How to Avoid Domestic Violence Charges from a Struggle During a Suicide Attempt

My question involves criminal law for the state of: OR

This situation happened to a 'friend' of mine recently. He had a not-so-stable girlfriend with a history of self harm and mental illness, and wanted to break off the relationship so he told her he was leaving her. She proceeded to immediately grab a knife and slash her wrist, drawing significant blood, while exclaiming 'then i'll kill myself' (witnesses in nearby apartment heard this). Then she continued to make allegedly threatening gestures with the knife by holding the knife vertically in the air, and this apparently left my friend in fear for not only her safety, but his own (even though no explicit verbal threat was made against him). He's a pretty knowledgeable guy and he knew there are several laws protecting a person's personal bodily autonomy (i.e. simple assault/unlawful restraint), but he was also in fear that if he just sat there or left the unit altogether, and let her continue to harm herself, possibly even kill herself, that he could also be held morally and legally responsible (i.e. something along the lines of involuntary manslaughter).

The struggle happened so fast, and persisted without pause for so long that he did not have time to find his cell phone and call the police. He also feared that calling the police would only provoke her further, possibly jeopardizing either his or her safety further, and land himself with an arrest regardless. I won't go into detail about how the rest of situation went, but it didn't work out so good for my friend (he ultimately chose to disarm and restrain her) and now he's in serious legal trouble. She ended up in the psychiatric ER. But hey, both of them are still alive.

My question is, how could a person possibly handle this crisis situation in a legal and ethical way, while both respecting her right to bodily autonomy and his own right to personal safety? Does he truly just have to forget about her immediate welfare, call the police, and walk away? And why were police so quick to pin blame exclusively on him, isn't it a crime to wield a knife in a menacing and threatening way (i.e. assault with a deadly weapon). Based on the information I have provided, are there any legal defenses that could keep this guy out of prison and his future intact? Thank you.

You call 911. That's where you start. Without other relevant details I won't say anything else except that, without a threat against his person and he was pinned against the wall his only real option was to back off. Choosing to "disarm and restrain her" was probably a bad call. IT doesn't matter where she ended up as just being suicidal doesn't make someone incompetent all by itself.

Tell your friend to get an attorney. He'll need it.

If you are dating somebody who is that unstable, after reflecting a bit on how you ended up on the relationship in the first place, you can have a support person present when you break up, you can keep better track of your phone, and you can call 911 if a problem arises.

We weren't there. If your friend was charged with a crime, and he doesn't understand why, he can discuss the facts of the case and the content of the police incident report with his lawyer. If he's not charged with a crime, it would seem that the police accepted his story.

He was arrested and charged. This is a county that is known to be extremely aggressive with domestic violence cases. He didn't stand a chance in convincing police to believe his story, as they entered the apartment and encountered him restraining the girl by the wrists on a sofa, with a bloody knife he had just wrestled away from her stashed out of reach directly beneath her under the sofa.

I know this isn't a forum for legal or political opinions, and contemplative foresight would have been wise, but I think its absurd to pin blame on someone for not being able to predict the actions/responses of another person. It wasn't immediately apparent at the onset of the relationship that she was unstable, he wanted out of the abusive relationship, and he ultimately made the rational decision to end it and walk away.

These domestic violence laws are extremely important in protecting women. But they are also incredibly biased and myopic. Hopefully they can expand someday to focus on more than just female victims.

If the police came into her apartment and found someone physically restraining her and a bloody knife what on earth do you think is going to happen? The police will collect the evidence and statements and turn them over to the DA. The DA will decide whether to proceed to trial and then a jury will decide, based on the evidence, whether to convict. In other words, it doesn't matter if the police believe him or not, he was going to jail and now he'll face a trial. I don't see anything biased or myopic here at all.

There's an old saying that people never get too drunk or too crazy to understand "press charges." As soon as she picked up a knife and started sawing at her own wrists, he should've called the police. End of story. His whole justification of "I just was afraid that it would make her worse, blah blah blah has been done before, so if you were trying it out here, as perhaps someone was trying it on you, it sounds like self justifying garbage it is. Biased and myopic they may be, but after hearing dozens of these stories, you begin to think it's not so "absurd" to pin the blame on someone who reacted, at the very least, stupidly, and much more likely, aggressively when given what they think may have been an excuse. Lots and lots of guys think that a good story about how "she was going to harm herself" or "She was actually abusing and threatening me" will get them somewhere, but not especially. It's like they go with the more believable of the two parties.

My, my, you and yours do live interesting lives, don't you?

Post hx, folks.

