No Safe Haven
AMERICA IS FACING A TEST of its determination to confront domestic violence. Two tests, really: one, a court case; the other, a piece of federal legislation, each signaling in its own way whether the struggle to ensure women’s safety is advancing or in retreat. That struggle—which is as old as Carrie Nation—has made great strides over the last three decades. Domestic violence has been acknowledged and defined, recognized in law, and countered with programs ranging from counseling to shelters to hot lines to enforcement training and judicial reform. As a result, the overall incidence of women being battered or killed by intimate partners has declined or leveled off.
Still, as many as 4 million women are assaulted by spouses or partners each year, and 1,200 are killed. Clearly, the fight is not over.
It certainly isn’t over for Jessica Gonzales, who in June lost her case, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, before the U.S. Supreme Court. One day in 1999, Gonzales’s estranged husband abducted their three daughters from her front yard and murdered them, a carnage that might have been prevented had the Castle Rock, Colorado, police department not repeatedly refused to act on the protective order she’d sworn out. Gonzales sued the town for its negligence; when her case reached the Supreme Court, the Bush administration weighed in on Castle Rock’s side. The arguments were technical legal dissections; left hanging was any consideration of the mayhem an adverse court decision could introduce into many women’s lives. After the court’s ruling favoring Castle Rock, advocates fear a future where restraining orders, standard protection sought by thousands of women each year, will ring hollow, leaving abused women with even less legal support.
That was one test. The second will come when Congress deliberates the renewal of the 10-year-old Violence Against Women Act, which will expire on September 30. Advocates of the successful and popular legislation hope it will be buttressed with enhanced funding but fear its support will be cut.
The stories that follow display the enormous ramifications of such decisions. We may no longer live in the era when so many women, deprived of legal, peaceful remedies to the horror of their lives, resorted to the violent remedy forced on Shelley Hendrickson. But, as Patricia Prickett, a former adviser to the L.A.P.D., attests, the most effective way to solve the larger problem is still being sought by advocates battling for women’s safety. Judging from the casualties, the battle remains to be won.
Page 1 of 1 
Violence against women is an overplayed theme. Clearly, no amount of "violence" should allow women to murder their partners. This proves that women are capable, and have the means to inflict harm as equal to men.
Providing shelters for abused women goes a long way towards defusing an explosive situation by separating the two parties.
However, most women resort to restraining orders issued by unscrupulous judges, thus making a man homeless, and inevitably, enraged.
Providing shelter to violence victims irrespective of gender is the answer to this issue.
In addition, the definition of "violence" is superfluous, at best.
Being afraid, suffering from verbal violence, - sorry, it does not apply.
It is patently unjust to remove a person out of HIS environment based on such accusations. Such ridiculous acusations can only serve unscrupulous women (and there are many of those) to summon the authority of the state for personal vendettas or monetary gain.
So yes, no safe haven for injustice.
Domestic violence is often belittled by people who use 'manipulative women' as a way to belittle the fact that women are being beaten, and as a result very little is done about it. Who is the criminal and who is the victim? The criminal should be exited from his home and taken to jail, by all rights. Without question he should just be thrown in the slammer and the issue of protection would be no more. A restraining order is only as good as the paper it's written on if the guy isn't the legal type.
We need stiffer laws and more counselling for those who are abused.
Ugh-- Mike Skokin you should read up on domestic violence. If you actually knew the first thing about violence against women you would change your tone. There is no safe haven for injustice when people like you go around accusing women of being unscrupulous for being threatened, beaten, or otherwise to the point where they fear for their lives.
Let's try this again. TO ALL THE MIKE SKOKIN'S of this world-I truly wish that you all could witness domestic violence in real-time. Many children do, and I am one of them. Try explaining to a young child that what his or her mother is going through is an "overplayed theme." Try telling a mother that is saving her child from a vicious beat down that she has no right to resort to violence. If any man is truly a MAN, he wouldn't have to worry about being evicted because of his violent ways. Mike, you don't have a clue. Why don't you rent a few movies about domestic violence, and really ask God to open your heart. That is, if you believe in God, and if you have a heart. Here are a few, "What's Love Got To Do With It." Try this one on for size, "Bastard Out of Carolina", or "The Burning Bed." Yet another, "We Were Once Warriors." It is because of this kind of attitude that violence against any human being exists. It's not a big deal to most. SAD! I am going to pray for you.
