TLDR: Domestic violence has a very broad definition and effects men 100x more than women.
I have been involved here at TRP for over a year and a half. Over this time I have seen quite a bit of misinformation about domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, etc. A couple weeks ago u/rpsheepdog's posted about domestic/dating violence. It was a good start to defining exactly what domestic violence is and how to help yourself avoid criminal charges. I contacted rpsheepdog and I have plans to work with him (and anyone else who may have substantial legal expertise) to dive into these legal issues. Knowing the law, knowing how police, prosecutors, and the legal system work, and knowing how to protect yourself in the inevitable event you get accused by a crazy pump-n-dump is valuable information. My intent is to clearly define legal concepts that effect red pill men then highlight the difference between the objectivity in the law and the subjectivity in which the law is enforced; legal theory versus legal practice.
Quick bio: I am a prosecuting attorney in the United States who often prosecutes domestic violence cases. They are not my specialty as I am not a vawa funded prosecutor. I have my own general criminal caseload, but I handle all domestic cases that my offices vawa funded prosecutor conflicts. I have an in-depth knowledge of domestic violence law and how it works. I have prosecuted nearly 100 domestic related cases, both misdemeanor and felony. My experience is substantial.
Current definitions of domestic violence spring from the violence against women act (vawa) passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2013. Vawa, which I will have a subsequent post on, is federal law that provides money to states in order to prosecute more domestic violence cases (among other things domestic related). The money comes in the form of grants, one of which pays counties/states to hire prosecutors who prosecute only domestic violence cases. These grants are monitored by federal agencies and increased or reduced depending on productivity. Basically, vawa prosecutors need convictions to keep their money. Domestic violence is defined differently in every state. However, if a state wants vawa money the definition needs to fall within federally prescribed guidelines. Consequently, most states have similar definitions for domestic violence. They want free federal money.
In my state domestic violence is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members: (1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing physical harm to another with or without dangerous or deadly weapons; (2) Placing another in reasonable apprehension of physical harm; (3) Creating fear of physical harm by harassment, stalking, psychological abuse or threatening acts; (4) Committing either sexual assault or sexual abuse; and (5) Holding, confining, detaining or abducting another person against that person's will.
This definition seems straightforward and fair. It makes no gender distinction and it only applies to "family or household members". No one wants to be assaulted, battered, stalked, detained, sexually abused, or abducted. If I walk up to some random girl I've never met and punch her in the face I committed a misdemeanor battery and will be punished by a fine up to $500 and/or jail not to exceed one year. It is not "domestic violence" and there are no other collateral consequences. Fair enough. The same is not so if I walk up to a "family or household member" and punch her (or him) in the face. The first time I punch her in the face I will be charged with misdemeanor domestic battery and will face a $500 fine and/or jail not to exceed on year. The consequences may appear to be the same. However, even though state code provides for the same enumerated penalties for battery and domestic battery, the collateral consequences for any form of domestic violence are substantial. After conviction I become a person prohibited from carrying a firearm (for life) and face enhance-able sentences upon subsequent convictions; in my state a third domestic related conviction is a FELONY. You will serve one to five years in prison and/or be fined up to $2500. All because you punched a "family or household member" in the face instead of some random Jane.
If this isn't shitty enough, I'll now define who qualifies as a family or household member.
“Family or household members” means persons who: (1) Are or were married to each other; (2) Are or were living together as spouses; (3) Are or were sexual or intimate partners; (4) Are or were dating: Provided, that a casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization between persons in a business or social context does not establish a dating relationship; (5) Are or were residing together in the same household; (6) Have a child in common regardless of whether they have ever married or lived together; (7) Have the following relationships to another person: (A) Parent; (B) Stepparent; (C) Brother or sister; (D) Half-brother or half-sister; (E) Stepbrother or stepsister; (F) Father-in-law or mother-in-law; (G) Stepfather-in-law or stepmother-in-law; (H) Child or stepchild; (I) Daughter-in-law or son-in-law; (J) Stepdaughter-in-law or stepson-in-law; (K) Grandparent; (L) Step grandparent; (M) Aunt, aunt-in-law or step aunt; (N) Uncle, uncle-in-law or step uncle; (O) Niece or nephew; (P) First or second cousin.