Quote:

---

Quoting comment/ator

---

There's an old saying that people never get too drunk or too crazy to understand "press charges." As soon as she picked up a knife and started sawing at her own wrists, he should've called the police. End of story. His whole justification of "I just was afraid that it would make her worse, blah blah blah has been done before, so if you were trying it out here, as perhaps someone was trying it on you, it sounds like self justifying garbage it is. Biased and myopic they may be, but after hearing dozens of these stories, you begin to think it's not so "absurd" to pin the blame on someone who reacted, at the very least, stupidly, and much more likely, aggressively when given what they think may have been an excuse. Lots and lots of guys think that a good story about how "she was going to harm herself" or "She was actually abusing and threatening me" will get them somewhere, but not especially. It's like they go with the more believable of the two parties.

---

So you are telling me that restraining and disarming an armed individual who is actively threatening your own life and their own with a deadly weapon, is stupid and aggressive. Better to just stand there and wait and see what happens. Just take a timeout to go find your phone, hope she doesn't come chasing after you with the knife (happened before), call the police, and wait around 20 minutes for them to show up, and hope neither you or her die in the meantime. Using force to eliminate the threat, again unstable woman wielding a deadly weapon, would just be a misogynistic expression of power and dominance over a woman. Doesn't make any sense man. She was in active commission of a serious felony offense by wielding a knife, its a 10 year felony - assault with intent to maim. He had every right to stop her, if anything in self-defense for his own life.

"It's like they go with the more believable of the two parties." It's likely they go with the more 'favorable' of the two parties, especially in a misandrist DV criminal justice system. The evidence was there, witness testimony, bloody knives, slashed wrists. What more do you need to believe the story? Chances are you just don't want to believe that the girl could have possibly posed a threat, despite wielding a weapon and being clearly out of her mind. Society doesn't want to believe that, because it doesn't fall into the male-aggressor/female-victim narrative. That's the self-justifying garbage. Oh well, such is life.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

So you are telling me that restraining and disarming an armed individual who is actively threatening your own life and their own with a deadly weapon, is stupid and aggressive. Better to just stand there and wait and see what happens. Just call the police, and wait around 20 minutes for them to show up, and hope neither you or her die in the meantime. How dare to use force to eliminate the threat, because that would just be a misogynistic expression of power and dominance over a woman. Doesn't make any sense man. She was in active commission of a serious felony offense by wielding a knife, its a 10 year felony - assault with intent to maim. He had every right to stop her.

Chances are you just don't want to believe that the girl could have possibly posed a threat to the guy, despite wielding a weapon and being clearly out of her mind. Society doesn't want to believe that, because into doesn't fall into the male-aggressor/female-victim narrative. Oh well, such is life.

---

Were you present?

No?

Dismissed. You can go now.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Were you present?

No?

Dismissed. You can go now.

---

I said 'friend'. I was trying to imply something.

I think you know that too ; )

All because your "friend" was charged does not mean he will be prosecuted. Your (his) attorney can present the defense claim to the prosecutor and the prosecutor may decide that this was a special case. But, maybe not. It will depend upon all the facts.

An attorney is needed now.

Thanks for the reply. But honestly, in this county they try to either coerce you into a 'sweet' deal with a 52-week DV deferral course and 2 years of probation and a guilty plea, or they threaten to take it to trial, which they claim to invariably win DV cases in, and punish to the maximum extent of sentencing guidelines. His lawyer told him he's taking it to jury trial,which was recommended by the judge, and he's going to win. Prosecutor's loss to reputation, and state's loss of resources... oh well. No one will be wondering why the girl wasn't charged for her own criminal infractions.

Two courts of justice in this country. One for women. One for men. No wonder 95% of US prisoners are men....

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

Thanks for the reply. But honestly, in this county they try to either coerce you into a 'sweet' deal with a 52-week DV deferral course and 2 years of probation and a guilty plea, or they threaten to take it to trial, which they claim to invariably win DV cases in, and punish to the maximum extent of sentencing guidelines. His lawyer told him he's taking it to jury trial,which was recommended by the judge, and he's going to win. Prosecutor's loss to reputation, and state's loss of resources... oh well. No one will be wondering why the girl wasn't charged for her own criminal infractions.

Two courts of justice in this country. One for women. One for men. No wonder 95% of US prisoners are men....

---

Well, it's not a CRIME to attempt suicide (at least in most states), though it can subject one to detention for a mental health evaluation. So, I am not sure what "infractions" you think this particular woman committed.

Prosecutor's will not pursue losing cases. If there is a good and reasonable defense argument - such as a necessity to protect another's life - then they may not take it to trial. But, if the claim seems to be spurious, then trial may still be forthcoming.

The best advice for anyone is to bail on a psycho partner as soon as it becomes clear they are nuts.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

He was arrested and charged. This is a county that is known to be extremely aggressive with domestic violence cases. He didn't stand a chance in convincing police to believe his story, as they entered the apartment and encountered him restraining the girl by the wrists on a sofa, with a bloody knife he had just wrestled away from her stashed out of reach directly beneath her under the sofa.

I know this isn't a forum for legal or political opinions, and contemplative foresight would have been wise, but I think its absurd to pin blame on someone for not being able to predict the actions/responses of another person. It wasn't immediately apparent at the onset of the relationship that she was unstable, he wanted out of the abusive relationship, and he ultimately made the rational decision to end it and walk away.