Okay people calm down. Skokin's not some kind of evil bastard. He falls into some sloppy logic and bad wording, but he also makes points that deserve to be addressed in a reasonable way. Let's look at some stuff he said.
"Violence against women is an overplayed theme."
This isn't really elaborated on, so we don't know where he's going with this. If he means that stories of women dominate the conversation on domestic violence to the point where male victims are too often forgotten, he is right. If he means that we should stop talking about female victims, he is very wrong.
"Clearly, no amount of "violence" should allow women to murder their partners."
Iffy. If a woman is being assaulted in the moment and fears for her life or safety, she should of course have the right to defend herself to the point of killing. If she has been abused in the past but isn't being abused right now, and she decides to launch a "preemptive strike" of sorts to prevent further abuse, murder is not justified. If you can kill, you can also incapacitate.
"This proves that women are capable, and have the means to inflict harm as equal to men."
This is technically correct. Women are equally able to use deadly weapons such as knives, guns, even cars to cause harm (they have hands, fingers, feet etc. just like men). However, saying this clouds the real issue, which is that most of domestic violence is perpetrated by men.
Other points:
Shelters are better than restraining orders- true. Restraining orders are inconsistently enforced, therefore shelters provide more reliable safety.
Shelters should serve all victims of violence- damn straight. Let's not forget that 800,000 men are raped or assaulted by their partners in the United States.
Removing men from their homes- I agree that caution should be exercised in those decisions, and that whether it is justified depends on the type and degree of abuse going on. If he's physically violent or using economic control to deprive a victim of basic needs such as food, sure kick him out. If it's just some occasional shouting, anger or meanness without violence or the threat of it, then kicking him out is not justified, especially if he owns the property. Divorce or separtion would be the answer there.
Unscrupulous women- sad to say, they do exist. There probably aren't as many as Skokin thinks, and there are probably more than those who responded to him assume. Any system that is set up to deal with domestic violence must have provisions to ensure that it can't be used against innocent partners (male or female). I believe that those provisions can exist without depriving the real victims of justice.
And for the record, Skokin never said that all women who claim they've been abused are unscrupulous. He never belittled the fact that women are being beaten. He never said that a woman being abused don't have the right to resort to violence. Sadly, he was explicitly or implicitly accused of saying all of these things by people to decided to pull out the flamethrower instead of reading carefully.
Sorry for the block of text, I thought you could put returns in there.
When there is gender equality regarding assets and children in the courtroom, there will be peace. Until then, men will take revenge against the state and women for their rape. I see both sides and men do not receive equal justice in family courts internationally. Death before dishonor.
My ex was emotionally and verbally abusive before he started slapping me around to dominate me. My solution was as follows:
1. I reported the physical abuse and his "promises" to beat me to thge police immediately.
2.He started calling me and was threatening to kill me if I did not do what he wanted (us to move to another state). I was going nowhere with him!
3. I had him arrested and took out a restaining order. The judge noted his 300lb muscular frame was sufficent cause (with the threats) for me to be "justifiably in fear for my safety" at twice my size and
I filed for divorce.
4.I slept with a loaded 12-guage shotgun at my side and warned him I would not hesitate to defend myself.
5. I got a large dog and alarmed my apartment.
I think the key to personal safety is
doing everything within the law to ensure your own and your kid's safety.
If an abuser fears retallaition from his victim it might give him pause. Most abusers are bullies and will threaten and harm anyone in their perimeter they think they can get away with harassing.
Sad but true.
The police told me to "leave my apartment" for "my safety" and I refused.I should not have to live in a shelter, leave my home if I am threatened. The police need to respond to each domestic violence call as though it were life and death...because it is.
After I read this article i was disgusted at how a woman could lose her children at the hands of their father and she was abandond by the ones who were supposed to protect her.
