Sad little article

[slim 1,514]

They let the judges in Kentucky carry guns and the judge should stand up and shoot the guy in the head. Until he is dead.

See, I have to disagree with this. Because, to me, if the judge is going to shoot the guy, he has to shoot the girl too. In my eyes, they're both equally responsible for this crime.

[Brad and Vika 129]

See, I have to disagree with this. Because, to me, if the judge is going to shoot the guy, he has to shoot the girl too. In my eyes, they're both equally responsible for this crime.

It was in Ohio anyway

[slim 1,514]

It was in Ohio anyway

The court you worked at?

[Brad and Vika 129]

The court you worked at?

Toledo Muni

[SMR 368]

See, I have to disagree with this. Because, to me, if the judge is going to shoot the guy, he has to shoot the girl too. In my eyes, they're both equally responsible for this crime.

Slim, I think you need to distinguish between responsible and guilty. Is the victim being stupid and not taking care of herself and probably mentally and emotionally screwed up? Sure. But that's not a crime. She can definitely be held responsible for creating a dangerous situation but unless she is endangering other people (children), she's only risking her own safety.

It's like saying that if a white guy gets robbed in the Bronx, he's as guilty as the guy who robbed him. He's responsible, perhaps, but not guilty.

In regards to the article, I think it does a disservice by focusing too much on the lack of shelters. Shelters are something that people create because they don't want to deal with the problem but feel like they should do something. In reality, practically all women in Russia could find a place to live with friends and family if they had the courage to move out and dump the guy. Alternately, especially if it's their place, they could change the locks while he's gone and not let him back in.

Admittedly, the article does well to draw attention to another institutionalized problem, the apathy of the police. But the focus of the article should (and in a lot of ways, is) on the fact that women need to take a stand for themselves. I think that's what's Slim is trying to say. But lumping the victims and perpetrators into the same group is wrong, since one is guilty and the other isn't.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

See, I have to disagree with this. Because, to me, if the judge is going to shoot the guy, he has to shoot the girl too. In my eyes, they're both equally responsible for this crime.

Disagree. They are IN court, which means she is pressing charges. SHOOT the ####! I mean, you wouldn't have to shoot too many, the rest would get the idea pretty soon. Beat your wife = Getting dead.

I know I am rhetoric and I doubt we will ever live in this dream world, but it is how I feel. I would rate a wife beater right up there with child molesters and terrorists as cowards that need killing. It is too bad, really. I mean if a guy takes hostages, we can shoot him in the head. He doesn't have to beat them or hurt them. We can shoot him in the head with a hi-power rifle just for taking hostages. Sure it is "in progress" but that is a technicality.

[baron555 934]

I mean if a guy takes hostages, we can shoot him in the head. He doesn't have to beat them or hurt them. We can shoot him in the head with a hi-power rifle just for taking hostages. Sure it is "in progress" but that is a technicality.

I can agree with this thinking. We can use the practice. Also, must give the women equal rights if they abuse their husbands.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I can agree with this thinking. We can use the practice. Also, must give the women equal rights if they abuse their husbands.

Sure. Why not?

Seriously though, regarding Russia...I bought a book of Russian fairy tales which I thought Alla would enjoy reading and I have read these things. They are horrible! There is no such thing as "happily ever after". The moral of the story is that the man beats the woman (usually with a "rod") and she becomes a "good wife" after that!!!!!!!!! Sometimes the woman beats the man with some sort of kitchen utensil and he stops drinking after that. I mean if this is what Russian children get read at bedtime, it is no wonder why they are like this.

[1HappyGuy 45]

Sometimes the woman beats the man with some sort of kitchen utensil and he stops drinking after that.

Oh I know what you are talking about there. My wife calls it the 'husband adjusting tool'. It typically is a rolling pin but sometimes it could be a meat tenderizing hammer.

As for me, I never understood wife beating. This is suppose to be the woman you love and the mother of your children. Why would you cause her bodily harm?