These domestic violence laws are extremely important in protecting women. But they are also incredibly biased and myopic. Hopefully they can expand someday to focus on more than just female victims.

---

He doesn't have to convince the police of anything. The police enforce laws. He needs to convince a judge or a jury that it was self defense. In someone's house or the side of the road is not the place to plea your case. He has the right to a trial and his lawyer can try to convince a jury that he didn't do anything wrong.

Think about it from the police pov. They get a call about domestic violence or arguing or however they showed up. They walk in and see a guy holding down a woman and she's probably bloody if she had slit her wrist but they don't know what happened before they got there. So they arrest based on the call and what they see. They tell the prosecutor what they found and after investigating and give that person all the information. The DA or county attorney then decides whether or not to press charges based on the evidence gathered by police.

The laws do not specify "women" in any of them. The laws are not biased. Arresting officers or prosecutors might be biased. But the laws aren't. Show me a law that specifically ONLY applies to women who are abused.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

So you are telling me that restraining and disarming an armed individual who is actively threatening your own life and their own with a deadly weapon, is stupid and aggressive. Better to just stand there and wait and see what happens. Just take a timeout to go find your phone, hope she doesn't come chasing after you with the knife (happened before), call the police, and wait around 20 minutes for them to show up, and hope neither you or her die in the meantime. Using force to eliminate the threat, again unstable woman wielding a deadly weapon, would just be a misogynistic expression of power and dominance over a woman. Doesn't make any sense man. She was in active commission of a serious felony offense by wielding a knife, its a 10 year felony - assault with intent to maim. He had every right to stop her, if anything in self-defense for his own life.

"It's like they go with the more believable of the two parties." It's likely they go with the more 'favorable' of the two parties, especially in a misandrist DV criminal justice system. The evidence was there, witness testimony, bloody knives, slashed wrists. What more do you need to believe the story? Chances are you just don't want to believe that the girl could have possibly posed a threat, despite wielding a weapon and being clearly out of her mind. Society doesn't want to believe that, because it doesn't fall into the male-aggressor/female-victim narrative. That's the self-justifying garbage. Oh well, such is life.

---

Yes. It is stupid. You said there was no direct threat toward him. So which is it? He should have immediately called 911 and probably left the house or went somewhere she couldn't attack him if that's what happened. I mean were you there? Do you know for sure his story is the actual story? You can't unless you were there. Are you sure you aren't the "friend?"

YOU are the one who is biased in this story. Not the police. Not the prosecutor. YOU.

Yes women can be a threat. Yes women are abusers. No one on this forum would disagree that there are women who abuse their partners. Women abuse men. Men abuse women. Women abuse women and men abuse men. DV is a gender neutral crime. Anyone could be an abusive person. But we are talking about THIS situation to which you didn't witness unless you are the friend who restrained the woman.

I feel like I've read this post before somewhere...or something very similar....

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

Thanks for the reply. But honestly, in this county they try to either coerce you into a 'sweet' deal with a 52-week DV deferral course and 2 years of probation and a guilty plea, or they threaten to take it to trial, which they claim to invariably win DV cases in, and punish to the maximum extent of sentencing guidelines. His lawyer told him he's taking it to jury trial,which was recommended by the judge, and he's going to win. Prosecutor's loss to reputation, and state's loss of resources... oh well. No one will be wondering why the girl wasn't charged for her own criminal infractions.

Two courts of justice in this country. One for women. One for men. No wonder 95% of US prisoners are men....

---

Omg get the hell over yourself. No there are not two courts of justice in this country based on gender. Is this why you see males who the evidence shows have raped or sexually assaulted a person and yet they get little to no jail time or get the case dismissed? I would say that you have more of a racial bias by some judges in this country than a gender bias.

Judges, prosecutors, etc are all humans and humans aren't perfect. We aren't robots. So yes some people's personal beliefs may leak into decisions but overall I don't think it's that often.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Well, it's not a CRIME to attempt suicide (at least in most states), though it can subject one to detention for a mental health evaluation. So, I am not sure what "infractions" you think this particular woman committed.

Prosecutor's will not pursue losing cases. If there is a good and reasonable defense argument - such as a necessity to protect another's life - then they may not take it to trial. But, if the claim seems to be spurious, then trial may still be forthcoming.

The best advice for anyone is to bail on a psycho partner as soon as it becomes clear they are nuts.

---

Thanks again for your insight. Since in addition to slashing her own wrists with the knife she also held the knife in a menacing way towards the guy, I figured this may of been some form of aggravated harassment if not a serious assault. It frightened/provoked him enough to take action to disarm and restrain her, which was admittedly dangerous and stupid, but the fear element was definitely there for him. He has no interest in punishing this woman, it just doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination that the person with the deadly weapon could be the primary aggressor. Unless breaking a relationship off with a knowingly unstable person is considered an aggressive and provoking action. Also, She WAS detained at the psychiatric ER after the incident.

