother) used to punch/scratch/spit/hit me in the pills, etc....numerous time. multiple times.


this is one of those situations that i don't know how can be fixed.
just like DV can involve more than hitting, DV can also be a woman committing against a man and IMO, it is still seen as almost a joke or something on that end....

funny how you talk about trying to get a restraining order but the judge turining it down.
about a year ago my brother in law and his then wife were going at it pretty hardcore....he applied for one and he did not get it. she got it.

bout the same time my mom and step dad were having the same problems, to the point where i thought i was gonna have to bust my stepdad up. my mom got an attorny that told her she could get a restraining order, paid the fee and in the end, they turned her down too.

my stepdad never actually 'hit' her but there was some physical stuff.

i don't know what criteria they use but this is another deal that needs a complete restructure



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


To me, perpetrators of domestic violence are barely one level above rapists and paedo's - a strong view I know, but I lived with domestic violence as a child. It's not nice to be punched in the face by a full grown man when you're 8.

The system here in the UK is much better, with the victim getting the benefit of the doubt, rather than the attacker. More could still be done, but there ARE women who take advantage of the law here and basically lie to get what they want, and that's not good either.

Send all abusers to prison and let the other cons take care of them is what I say.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
For me the problem was that he never hit me.

Psychological and emotional abuse, and holding me against my will, as well as stalking, just weren't deemed good enough by the court system.

Which is unfortunate, because every agency that gives services to victims of DV accept that I experienced it; it's just the courts that are behind the times.

It reminds me very much of what happened to rape victims prior to the 1970's or so -- "you must have done something that provoked it."

Blaming the victim is never a solution.

In cases like mine, there was tons of documentation -- that is the key. Documenting everything that happens. But the judges refused to accept my documentation. They didn't even look at any real evidence. They reduced it to a he said/she said, and my ex is an accomplished liar, even pathological.

So I'm upset and freaked out in the hearing and he's calm and collected. So they found against me because I was "hysterical." You'd think that raw emotion would help prove the case, wouldn't you? But the judges just treated me like I was doing it only for custody of the kids and refused to protect us.

The system sucks.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
What does this judge know about BDSM? Obviously not much and quite honestly, him using the whole "she asked for it" excuse tells me that perhaps he has a bit of domestic abuser in him himself.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by snowflake_obsidian
 


Not sure how it works in the US, but many UK judges, peers etc are pretty au fait with BDSM - it's the public school (private schools in US) upbringing they have.
You know, canes, matrons, biscuit game etc etc

There's a lot of "pervs" in the british upper classes.







 
0

log in

join