There are women that are caught in the cycle of violence that see no way out but to kill their partners. They have had restraining orders, they have hidden from their spouses and yet they are found. Each time they try to leave it becomes more dangerous for them. They stay out of fear. Granted not all women that murder their husbands can claim the domestic violence defense but unless you have been around women that have been battered you will not understand it. By the way there are men that are battered by their wives and it can be mental or physical. Clearly, you no very little about domestic violence. I agree that there should be shelters for men of DV as well as women. Often restraining orders increases the violence and as for unscrupulous judges if you are served with an order of protection then you can defend yourself in court. It sounds like you have been in such a situation. It is rare that men become homeless because of DV. We have the shelters because there is no place else to go and the women are homeless. Verbal abuse is sometimes worse than physical abuse. It takes longer to heal. Please consider counseling and educate yourself about DV. Imagine being verbally abused and you can't even speak up because you are afraid that it will esculate into physical violence. Put yourself in the place of the abused and see if you would like to live your life like the abused does.
Been on the receiving end of the restraining order Mike? Or has your wife/girlfriend been held in the house where she can't file one?
I wonder if Mr. Skokin has ever been beaten up by a parent or a spouse or even a significant other. If so, he wouldn't take the cynical tone he does in his comments. When I was a girl (back in the 50's and 60's in Louisville, KY) I had little to no choice when my father took to hitting his wife, my mother, me and my brothers. I remember a day, one week before my 13th birthday, when Dad starting drinking and plummeling me and I ran out of the house and down the street to nowhere. There was no where to go. . emergency shelters didn't exist then. Now that I am grown, I don't put up with such nonsense. If any man tries violence with me, I will put him under the jail, not in it.
Though I agree with much on this site, I cannot agree in any way with your one-sided view on domestic violence. Much up-to-date research has overturned the feminist-inspired "figures" on DV. MEN are also victims. Until the problem is treated in its entireity and there are perpetrator courses for women as well as men, the problem will not be solved. It is NOT a gender issue but societal.
I would recommend you to download the AtoZ of DV where some up-to-date figures are available.
The British Home Offic eReport 191, the biggest ever done anywhere in the world states that 4.2% of DV is perpetrated by women and 4.2% by men. This does not sound as though only men are to blame. Trying to hide such statistics will in no way help to solve the DV problem. Women must accept their culpability.
reply to hughes: you need to provide better info on how to locate the e-report, and your math doesn't add up: 4.2% + 4.2% does not equal 100%. Who were the other offenders?
Here's the report,That Mr Hughes seems unable to find.Paragraph three is particularly interesting don't you think think Mr Hughes?On second thoughts perhaps not eh. 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men said they had been physically assaulted by a current
or former partner in the last year. 4.9% of men and 5.9% of women had experienced
physical assault and/or frightening threats.
*Women were twice as likely as men to have been injured by a partner in the last year
and three times as likely to have suffered frightening threats. They were also more
likely to have been assaulted three or more times.
23% of women and 15% of men aged 16 to 59 said they had been physically
assaulted by a current or former partner at some time in their lives. These figures
increased to 26% and 17% respectively when frightening threats were included.
At greatest risk of domestic assault were the under 25s and those in financial diff i c u l t i e s .
For women, risks were particularly high for those who were separated from a spouse.
Half the victims had told someone about their most recent assault, most often a friend,
neighbour or relative. The police were the next most likely to hear of incidents,
followed by medical staff
My girlfriend gets verbally abused by her parents and i'm really tired of seeing that. That's the reason why I already proposed to her to get her out of her house. She said yes! And it's not only for that, we love each other so much and i'm going to help her get over this.
2/28/08
It is unfortunate our media has not informed the public that police officers have no duty to provide protection for individuals regardless of the danger they might be in. Consider Warren vs. District of Columbia, Atlantic Reporter, Second Series, Volume 444, pages 1 – 12 quoted below.
In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the second floor. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched properly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a.m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a.m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceeded to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a.m., five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the house, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:41 a.m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" it was never dispatched to any police officer.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Douglas' apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellant's claims of negligence included: The dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:41 a.m. call.
Quotes from the Decision Finding No Negligence On the Part of Police
Government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen, but, rather, duty to provide public services is owed to public at large, and, absent special relationship between police and individual, no special legal duty exists.
That police answered call and arrived outside premises which were scene of burglary and assaults did not give rise to special duty on part of police toward victims therein, and police officers were not answerable in damages for failing to ascertain that assaults were continuing upon victims therein, or for leaving premises without so ascertaining.