Out of curiosity, if prosecutors don't pursue losing cases then why do only 18% of prosecuted rape cases end in conviction? Do prosecutors have an obligation to try certain types of crimes, like domestic and sexual violence cases? https://opsvaw.as.uky.edu/sites/defa...rosecution.pdf

Prosecutors are taking this case to trial, but I understand that necessity to protect another person's life is not a legal defense to unlawful restraint/assault. I was told you have to be in imminent fear of your own safety. Perhaps that is why.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

He doesn't have to convince the police of anything. The police enforce laws. He needs to convince a judge or a jury that it was self defense. In someone's house or the side of the road is not the place to plea your case. He has the right to a trial and his lawyer can try to convince a jury that he didn't do anything wrong.

Think about it from the police pov. They get a call about domestic violence or arguing or however they showed up. They walk in and see a guy holding down a woman and she's probably bloody if she had slit her wrist but they don't know what happened before they got there. So they arrest based on the call and what they see. They tell the prosecutor what they found and after investigating and give that person all the information. The DA or county attorney then decides whether or not to press charges based on the evidence gathered by police.

The laws do not specify "women" in any of them. The laws are not biased. Arresting officers or prosecutors might be biased. But the laws aren't. Show me a law that specifically ONLY applies to women who are abused.

---

Thanks for your insight, what you have said from the police point of view and direct evidence makes perfect sense. Regarding laws specifying 'women' only, the VAWA act which was the origin for a lot of these domestic violence and sexual assault laws uses gendered language. It refers to the victim as 'she' throughout the entire act. It justifies that at the beginning of the act by stating that since research shows that women are overwhelming the victim in these sorts of crimes (BTW 40-year old statistics which have now been debunked by several recent organization like the CDC and even the DOJ, which now show near gender-symmetry in DV). That would lead me to believe the laws and the enforcement of those laws is biased. Also, where are the domestic violence shelters, advocacy groups, and special prosecution units for male victims of DV?

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

Yes. It is stupid. You said there was no direct threat toward him. So which is it? He should have immediately called 911 and probably left the house or went somewhere she couldn't attack him if that's what happened. I mean were you there? Do you know for sure his story is the actual story? You can't unless you were there. Are you sure you aren't the "friend?"

YOU are the one who is biased in this story. Not the police. Not the prosecutor. YOU.

Yes women can be a threat. Yes women are abusers. No one on this forum would disagree that there are women who abuse their partners. Women abuse men. Men abuse women. Women abuse women and men abuse men. DV is a gender neutral crime. Anyone could be an abusive person. But we are talking about THIS situation to which you didn't witness unless you are the friend who restrained the woman.

I feel like I've read this post before somewhere...or something very similar....

---

I stated there was no explicit verbal threat to him. But she was holding a deadly weapon in a menacing way towards the guy (possibly myself). From my research of assault statutes, that is enough to constitute a direct threat. And for any normal person, its probably enough to make them reasonably fear for their own safety especially if that person isn't in their right mind. Just my own thoughts, biased or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

Omg get the hell over yourself. No there are not two courts of justice in this country based on gender. Is this why you see males who the evidence shows have raped or sexually assaulted a person and yet they get little to no jail time or get the case dismissed? I would say that you have more of a racial bias by some judges in this country than a gender bias.

Judges, prosecutors, etc are all humans and humans aren't perfect. We aren't robots. So yes some people's personal beliefs may leak into decisions but overall I don't think it's that often.

---

Well that is certainly true that in recent news there have been males who unjustly got off with slaps on the wrist for egregious sexual offenses. But are they highly-publicized anecdotes or the actual majority of outcomes for sexual offense convictions? But what about all these female teachers having sexual relationships with students getting off with probation for the same crimes that land male offenders in prison for decades? Also, recent research out of University of Michigan, which controls for criminal history and other factors shows that women offenders are not only arrested, charged, and convicted at lower rates, but sentences served are on average 60% shorter than for men. And why are men executed for the same crimes that women receive life with possibility of parole for (i.e. murdering children)... execution of women is almost virtually unheard of.

That's why I stated two courts of justice.

I also read somewhere that the sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times greater than the racial disparity. Though if you really want to talk about a disparity its probably between the juvenile and adult system.

Quote:

---

Thanks again for your insight. Since in addition to slashing her own wrists with the knife she also held the knife in a menacing way towards the guy, I figured this may of been some form of aggravated harassment if not a serious assault. It frightened/provoked him enough to take action to disarm and restrain her, which was admittedly dangerous and stupid, but the fear element was definitely there for him. He has no interest in punishing this woman, it just seems like the she was the primary aggressor. Afterall, she was the unstable person with the dangerous weapon, and she was the one to initiate threatening behavior, not him. She was also detained at the psychiatric ER after the incident.