Everyone you are related to by blood or marriage, everyone you slept with, everyone you "dated", anyone you married, and everyone you lived with qualifies as a family or household member. I lived with a chick while in law school. I was blue pill and we never even so much as kissed. She still qualifies today more than a decade later. Hell it could even apply if you donate sperm to a random woman for an artificial insemination because after birth you have a child in common. "Family or household member" is meant to be as all-encompassing as possible for a reason.
In doing research for this post I looked at the definition for domestic violence in 15 states. They all have similar, gender neutral, language defining what domestic violence is and who it applies to (aside from the obviously gender specific title of vawa). Objectively, this is fine because it appears the law applies to men and women equally. Everyone knows this is BS. Subjectively, we know that men are prosecuted at a rate far higher than women. In my experience it is about 100-1. I have seen fewer than 5 instances of women being prosecuted for domestic violence against men. I have seen fewer than 5 instances of women being prosecuted for domestic violence against other women, some of these were mother-daughter fights. All-in-all, out of the hundreds of cases I have been involved in or exposed to (cases are routinely discussed throughout the office), I have seen fewer than 15 women prosecuted for domestic violence. I asked our vawa prosecutor about the number discrepancy. His (yes it is a guy) response: "It’s called vawa, not vama."
Domestic violence law is much broader than most men realize. It covers more than just current plates, girlfriends, and wives. It is gender neutral in theory, it has to be or it would be unconstitutional, but it is not gender neutral in practice. Men are 100x more likely to be charged for domestic violence than women. But we already knew this.
-Lift, Lead, DGAF
Val
blackjackANDplates 5y ago
The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.
Mr_Badass 5y ago
In California, psychological/emotional abuse can be seen as domestic violence. Domestic violence is not always physical abuse.
max_peenor 5y ago
" (2) Placing another in reasonable apprehension of physical harm;"
Ah yes, the prosecutor's playground.
Tarnished_King 5y ago
RP California cop checking in. PM me if needed.
DeontologicalSanders 5y ago
You're a prosecuting attorney? Shut your mouth, man! You're gonna hurt your bottom line.
Good post. Also merits repeating, for the thousandth time:
Don't ever talk to the police. No questions, no answers. Nothing.
Innocent, or guilty. Doesn't matter.
They are not your friends. There are not there to help.
They are allowed to lie to you, and the court system will try its damndest to fuck you if you lie to them.
Making arrests and getting confessions is how they get paid and promoted.
Keep your fucking mouth shut.
zyqkvx 5y ago
Damn straight.
You're better off faking a heart attack (don't) than talking to the police. You should have a CANNED solution in place how to let a law enforcement encounter end in very few words, without re-engadging.
DeontologicalSanders 5y ago
I personally wouldn't go with something canned. Dead silence or a canned statement can come off as pretentious and rude, and being rude to a cop is never a good idea.
Something as simple as "Hey, I understand you guys are just doing your job, but I'm familiar with my miranda rights and I'm not going to be answering any questions or engaging in any dialogue without a lawyer present." If they say anything else, just be silent.
EuropeanAmerican420 5y ago
Dont use the word rights, just because too many idiots have made it into a joke. Just say "I'm thinking I need to speak with my lawyer". In my experience the word lawyer is kind of a trigger for them to leave you alone.
zyqkvx 5y ago
That's what I meant by canned answer but you happen to be right. When I rehearse my canned answer I do worry that I will say it pretentiously and rude. Now I'm trying to figure out the state of mind I should vibe, because I know now I'd vibe as contemptuous. And that would be because I'm not a criminal, but twice in my life almost ran in seious trouble from seriously shitty police. Having a canned answer is legal hygiene. I've honestly lost respect for police so it's hard to put on a face of respect, which sucks. I know they keep me safe. Can't erase my anecdotal experiences.
I think the magic of "Hey, I understand you guys are just doing your job, but I'm familiar with my miranda rights and I'm not going to be answering any questions or engaging in any dialogue without a lawyer present." is that you first present yourself as everyone else does (behave like others, think for yourself) then be silent.
DeontologicalSanders 5y ago
This is getting off topic, but it's an important reminder:
The US Supreme Court has definitively ruled that the police's job is to uphold law and order, and that's it. They have no legal or constitutional duty to keep you safe.
zyqkvx 5y ago
oh I knew that and thank you for it. I meant 'keep me safe' as 'in general' Bad choice of words in front of a lawyer.
I know, and they don't want you to have a gun. I'm not a gun owner, but support guns for that reason alone.
EnragedParrot 5y ago
Depends on the cop.