[slim 1,514]

Toledo Muni

Figures. I did some DV work in IL and it was pretty much the same thing that I see here. I'm guessing it's not just a midwest thing since we're seeing cases in Russia as well.

Slim, I think you need to distinguish between responsible and guilty. Is the victim being stupid and not taking care of herself and probably mentally and emotionally screwed up? Sure. But that's not a crime. She can definitely be held responsible for creating a dangerous situation but unless she is endangering other people (children), she's only risking her own safety.

It's like saying that if a white guy gets robbed in the Bronx, he's as guilty as the guy who robbed him. He's responsible, perhaps, but not guilty.

All too often, DV cases involve children. That aside, the reason I say the woman is just as guilty as the man is because she, being a reasonable person, should know that DV is imminent in cases where it persists. If she's not smart enough to remove herself (and children) from the situation, she will most likely continue to be victimized.

Does that make her guilty of a crime? Not necessarily. However, in many cases it could since Orders of Protection or no contact orders or similar are issued in conjunction with the ongoing investigation. Typically, they're violated when a couple "makes up" only to be brought back up in court again when she is either beaten again or mad because she found out he f'ked his other baby's mama again.

Like the guy in the Bronx, it may not be illegal to be stupid, but sometimes common sense can be applied in sentencing.

Admittedly, the article does well to draw attention to another institutionalized problem, the apathy of the police. But the focus of the article should (and in a lot of ways, is) on the fact that women need to take a stand for themselves. I think that's what's Slim is trying to say.

We have quite the opposite institution here. A simple phone call is all it takes to initiate a long and costly legal battle. Yes, I am trying to say that women who need help should stick up for themselves and at least be afforded the help they need.

But, for every case of women "really" needing help, there are 10 of "I don't like him today." To me, if a woman is in "trouble" and facing serious bodily harm or death, and she's STUPID enough to return to that lifestyle several times (becuase it usually takes several times before they're killed) then she is stupid. She's not a "victim" of anything other than her own stupidity.

But lumping the victims and perpetrators into the same group is wrong, since one is guilty and the other isn't.

I disagree with this because DV is more like knocking on someone's door and asking them to beat you up then trying to sue them for assault - several times. If you're neighbor and you fought every time you hung out... well, you'd stop hanging out, right?

In DV, the fights will happen, yet there's this "victim mentality" and the shock and surprise when it happens again and again and again. Instead of us placing "blame" on the "victim" who continues to "knock on the door for more" we place blame on the offender who "is a bad guy."

I'm not saying the offender isn't a bad guy, isn't wrong, isn't a criminal. What I am saying is if you have more than 1 DV case with the same person, you're both at fault.

Disagree. They are IN court, which means she is pressing charges.

Not here in Ohio. It means "someone" (could've been her, could've been a neighbor... could've been him!) called the cops. When the cops roll to a DV, someone's going to jail.

SHOOT the ####! I mean, you wouldn't have to shoot too many, the rest would get the idea pretty soon. Beat your wife = Getting dead.

I can't support this because the way the system is set up today. See above. It doesn't take much (one phone call) to be labeled a "wife beater." I'm all for shooting criminals, but the vast majority of DV instances that I've seen haven't been cases of men "beating" their domestic partners, it's been BS Jerry Springer stuff.

Yes, that could eventually lead to death for the young lady, but that's why I'm so strong on my position of it being as much her fault as his. She should no better. If the BS Jerry Springer stuff goes on long enough... someone could die. If you choose to live a Jerry Springer lifestyle, you may very well get what you deserve.

I know I am rhetoric and I doubt we will ever live in this dream world, but it is how I feel. I would rate a wife beater right up there with child molesters and terrorists as cowards that need killing. It is too bad, really. I mean if a guy takes hostages, we can shoot him in the head. He doesn't have to beat them or hurt them. We can shoot him in the head with a hi-power rifle just for taking hostages. Sure it is "in progress" but that is a technicality.