---

So your "friend's" response to someone slashing their own wrist and then holding the knife, pointed at him, someone who who's unstable, is to rush the person? To attack her? If she was actually menacing him why didn't he just leave or back off if she was between him and the door? By your description it would seem that he escalated the scene. I read this as she was defending herself from him, especially as his witnessed response, by the police, of him having her in a double wrist lock not trying to stop the bleeding. he didn't call 911, he didn't help her, instead he attacked her.

There is no way out of this. That charges have been filed and it's going to trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

Thanks again for your insight. Since in addition to slashing her own wrists with the knife she also held the knife in a menacing way towards the guy, I figured this may of been some form of aggravated harassment if not a serious assault.

---

So HE says to you. You don't know what he said to the cops, though - or what SHE said, either. Unless, of course YOU are the guy in this tale.

Quote:

---

Also, She WAS detained at the psychiatric ER after the incident.

---

Which could play well for the defense argument.

Quote:

---

Out of curiosity, if prosecutors don't pursue losing cases then why do only 18% of prosecuted rape cases end in conviction? Do prosecutors have an obligation to try certain types of crimes, like domestic and sexual violence cases? https://opsvaw.as.uky.edu/sites/defa...rosecution.pdf

---

There are a number of factors in play in rape cases, and rape can be a very difficult case to prove even under the best of circumstances. But, we are not talking about a RAPE, we are talking about DV.

Quote:

---

Thanks for your insight, what you have said from the police point of view and direct evidence makes perfect sense. Regarding laws specifying 'women' only, the VAWA act which was the origin for a lot of these domestic violence and sexual assault laws uses gendered language. It refers to the victim as 'she' throughout the entire act. It justifies that at the beginning of the act by stating that since research shows that women are overwhelming the victim in these sorts of crimes (BTW 40-year old statistics which have now been debunked by several recent organization like the CDC and even the DOJ, which now show near gender-symmetry in DV). That would lead me to believe the laws and the enforcement of those laws is biased. Also, where are the domestic violence shelters, advocacy groups, and special prosecution units for male victims of DV?

---

While VAWA uses some gender specific language, the statutes that have resulted from this legislation are gender neutral. I cannot speak for other states, but in my state of CA vertical prosecution units that address DV address it for males AND females. As for DV shelters, there is very little call for male shelters hence the lack of such resources as a standalone facility. It would impractical to maintain a facility that is rarely used. And victim resources are equal opportunity in most instances.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reported DV cases involve male suspects, not males. While victimization studies tend to indicate that males can be victims at a rate approaching that of females, the fact remains that the system can only address REPORTED crimes. Men do not tend to report these crimes unless compelled to (usualyl because the police respond to another call, or it is a counterclaim after they respond for a possible female victim). About 75% of reported victims are female.

It is NOT an anti-male conspiracy as you may want to think it is.

Quote:

---

I also read somewhere that the sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times greater than the racial disparity. Though if you really want to talk about a disparity its probably between the juvenile and adult system.

---

Of course, the juvenile system was originally designed with a different end result in mind and never was meant to be the same system as the adult's.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It is NOT an anti-male conspiracy as you may want to think it is.

---

It may not be a conspiracy, but I still think patriarchal attitudes ares highly engendered into the way these laws are enforced and I think its keeping male victims from coming forward, and female offenders from being held fully accountable. And for good reason, a lot of men feel its emasculating to report abuse, and they also don't think the police will believe them, or even they could be the ones to get arrested. Further, I've read elsewhere that the majority of women who are actually arrested for DV will have their cases dismissed by the prosecutor out of disinterest, whereas that almost never happens for men with DV accusations. Lol, I even watched a YouTube video recently where a group of feminist DV advocates at a convention were presented with a video about domestic violence against men, and instead of watching and learning from it, they all walked out the door. Like it was insulting and impossible for it to even happen to men... that's kind of the general attitude I get from society in general.

In my own personal experience, I was sexually assaulted by a partner resulting in serious damage that required an expensive and painful surgery to repair and I was also made infertile. I attempted to report the assault to two different police agencies with jurisdiction in the area that the assault occurred. One agency wouldn't even take a police report because they stated I harassed the offender, which provoked her to assault me, so they effectively flipped it on me and labeled me the offender. The other agency took a police report, but kept asking me what I was seeking by coming forward to police like I was being some kind of dick by reporting her, and then nothing ever came of anything after the report. Call me naive, but I HIGHLY doubt the police would have handled it like that if the roles were reversed given those circumstances.

Maybe my personal experiences have colored my perception on the matter, but at times it does feel like a bit of a conspiracy. I hope something can be done to make these laws, rather enforcement of these laws more equal someday.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

It may not be a conspiracy, but I still think patriarchal attitudes ares highly engendered into the way these laws are enforced and I think its keeping male victims from coming forward, and female offenders from being held fully accountable.