The Court ... does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. ... This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen. ...
A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of resources. ... Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.
VAWA often enrolls men as "perpetrators" based on unevidenced, ex parte court hearings, where a woman's perception of "abuse" trumps a man's intent. This fact guarantees many legal abuses and violence against men facilitated by VAWA.
For the purpose of federal grant money allocation, each "perpetrator" provides money for VAWA administrators. Amongst other abuses, VAWA provides federal grant money for the surveillance of men who refuse "anger management".
The consequence of dividing family with gender bias translates politically into divisive gender politics (as evidenced by this column and its comments). Totalitarians better manage a nation divided into male and female parts.
The tyrants sword is forged with legal privilege based on unconstitutional "victim class" ideology. This legal privilege is illegal under the original 13th amendment (passed in 1819). The good news is that VAWA and the legal profession as we know (and hate it) are illegal. The bad news is that lawyers and VAWA administrators ignore this fact.
Violence against women is a very under rated theme! It is just now starting to become more main stream news. And I for one am glad! There is not enough information out about domestic violence and yes there are those that suffer in silence...or HAVE BEEN SILENCED...BY their mate in HIS environment for trying to do the very thing that you say they should..stop suffering, stop being abused, only to be battered and abused further by a system who refuses to help them! a system who is trying to take away the only peace of mind that they may ever have! The only place where they can feel safe! This is why the majority who have been physically or verbally violated choose to suffer in silence because of these type of comments and the public's lack of support! They have been belittled and bruised enough without having to be abused by the ones who are supposed to be helping them! What's a restraining order? If the man wants to harm her..HE WILL! Telling him to stay away from the house is not going to help, she is not safe at home with the restraining order! She is much safer in a shelter, where there are people there trained, willing, ready, and able to help her! I do not deny that there are men out there who are battered as well, but the majority are women! I do agree that shelter should be provided for both genders that are abused! See.. there is a new issue! So instead of taking away women's shelters..build one for the men! You seem to be more focused on leaving HIM without a place to stay. What about her? 9 times out of 10 it is the female that has to uproot her whole family and try to survive in a shelter with her children while trying to mentally get over being abused. It is much easier for 1 man to find a place to stay then it is for a woman and her children! And if he is abusive, why should anyone care where he is staying? He caused his own dilemma! That's like being concerned about where a pedophile will stay after he has been "accused" of molesting your child. The way you see things are different when it is turned around on you. From this comment it seems that who ever wrote this either has no family, no close females in their family, or is a batterer themself.
Ty, your comment was exactly what all batterers and their sympathizers need to hear! When men are abused by their partner it is less severe. Also, men are more likely to kill their partner. I wish your comment was at the top of the list!
To quote Rodney King.. "Why can't we all get along?". It seems that my observations regarding DV touched a raw nerve nerve with some of you. Too bad. But it goes back to the sense of entitlement felt by some females, just because they are "stay-at-home-moms", they are entitled to special priviledges.
I have no problem with working women.
Now we, the working people, pay taxes, which support, among other things, police, school districts, and among others, DV shelters.
But you think the police and the state has your best interests at heart? No, they don't. That's the mistake my ex did, thinking that the state will collect on a man's wages so that she can live in the lap of luxury. The state is a biraucratic entity, with no soul. They don't care for you as a person.
And for the record, I did slap the ex wife once during the 10 year marriage for calling me a "bad father because I work too much" when she never had a job all her life. I didn't like doing it at all. I do not feel sorry for it.
To sum it up, I love hard working people, both men and women. Is that wrong?
wow!!! your poor wife..you
wow!!! your poor wife..you sound like a man in denial. you put money and work before you put your own family and then you slap your wife for it? you are defiently the classic case...I'm glad she had the nerve to take you to court for what she deserves...full time work serving your ass and taking care of YOUR children....just becasue she did not get paid it does not mean she is of less value than you....you need help man. now you lost the people who matter most....hope you work hard enough to support what you have created. loser
RE:Joe Bass/Thank you,sir,for letting everyone know just how safe we really are.I found this out years ago when I called the local police about a prowler outside my home.My 13yr.old son and I were home alone.It happened about 4:30a.m.,but I had a big dog & a shotgun.The police arrived at about 5:30.,came to the door,then left.Thanks.