Caught in the act, maybe. Judged by 12 witnesses, sure. But, in todays "modern" court system, absolutely not.

Sometimes the woman beats the man with some sort of kitchen utensil and he stops drinking after that. I mean if this is what Russian children get read at bedtime, it is no wonder why they are like this.

From what the Russians I know tell me, and from what I've seen in Russia, there's a certain level of "acceptable" physical contact not just between man and wife, but between everyone. Think of it in terms of getting into a fist fight or bar fight. Hell, here, you could end up with felonious assault charges. Over there, you can fight THE COPS and walk away cursing. HUGE difference in cultures, and that translates directly to DV as well. If she doesn't like getting beat up, she should leave. Obviously she's still there so she must like it.

[SMR 368]

My point is that there is a huge difference between being arguably responsible and being guilty. No matter how stupid you are, beating you is still a crime. You're right that if there is a court order to not go there and you do, then it becomes a crime.

I agree that we definitely need a better system in the US. Innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out in a lot of cases.

[baron555 934]

My point is that there is a huge difference between being arguably responsible and being guilty. No matter how stupid you are, beating you is still a crime. You're right that if there is a court order to not go there and you do, then it becomes a crime.

I agree that we definitely need a better system in the US. Innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out in a lot of cases.

If we let Darwin do his thing, there'd be a lot less Stupid people. Just saying.

[LvivLovers 39]

If we let Darwin do his thing, there'd be a lot less Stupid people. Just saying.

Either that or one really big really strong stupid person.

[SMR 368]

Either that or one really big really strong stupid person.

Guns, the great equalizer.

Actually, I'm taking a technology management class towards my MS and we just read an article about the 15 greatest innovations of all time. The author listed weapons as the greatest innovation of all time. His logic was that weapons allow for a stable environment in which more progress can occur. Without them, chaos reigns.

[slim 1,514]

My point is that there is a huge difference between being arguably responsible and being guilty. No matter how stupid you are, beating you is still a crime.

No argument that physical violence is a crime. However, what typically gets ignored here in the US is the physical violence women participate in before being victimized. A slap. A shove. Throwing a shoe. All too often, they "participate" in a mutual fray and it turns out they become the "victim" of domestic violence or assault.

You're right that if there is a court order to not go there and you do, then it becomes a crime.

The law is pretty simple. It gets a lot LESS SIMPLE when it comes to DV. When you live with someone, all it takes is for them to be upset, and you could go to jail.

I agree that we definitely need a better system in the US. Innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out in a lot of cases.

I can tell you first-hand - and from both sides of the law - that it is most definitely guilty until proven innocent once charges are filed. That is completely the opposite of how it was supposed to be set up according to the constitution.

Folks who aren't familiar with the criminal justice system should thank their lucky stars they're not familiar with it and do their best to avoid it entirely. I'm all for participating in this great experiment of American democracy, but I think most folks are justified in their "throw money at it and pretend it doesn't exist" mentalitly. Though I'd like to remind them - You can only move away for so long. Jerry Springer folks breed much faster than the rest of it and they will eventually come to your neighborhood too.

If we let Darwin do his thing, there'd be a lot less Stupid people. Just saying.

Sure would. We live in an interesting time. Only recently has man not been allowed to be "selected" by nature. Perhaps someday we'll allow that to happen again.

Either that or one really big really strong stupid person.

There will be more than one.

Guns, the great equalizer.

Actually, I'm taking a technology management class towards my MS and we just read an article about the 15 greatest innovations of all time. The author listed weapons as the greatest innovation of all time. His logic was that weapons allow for a stable environment in which more progress can occur. Without them, chaos reigns.

Folks lived in small groups of hunter/gatherers until they could raise surplus crops. What enabled them to do that? Technological advances in weaponry. It wasn't until one group could successfully defend themselves - and their food surplus - from outsiders that they could develop a cultural civilization.

In modern times, the AK-47 has enabled many groups to sustain their culture. Progress? I don't know about that, but it would be a great topic for a thesis!