---

The reasons that men do not tend to come forward has less to do with the law than with socialization and gender roles. Guys can be embarrassed, and many will not admit that they are a victim. Most males do not tend to think that the occasional smack is that big of a problem and they don't tend to call when they have been assaulted. Often, when people call the police, it is to try and get leverage on the other party and this is something women tend to do more than men.

The fact remains, that men are more often the abuser than women. But, that's really not the issue HERE. In THIS case, it's a matter of whether or not the state can show that the suspect's actions met the elements of DV or that they were justified in order to assist her from harming herself.

Quote:

---

Further, I've read elsewhere that the majority of women who are actually arrested for DV will have their cases dismissed by the prosecutor out of disinterest, whereas that almost never happens for men with DV accusations.

---

Hardly "disinterest." More likely, the victim recants or changes their story. More than 75% of female victims recant or change their story - even to the point of committing perjury to protect their abuser. Male abusers are more than happy to throw their victim under the bus in these circumstances. Some prosecutors will still pursue the case when the victim goes sideways. However, when they have gone sideways once, they tend to have a pattern of untruthfulness that tends to destroy their credibility in future incidents.

As a percentage of prosecutions, I'd say I have seen more cases against female abusers go forward than against males. This may be because in those casesd I am aware of, when the male has reported the abuse, he tends to stick with it and not recant. But, that's anecdotal.

Quote:

---

I even watched a YouTube video recently where a group of feminist DV advocates at a convention were presented with a video about domestic violence against men, and instead of watching and learning from it, they all walked out the door. Like it was insulting and impossible for it to even happen to men... that's kind of the general attitude I get from society in general.

---

Most often, when the argument comes up concerning DV against men, it is in the context of diminishing it versus women. The fact of the matter is that every crime must be evaluated upon its individual merits. If the case can be made and there is proof to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, it is far more likely to go forward than a case where there is no real evidence.

Quote:

---

In my own personal experience, I was sexually assaulted by a partner resulting in serious damage that required an expensive and painful surgery to repair and I was also made infertile. I attempted to report the assault to two different police agencies with jurisdiction in the area that the assault occurred. One agency wouldn't even take a police report because they stated I harassed the offender, which provoked her to assault me, so they effectively flipped it on me and labeled me the offender. The other agency took a police report, but kept asking me what I was seeking by coming forward to police like I was being some kind of dick by reporting her, and then nothing ever came of anything after the report. Call me naive, but I HIGHLY doubt the police would have handled it like that if the roles were reversed given those circumstances.

---

Since I have no idea of the details or how TWO agencies could have jurisdiction, I cannot comment.

Quote:

---

Maybe my personal experiences have colored my perception on the matter, but at times it does feel like a bit of a conspiracy. I hope something can be done to make these laws, rather enforcement of these laws more equal someday.

---

The laws and enforcement are already equal. You should hear the number of women and advocacy groups that complain that the police and prosecutors do not pursue DV and sexual assault seriously. It tends to be perceptions that become reality even when they are not the case.

Thank you for setting me straight Officer Carl. You definitely know your stuff with DV, perhaps this was one of your specialties.

I know I've learned a lot about DV and the laws since this incident happened. Hopefully I can use my experience to help others avoid the same precarious and life-changing circumstances. And somehow convince a jury that my actions were intended benevolent rather than criminal. Perhaps they can be both, though, and I'm willing to accept that.

BTW, thing with the jurisdictions... the University police and city police apparently had overlapping jurisdiction in the area I was at. I dunno if that makes any sense, but that's what I was told.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

Thank you for setting me straight Officer Carl. You definitely know your stuff with DV, perhaps this was one of your specialties.

---

It was. It was also a significant topic of my research when I was in grad school.

Quote:

---

I know I've learned a lot about DV and the laws since this incident happened. Hopefully I can use my experience to help others avoid the same precarious and life-changing circumstances. And somehow convince a jury that my actions were intended benevolent rather than criminal. Perhaps they can be both, though, and I'm willing to accept that.

---

Prosecutors do not tend to want to prosecute innocent men. In fact, it can be considered misconduct if they do so and KNOW it to be so. If the circumstances are such that they can see there way clear to the benevolence of your actions in trying to save her from herself, perhaps that will work. I suspect, however, that things were said or observed at the scene that may have cast doubt upon your version of events. You'll have to work with your attorney on this.

Quote:

---

BTW, thing with the jurisdictions... the University police and city police apparently had overlapping jurisdiction in the area I was at. I dunno if that makes any sense, but that's what I was told.

---

Ah, that could well be.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I suspect, however, that things were said or observed at the scene that may have cast doubt upon your version of events. You'll have to work with your attorney on this.