I've dealt with a handful that were very professional about my having a gun (I had a CC at the time). One even thanked me for having a CC.
But I take your point.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
Hammy131 5y ago
I was a cop and currently a law student. The better question is why are women no prosecuted when lying to obtain protective orders. The jurisdiction I worked in had DVPs which are domestic violence petitions. Essentially a woman goes to the court house, write a narrative of how a man engaged in domestic violence, and the court grants the order. Well the man gets served with the paperwork (usually at work) embarrassing right? Then has to have no contact with the "victim" until the court date. Guess what else? He cant have firearms for that period, so the sheriff dept seizes them. (A lot of women file around hunting season to extra fuck the man) anyways the court date comes around and the judge will basically he like "this is all bullshit and its dismissed." But happens to the woman? She swore to the narrative she wrote that she knew was false. She made this guy miss work, lose his guns, worry about the court date hanging over his head, and for what? To have it dismissed? Never once did I see a perjury charge against the woman. I mentioned it once and was shot down because I saw the time and resources being wasted. Long story short, a woman can go into a courthouse and lie on you, force you to go to court and defend yourself, make you look like an abusive dick, and then when caught in her lie have no consequences.
SolarWizard 5y ago
I would say because they don't want to discourage real victims coming forward. Also the empathy gap, and the subconscious "pussy-pass" (not that I think either of these are fair to males, but those are the reasons.)
Hammy131 5y ago
In my above scenario it's obvious that someone is lying. If you lie to a cop you're gonna get fucked, but a woman can go in and lie to the court just for the purpose of starting some shit? Its a severe abuse of the system. I get it that the court will grant the order to cover their ass, but once the falsisty is exposed there needs to be a perjury charge.
Herdsengineers 5y ago
Primary aggressor is the one that uses the most force. Since men are stronger, it's the man automatically....UNLESS you are well versed in how all this works and are smart enough to ensure the cops CANNOT determine that you used any force at all.
Best way is to make sure that you are marked, and she is not. No marks on either, just her accusation - man arrested. Marks on her from self defense (think grabbing her wrists and holding them to keep her from hitting you) - man arrested. You're literally better off with some scrapes and bruises and marks you can show a cop and say "she did it, I didn't even lift a finger to defend myself, I just let her do this to me." Scrapes, bruises, and mark heal a lot faster than a DV arrest record, let alone a conviction. The law is literally stacked to convict you for defending yourself against a female partners physical aggression and attack. It's fucked up, but that's reality and you better understand it or you'll get bit in the ass by what you don't know and understand.
justtenofusinhere 5y ago
A key fact to understsand about domestic violence actions is that every action covered under the domestic violence label can be prosecuted criminally. So, if all those actions can be criminally prosecuted and result in criminal convictions on people's records and result in jail time why does the country need domestic violence laws in the first place?
Because criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and all persons accused are afforded the highest standards of due process. Guess what isn't required for domestic violence charges? You guessed it! There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard and there is a significant lessoning of the due process requirement.
Now, if why would the government want to do this? And why would it want to limit these actions to just family matters?
Rian_Stone 5y ago
So does a strategy of not punching people in the mouth adequately protect you, or is there something else?
valvadi 5y ago
Sound strategies for adequate protection will be forthcoming. Mouth punches included.
rpsheepdog 5y ago
agreed... just not your wife or girlfriend lol
[deleted] 5y ago
I recall reading an article about the changes that the Duluth model brought about.
My recollection is that when DV became a thing that Police officers would actively arrest for, they'd use their discretion about who to arrest. Feminists were upset that too many women were getting arrested, so they created the duluth model. This shifted what officers used, away from their discretion to a mandated criteria, "likely primary aggressor" or something similar. This meant that since the Man was 99% going to be larger, it was always more likely that they were the primary aggressor. If he was bleeding from multiple stab wounds and she had a scratch, the model dictates that the Man be arrested.
Hell take a look at the source, theduluthmodel.org
Have a read through that and decide whether you want a Police Department following that.
TL;DR Police departments that use the duluth model will fuck you up.
zyqkvx 5y ago
If it's supposed to be protect both genders, and has a 100:1 ration, while named "The Violence Against Women Act of 1994" is that grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against the US for using 'Women'? Women are getting crazier by the day and doing that would send a general public message.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
zyqkvx 5y ago
I'm talking legally blind here. Talking about common sense. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be challenged successfully, as far as I know, cough.
