That shouldn’t be domestic violence.
But go out with a girl two times then a week later see her with another guy and assault her in a rage? That’s domestic violence yet isn’t covered under the law in most places.
2 Likes
Am I the only one that thinks “settling it like gentlemen” shouldn’t involve a fist fight? This hypothetical guy could have just waked away none of this would have happened.
If someone can’t handle their liquor they need to either take some responsibility and not drink or be punished. Just as I don’t want to be stuck on a ship with a person that can’t control their sexual urges, I dont want to be on a ship with alcoholic with an ego problem who likes to fight.
4 Likes
I think they both made a poor choice to go outside and fight. All the Guide need to do was walk over to the bouncer and complain. Then the asshole would have been ejected.
But boys will be boys, especially in Alaska. Taking it outside is not uncommon.
[quote=“Bearsonasubmarine, post:43, topic:69552, full:true”] I dont want to be on a ship with alcoholic with an ego problem who likes to fight.
[/quote]
Good luck with that
3 Likes
No, going out with a girl twice does not make the situation domestic. Thats just assault, which is enough.
The Hunting Guide was not hypothetical. That was actual.
Here is another “domestic violence” case that’s real. Guy has a non-working wife. He has a share of a third generation family business and they live very comfortably with all the toys. He and his mother own the nice house on 20 acres of family land which is a pre-marital asset.
However, they have been sleeping in separate rooms since the youngest child moved out (about five years). Both are drinkers, but she also has a drug problem, and is basically crazy. They have a screaming argument at about 8pm. He throws a lamp (that he bought) away from her. It hits the wall across the room and breaks. At some point they run out of steam and the argument ends. They go to their separate rooms.
He has never ever hit her.
She calls a friend. The friend talks her into calling the cops. The cops drag him out of bed at 4am and take him to jail for domestic violence and destruction of property.
He is released on bail. Pretrial order that he cannot go home. She wants to drop the case, but the prosecutor won’t let her.
She drives her new Caddy out of state to a drug treatment center and checks herself in to a 90 day program, at his very substantial expense.
He wants to go home to his empty house that he and his mother own. Prosecutor says no; wife is in rehab voluntarily and could leave and go home at anytime. Judge says yes. He goes home.
He says that he has wanted to get divorced for a long time, but he cannot afford to get divorced.
He asks me what to do. What do you think he should do?
She completes rehab 90 days later and comes home to her separate room. Prosecutor still won’t drop the case.
What do you think happened?
Was he convicted of domestic violence?
1 Like
Yes it does. It shows a person’s propensity to get violently jealous if after two dates they fly into a rage seeing her with someone else. That means they will absolutely later beat their spouse.
1 Like
What? What’s the solution? Life imprisonment? Summary execution? Castration? Strip him of Citizenship and deport him to an Islamic country where he will fit right in?
If she doesn’t show up to court to testify there’s nothing the prosecutor can do, the case gets dismissed.
I think losing firearm ownership rights is a good start. The majority of mass shooting perpetrators would be ineligible to own firearms if that were the case. Most of them have domestic violence incidents in their past.
Laws that bar gun ownership don’t prevent people from owning guns, they just own them illegally.
Look at crackhead Hunter.
3 Likes
As broadly as “domestic violence” is being defined now, I think more than 50% of the population would be barred from owning guns (if they had been convicted).
They still prosecute these domestic violence cases now without the testimony of the wife, or when the wife testifies for the husband.
My friend took a deferred prosecution deal. After a year passed without further incident, the case was dismissed. He and his wife still live in the same house in separate rooms. It’s been about 7 years since that incident.
I didn’t know how that’s possible since the complaining party’s testimony is the only evidence unless there was an injury. I know in my state there’s noting the DA can do without testimony and there’s nothing they can do to compel testimony.
In some cases, but not in most. The same goes for laws that bar gun purchases. Those laws actually work really well at stopping illegal purchases, it’s much harder to buy a gun illegally than people like to pretend.
When we can no longer say that “most mass shooters legally purchased and owned the guns they used” then we can debate further steps.
I think they have made another exception to the hearsay rule in domestic violence cases. I think the cops and social workers can testify to what the wife told them. Experts testify that what the wife said then should be believed, not what she says now.
This has gotten out of hand.
A friend just called a few days ago asking if I had an apartment available. He was calling for a teacher friend.
The teacher and his wife have not been doing well. They are sleeping in separate rooms. They had a calm chat and he said he thought they should consider getting a divorce. Afterwards they retired to their rooms.
At 2am the police knocked on his door. The wife claimed that he had sexually molested their 12 year old daughter. The daughter denied it. They arrested him and took him to jail. They took the daughter to the hospital. An exam revealed that she is still a virgin with no signs of being molested. He got out on bail, but he cannot go home or have unsupervised contact with kids. He was suspended from his teaching job without pay.
By making the allegation, she got the house and the kids for the foreseeable future, and made her husband homeless and job less.
A mere allegation with no supporting evidence can destroy someone. The system now assumes these kinds of claims are true.
I don’t know the teacher. Our mutual friend who is a straight shooter vouches for him. Thats all I know.
This stuff has gone too far, it way out of hand.
1 Like
The foundation of criminal law “ it’s better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man” is being turned upside down.
Blackstone’s ratio
In criminal law, Blackstone’s ratio (also known as Blackstone’s formulation) is the idea that:
Statue of William Blackstonelocated at Constitution Ave & 3rd St. NW, Washington, DC.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.[1]
as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
The idea subsequently became a staple of legal thinking in jurisdictions with legal systems derived from English criminal law and continues to be a topic of debate. There is also a long pre-history of similar sentiments going back centuries in a variety of legal traditions. The message that government and the courts must err on the side of bringing in verdicts of innocence has remained constant.[citation needed]
2 Likes
Part of the problem with this is that “sex offenders” seem to be the ones most likely to be 'repeat offenders", maybe because sexual criminals are dealing with “impulses” or compulsions".
1 Like
So are alcoholics who continuously get DUIs. Why stop at sex offenders let’s ban drunks too…. See how it is a slippery slop.
Again as a general principle I’m not for the government getting involved in private employment contacts.
But by all means if people are willing to ban people who commit crimes it is what it is. It’s not going to affect me. Actually if we banned everyone with a criminal record we could get higher wages because it would make the crewing shortage worse. Less people= more pay.
1 Like
We are going to be paying much higher taxes to support all these people ( and their families) that we have made unemployable.
Idle hands do the devils work.
Unemployed sex offenders with too much time on their hands are going to commit even more sex offenses.
1 Like
Ironically sending sex offenders out on ships to work is probably making our communities more safe. They will be a world away not in your neighborhood. Lol
Now they are on dry land where are kids are.
1 Like
Drug testing is absolutely degrading. Have to go sit in clinic waiting room with a bunch of druggies and scum, and being treated like a criminal by the staff. Piss on command. Yes, it’s disgusting and degrading. Putting up with that for a job is worth extra money.
Imagine the uproar if someone proposed that school teachers be drug tested!
It’s very easy to see why young people JUST SAY NO to a career that requires drug testing, and there is no longer a big surplus of mariners.
2 Likes