---

Nah, there was a history of arguing in this relationship witnessed by other neighbors (though never any physical contact), as well as arguing at the time of the altercation in which swear words were heard. Commentat/er was right, my lawyer says prosecution is approaching the case alleging I verbally harassed her, if not intentionally, into a suicide attempt, and then used her vulnerability as an excuse to swing in and play white knight to exert force over her and restrain her. Kinda a perverse and psychopathic version of events, but I'm sure it isn't unlike something you may have seen before in your work.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

Thanks again for your insight. Since in addition to slashing her own wrists with the knife she also held the knife in a menacing way towards the guy, I figured this may of been some form of aggravated harassment if not a serious assault. It frightened/provoked him enough to take action to disarm and restrain her, which was admittedly dangerous and stupid, but the fear element was definitely there for him. He has no interest in punishing this woman, it just doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of the imagination that the person with the deadly weapon could be the primary aggressor. Unless breaking a relationship off with a knowingly unstable person is considered an aggressive and provoking action. Also, She WAS detained at the psychiatric ER after the incident.

Out of curiosity, if prosecutors don't pursue losing cases then why do only 18% of prosecuted rape cases end in conviction? Do prosecutors have an obligation to try certain types of crimes, like domestic and sexual violence cases? https://opsvaw.as.uky.edu/sites/defa...rosecution.pdf

Prosecutors are taking this case to trial, but I understand that necessity to protect another person's life is not a legal defense to unlawful restraint/assault. I was told you have to be in imminent fear of your own safety. Perhaps that is why.



Thanks for your insight, what you have said from the police point of view and direct evidence makes perfect sense. Regarding laws specifying 'women' only, the VAWA act which was the origin for a lot of these domestic violence and sexual assault laws uses gendered language. It refers to the victim as 'she' throughout the entire act. It justifies that at the beginning of the act by stating that since research shows that women are overwhelming the victim in these sorts of crimes (BTW 40-year old statistics which have now been debunked by several recent organization like the CDC and even the DOJ, which now show near gender-symmetry in DV). That would lead me to believe the laws and the enforcement of those laws is biased. Also, where are the domestic violence shelters, advocacy groups, and special prosecution units for male victims of DV?



I stated there was no explicit verbal threat to him. But she was holding a deadly weapon in a menacing way towards the guy (possibly myself). From my research of assault statutes, that is enough to constitute a direct threat. And for any normal person, its probably enough to make them reasonably fear for their own safety especially if that person isn't in their right mind. Just my own thoughts, biased or not.



Well that is certainly true that in recent news there have been males who unjustly got off with slaps on the wrist for egregious sexual offenses. But are they highly-publicized anecdotes or the actual majority of outcomes for sexual offense convictions? But what about all these female teachers having sexual relationships with students getting off with probation for the same crimes that land male offenders in prison for decades? Also, recent research out of University of Michigan, which controls for criminal history and other factors shows that women offenders are not only arrested, charged, and convicted at lower rates, but sentences served are on average 60% shorter than for men. And why are men executed for the same crimes that women receive life with possibility of parole for (i.e. murdering children)... execution of women is almost virtually unheard of.

That's why I stated two courts of justice.

I also read somewhere that the sentencing disparity between men and women is 6 times greater than the racial disparity. Though if you really want to talk about a disparity its probably between the juvenile and adult system.

---

Actually more women are being prosecuted for having sex with underage students. In fact in some states even if the student is the age of consent, it's illegal for a teacher to have sex with them as long as they are a student. I have seen several stories in the last few years of women being arrested, charged and convicted.

It's not my fault there aren't more shelters for men. The SVU units don't just cater to women either fyi if that's what you mean about special prosecutors or whatever. The military has prosecutors who solely do sex crimes - they don't just represent women. Society is to blame for the lack of shelters and groups but there are more advocacy groups popping up. I think you should broaden your research. Yes women have been the majority of victims of dv and rape. That's why things have catered to women. Why is that? Think back to when women were not taken seriously when raped even by police. When the victims were interrogated. "What were you wearing? Were you drunk? Did you say no?" And then if a woman was raped by her spouse - no one believed it. Even when I was in a leadership school in 2007 we talked about "Can you rape your spouse" and there were guys in my class saying "No she's my wife. If I want sex I get it." That's wrong. Being married to someone doesn't mean you own the person. If I had the money and ability I would open up shelters that cater to men and women. There are a few where they have dorms separated to where men are in one building, women in another. It takes time to change cultures and mind sets. You can't change ideologies overnight.

If someone was threatening me with a knife after they just cut their wrists my instinct would be to get the hell out of there and call the police. Not restrain or disarm. If they are unstable enough to slit their wrists I'm out. That's what we're talking about here. So you take that to trial and you use it as a defense and your lawyer uses it as a defense and see if that convinces a jury to find you not guilty. But arguing with the police isn't the place to try your case.