Entropy-7 5y ago
I am a former divorce attorney. I represented both men and women. The law is quite simple: you don't smack your SO around. The APPLICATION of the law is all messed up by various social and legal biases.
OP, interesting post but it doesn't contain ACTONABLE advice. If chose to, I could parse through it as a former advocate and get some enlightenment, but 99% of the guys here are teenagers, divorcess or AFCs with no legal training and a lot of this will be lost on them.
ninjapimp42 5y ago
Now I want to read through my state's statutes on DV to see if has precisely the BS vaguarities that OP detailed in his post. The legal wiggle-room in that language is frightening.
Entropy-7 5y ago
Keep in mind that one of the things I learned in law school is that words don't mean the same thing to those without a law degree.
But to follow up, I am highly in favour of what is simply called "plain language".
[deleted] 5y ago
This is also true for rape and sexual assault cases. Though, I think, in the case of sexual assault or rape, the law is heavily biased towards whoever reports the incident first.
For example, a drunken hookup. Girl reports it, guy is fucked. But if the guy reports the incident first, the girl MIGHT be fucked, but the guy will be safe.
Check out this recent article. A man reported a girl after a drunken hookup (consensual) and she was expelled from her university and lost everything including her reputation.
I wonder if what happened above would work in DV cases. If say you get into a fight with a girl, report it to the cops ASAP before she does and you'll (probably) be safe and she might get in trouble.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Damn straight it works. In situations with minimal physical evidence and no independent witnesses cops almost always believe the first person they talk to.
valvadi 5y ago
The law uses the term "primary aggressor" for DV arrests. Men are more likely to be viewed as the primary aggressor for a variety of reasons. So to answer your question, no, it won't work in DV cases. I dismissed a case where the guy called the cops on his gf because she was wasted and falling all over the place while holding their newborn. He tried to take the baby from her. She told the cops he smacked her and almost hit the child. Even though she was wasted and endangering a newborn, he was doing the right thing protecting his child, he called the cops as a last resort to protect his child, and there was 911 audio, he was charged.
[deleted] 5y ago
He was the one to get punished? What a messed up society we live in.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Not my experience. Where both parties are blaming each other the first person the cops talk to is usually characterized as the victim and the other party the primary aggressor.
[deleted] 5y ago
That is incredibly fucked up, holy shit. Imagine being so privileged that you can endanger your child and get the guy who is trying to keep the kid safe in trouble.
What does this mean? Like he was charged and you dismissed the charges?
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
Ah damn. But hey it's better than I thought. Tell me that this helped his custody arrangement at least?
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
Damn that sucks Nowadays if you have a drunken hookups just report it to be safe lol. Or use a fake name
ninjapimp42 5y ago
Thank you for this post. Its enlightening.
Frightening, but very informative.
Id just like to say that the VAWA prosecutor represents everything wrong with the criminal justice system in the States. His job literally incentivises high conviction rates over blind justice. His job DEPENDS on convictions.
He is why I have a hearty disdain for most prosecutors. He sounds solidly like the typical "convictions>justice" asshole.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
Here in California they do prosecute quite a few women. The difference I see is that men are prosecuted at the felony level if there is any visible injury -- meanwhile it takes the use of a deadly weapon (women seem to like knives) and/or a trip to the ER for a woman to be charged at the felony level.
BTW I'm a public defender who has done multiple rotations in felony DV court (yes they have their own dedicated courts) in a large California county. I've handled at least 500 DV cases over the last 12 years.
SliDlux 5y ago
Women are less likely to be prosecuted because they're less likely to cause any real damage. A woman is not much of a threat to a man. But a man can be a serious threat to a woman.
reluctantly_red 5y ago
I've had multiple female clients who stabbed their boyfriends and a few who used baseball bats. A current client used a hammer.
SliDlux 5y ago
I didn't say they couldn't, I just said less likely.
valvadi 5y ago
You are correct but it goes much deeper. After all women can use knives an guns just like any man can. Why do you think there is a "battered wives syndrome"? There are institutional devices in place to free women from guilt/blame that don't apply to men under the same circumstances.
SliDlux 5y ago
I agree with you. I was just pointing out one reason why more men are prosecuted. Its definitely not the only reason
zyqkvx 5y ago
You could be the star of a new movie called, "Naturally Born Yesterday" because when you find out the truth you are going to be pissed.
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
zyqkvx 5y ago
Wow you are real knew at this. Have you read one page on the subject?