What about when a man has to leave his home because he is been accused of "domestic violence" that never happened. He has to leave because he can't be accused if he is not there. He files for a divorce and he looses custody of his kids and thenm the bully of a woman goes futher to deny him his visitation with his children? Women are as abusive as they claim men to be if not worst.
The title of "abuser" that is propeled in this to describe men is used as a camoflage for abusive women and until men are given protection from abusive women, women will continue to make false claims and destroy men's lives.
MEN ARE NOT THE ONLY ABUSERS
I know about violence. I had a husband that taught me. Physical, emotional, psychological abuse are no different from one another. Not really. Each is damaging. Each is a tool used by those who want control. I know how it feels when no one seems to care. Only a man would say that "violence against women is an overplayed theme." Don't judge into you've been in someone else's shoes. Sorry for the cliche, but you earned it. Stand up for women who struggle to stand up for themselves.
Another essay on DV which reveals that innate mandate to discriminate against men.
Women initiate domestic violence more than men.
Men are made homeless by false accusations and TRO during divorce precedings.
Over 30% of those hospitalized for DV are men.
Women are increasingly using ambush, and weapons to even the odds.
Women in DV shelters often return to the husband to renew the fight and not because of economic concerns.
Violence against men is acceptable. When women punch and kick men on TV it's a comedy. The reverse is always a drama.
Tell the truth.
DV advocates operate under the feminist belief that DV occurs as a function of the Patriarchy. That abusing women is a way to keep women under control. This is a politicization of a social malady and has been used to gain millions in funding for a group which has repeatedly declared its hatred of men.
If it's only men who beat women then why do lesbian relationship have the highest rate of domestic violence?
Just watch TV and pretty soon you will see a woman strike a man and the man will do nothing. You might even laugh.
We can watch an action movie where 100 men die bloody deaths and we like it, but if women are endangered or killed it upsets us. Why does the life of 1 woman mean more than 100 men?
We've been programmed to protect women, but a society that requires one gender to always protect the other is not an equal society. So long as women expect men to provide for their health and welfare women will always view society as male dominated. And it will only be men who fail.
I am responding to Alice Darr.
it's easy to say you would kill a man if he beats you. or " put him under the jail" so to speak . However when face to face with that decision it's not that easy. I was once in a very bad relationship that would have without a doubt resulted in death had I not been able to get away. Shelters and police cooperaion are absolutley necessary in abuse situations. The man that I was in a relatinship with depended on the fact that I didn't have any way to get away from him "this happened in 1990". If there had been a shelter to could go to and somebody to listen to me, I wouldn't have had to flee the state I was in to escape for my life.
My name is unisex so I am going to leave the gender up to you all to figure out. My spouse used our son as an object to keep me in a miserable marriage. Every time my spouse got upset they would say things to our son like, I don't love him and I am going to leave him. My spouse would lock our son up with them in the bathroom so I could hear these awful things coming out of this persons mouth. My spouse would say things like they were going to chop me up and bury me in the backyard if I leave. My spouse said they would burn down the house and take our son to Mexico. I called the police several times before the night of what turned out to be a felony conviction of Assault with a Deadly weapon, Corporal Injury of Spouse, and child abuse. The police told me they couldn't do anything aside from escort me out of the house prior to the incident. I knew if this person got custody they would severely damage our son just to get at me. This person made $200K net in 2005. I make $100K net. This person was kicked out of the house and ordered to stay away only after someone almost died. This person never paid as much as I did for Mortgage bills etc. I ended up waiving thousands of back child support just to come to a judgment. This person is in constant violation of the restraining orders but the police still do nothing. I have worked with the courts to obtain judgments yet if the police do not enforce these judgments they are worthless. It does not matter what gender I am. All that matters is my son is Six and has not received the emotional or financial support he deserves from the other parent. That is the true crime here. Unless Community unites to insure that law enforcement sends a consistent message alongside the courts our system will remain broken and so will everyone associated with the crime. Also, more crime will occur because the preventative measures that are supposed to be enforced are simply overlooked.