Quote:

---

Quoting ignoramus23

---

It may not be a conspiracy, but I still think patriarchal attitudes ares highly engendered into the way these laws are enforced and I think its keeping male victims from coming forward, and female offenders from being held fully accountable. And for good reason, a lot of men feel its emasculating to report abuse, and they also don't think the police will believe them, or even they could be the ones to get arrested. Further, I've read elsewhere that the majority of women who are actually arrested for DV will have their cases dismissed by the prosecutor out of disinterest, whereas that almost never happens for men with DV accusations. Lol, I even watched a YouTube video recently where a group of feminist DV advocates at a convention were presented with a video about domestic violence against men, and instead of watching and learning from it, they all walked out the door. Like it was insulting and impossible for it to even happen to men... that's kind of the general attitude I get from society in general.

In my own personal experience, I was sexually assaulted by a partner resulting in serious damage that required an expensive and painful surgery to repair and I was also made infertile. I attempted to report the assault to two different police agencies with jurisdiction in the area that the assault occurred. One agency wouldn't even take a police report because they stated I harassed the offender, which provoked her to assault me, so they effectively flipped it on me and labeled me the offender. The other agency took a police report, but kept asking me what I was seeking by coming forward to police like I was being some kind of dick by reporting her, and then nothing ever came of anything after the report. Call me naive, but I HIGHLY doubt the police would have handled it like that if the roles were reversed given those circumstances.

Maybe my personal experiences have colored my perception on the matter, but at times it does feel like a bit of a conspiracy. I hope something can be done to make these laws, rather enforcement of these laws more equal someday.

---

"and they also don't think the police will believe them" That's exactly why women haven't reported and still don't report dv, sexual assault or rape.

A YouTube video...that didn't have an agenda...ok. Yes in society people don't think men can be abused or raped or assaulted. And it's tragic.

What do you mean you attempted to report it? You did or you didn't. It depends. There are some police who don't handle female rape victims very well even today.

No it's not a conspiracy. It's society's view on how men should "act" and that men can't be raped or beaten. It's slowly changing. Again these things take time to change. Like how to emasculate a man you say "throws like a girl" or "hits like a girl" which in turn is putting down women as weak. There are a lot of attitudes that have to change that probably won't.

At the end of the day you made a crappy decision not calling the police when she flipped out. Hindsight...now you deal with what you can at trial and go from there. That's all you can do.

Thanks for your reply, all good points. You are right, I would do well to read more accounts from the female end of the scope. Put in the historical context of widespread abuse against women, the present political and legal climate makes perfect sense. I think rape is a tough one because a victim is so traumatized and often only able to produce so little evidence of the crime aside from her own statements, and those statements aren't likely to be all that coherent after such an experience, that its easy for law enforcement to just dismiss it as a lie or a confabulation of what actually happened. It doesn't help that the media likes to sensationalize cases of false rape accusations either, i.e. duke lacrosse, UVA rolling stone article, Brandon Banks case, etc. It's very unjust.

By attempting to report the sexual assault, I meant I called the police told them what happened, offered to provide them medical documentation. One agency the officer listened to my story, ridiculed it, flipped blame on me for allegedly provoking the assault via harassment (seems a common theme in my life), no report was taken, told me stop contacting the agency (granted I had a history with this agency for non-DV related issues). The other agency listened to my story, validated me, but kept questioning my motive in reporting the crime to the point of me feeling guilty and retaliative, told me prosecutors weren't likely to take such as case, ultimately took a report but during the questioning kept asking me leading questions about her personal details I did not know (i.e. current phone number, address, workplace) that would perhaps suggest I was stalking her (incident happened a year prior, and I had since disconnected from her). Was given a case number, but no follow up ever occurred, and I feared that if I called back to inquire on the case that it might be construed as obsessive, aggressive, or stalking behavior, so I just let it go.

The injuries sustained from the assault left me with fallout likely comparable to what any other sexual assault victim experiences; in this case an extremely large, debilitating, and embarrassing bulge in my pants until I could get the resources to afford surgery (which I'll probably be paying of the rest of my life at my current wages), determined infertility, disfiguring scar, and chronic neuropathological pain that gets to remind me of the incident and the girl everyday, and maybe even some emotional issues.

I just felt like protection of the laws didn't apply to me after this experience, and it only made things worse that police seemed more interested in finding fault in me than learning about the case at hand (just like what you mentioned about police pinning blame on women in rape cases). I actually had a whole host of people question me for even going forward to the police about the issue, so I really felt like it was anti-social of me to try to seek justice against a female, if anything maybe for some restitution because I also became homeless from the expenses. Who knows if she even has any money to pay that though.

Sorry for the catharsis, its not related to the thread topic, but it was a difficult situation. And my experiences with the justice system regarding DV issues has just been not so good. But you've helped me to understand why things are the way they are, thank you.

One last point. I find it interesting that everyone says I need to fight on grounds of protecting her from herself, and not on grounds of self-defense that I may have been fearful that an unstable knife-wielding person could have also been a threat to myself. It's seems like that would have been the more defensible argument.

Trying to argue self defense when she was harming herself is probably not the best claim to make. That is probably why no one has suggested that particular tack. For it to be self defense, she would have had to be attacking you.