Case in the courts [DV]

[Tahar Joblis]

See, this is the important thing for me, Tahar Joblis. I think the reason why you didn't consider things like the cultural context of the situation is that you had no intention of giving us the full context in the first place

If I had no such intention, then I wouldn't have been so quick to answer with overwhelming levels of detail when someone made an incorrect presumption about that cultural context.

the story you constructed in the OP isn't meant to show us a complex problem with no easy answers and serve as a springboard for commentary and discussion

OK, then show me the "easy answer."

As I mentioned previously, I don't see one. I don't see an answer that doesn't inconvenience some actual victims of domestic violence.

[Greed and Death]

In this country an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.
After the neighbors said she did not reside there, I feel the police should not have been able to find probable cause.
And most certainly there was no longer a need to arrest the man to protect the woman since she does not live at that residence. In the alternative even if the police could find probable cause, the fact the neighbors said she did not live there they should have removed her from the house as well and supervised a changing of the locks.

I think the case should go forward and the man be allowed to recover in full on his claims both against the city and the officer.

[Pope Joan]

Korean or not, it is way to easy to make these unsubstantiated complaints and get someone incarcerated for an indeterminate period.

Here's the thing though, in the article, it mentions that the woman bore marks consistent with DV.

Now, seriously, usually someone won't go to the trouble, and pain, of beating themselves up before calling the police. Seeing signs of DV makes what happen reasonable, at least at first.

That does not smell like our constitution. Instead, it smells like PC panic.

"In Campbell v. Campbell' the Maine Superior Court concluded that
Mrs. Campbell had sought an ex parte protection from abuse order2
against her husband in an effort to gain a tactical advantage in the
custody proceeding-she did not need protection from abuse."

http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/mai ... ev_471.pdf

"legal scholarship notes that misuse of orders of protection against violence does occur through the filing of false petitions. For example, an abuser may file a false petition against his or her victim, perhaps to intimidate the victim or exclude the victim from a shared residence. In other cases, a person who is not truly a victim of violence, or who does not have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of violence, may file a petition in order to harass the respondent or to gain an advantage over the respondent in a related family law matter, such as a divorce or child custody proceeding. Misuse of the process can thwart the public-safety purposes underlying the injunctions and can result in inefficiencies and costs for the state courts system.
This report reviews the current procedures and standards governing the award of injunctions for protection against domestic violence, repeat violence, sexual violence, and dating violence, in an effort to identify the extent to which misuse of the process is occurring, or may occur, and to identify enhancements to the statutory and court-rule framework."

http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/Public ... -127ju.pdf

And what did your studies actually conclude? Fraud happens, yes, this is a given. That doesn't mean that the system itself is bad.

It means that we should act like Americans and respect due process. No matter how heinous the charge, accusation does not warrant incarceration without clear and convincing proof of immediate harm..

[Greed and Death]

Here's the thing though, in the article, it mentions that the woman bore marks consistent with DV.

Now, seriously, usually someone won't go to the trouble, and pain, of beating themselves up before calling the police. Seeing signs of DV makes what happen reasonable, at least at first.


And what did your studies actually conclude? Fraud happens, yes, this is a given. That doesn't mean that the system itself is bad.

It means that we should act like Americans and respect due process. No matter how heinous the charge, accusation does not warrant incarceration without clear and convincing proof of immediate harm..

^ THIS

[NERVUN]

That's because you get so tied up in your notions that the world ain't fair for guys that you ignore other forces at work. In this case you are making an assumption that his neighbors were not Korean, we don't actually know. What I can tell you however is that many East Asian cultures do have a very regrettable tendency to overlook DV. It's not unlikely that the police officer, being Korean himself, knew this.

Or to put it another way, your notion is that the police should make it safe for both men and women in a DV situation, which is what they bloody well did. They saw a woman with signs of DV, they put in an emergency restraining order to keep the parties separated, and then they investigated and discovered, wait a sec... this ain't kosher.

That's kinda what happens in any situation, especially one where there has been instances of police blowing off DV reports and then having to go back to open murder investigations instead.

Edit: And of course it should be emphasized that the woman in question is currently jailed and awaiting trial, so it's not like she got off scott free either.

Yes, they did end up making good. It's like how I knock glasses over more often than average, but often manage to catch them before they spill, thanks to my fast reflexes. They did have fingerprints, the perp did get caught after skipping town, and they eventually figured it out. Which, given that the suspect is alleged to have gotten away with it several times previously, may mean that the Irvine police are better at this than the average police department. I should give them credit for that, but I'd rather they not knock over glasses in the first place, capiche?

Because the police have magic powers amiright? Please, the system worked as it should have. Given the OTHER arrest warrants, it would seem as if other jurisdictions were aware that something was wrong as was looking for her.

Now, funnily enough, this does not mean police have some kind of magic crystal, they have to go with the info that they have and given that the two met on a Korean match matching site, I'm fairly confident in stating that, yes, she didn't report that she was wanted by the police on her profile either.

Now... NERVUN, you're dodging the question I asked you.

Not really, I'm refusing to answer your primrose path'd question.

So. Let me re-iterate the facts that make that question necessary: There is well over a ninety percent chance that the neighbors were not Korean, and in fact, if multiple neighbors were talking to the police officer, the odds that all neighbors present were Korean are less than a single percent [that's accounting for the possibility that only neighbors from one house talked to the police, and it was a Korean family living next door].

Irvine's population is only 5.3% Korean, there are no Census-identified regions with higher than 7%, and the neighborhood in question is not even on the high end for Irvine in terms of Korean population. Yes, I actually went and looked up the victim just now to make sure, and yes, he lives basically where I did two years ago. Not quite close enough that I would have been one of the neighbors on the scene, but very close.

So. Unless there's something really weird about the next block of houses over that I didn't notice, we're not talking about "calling from a community that has a tendency to treat DV as something between a husband and wife," and not even talking about "Oh, Korean neighbors are covering up the domestic violence!!!" It's a pretty generic neighborhood except for its proximity to campus, which means that a lot of people have some kind of connection to the university and are thus a little more liberal and cosmopolitan than average for Irvine.

Baloney, you are still assuming so.

Or to put it another way, Reno has a negligible Japanese population, when my wife lived there, most of her neighbors were Japanese. So no, we DON'T know how many neighbors (Your article doesn't say), what cultural background (Your article doesn't say), their connection with the victim (Your article doesn't say, it could very well be they are the closest of friends, or maybe it was 'Yeah, I see him take the garbage out sometimes'), all of these add up to how credible they would be to the police officer in question when confronted by a woman showing signs of DV (Something you keep ignoring).

You are attempting to paint all things equal to show there's some kind of bad policy at work here, sure, if we accept your take on it, but given that we lack the specifics of this case... no.

The answer sits you firmly on one or the other horn of a dilemma, at this point:

• First, if it does change your answer, then the officer was dropping the ball in some fashion, and would have been dropping the ball generically in a similar situation nearly anywhere in the country outside of some small subcommunities.
• Second, if it doesn't change your answer, then it wasn't the "important contextual detail" that Avenio claims, and you don't have grounds to complain about my failure to emphasize that in the OP.

I think it's option two: It doesn't change your answer. It shouldn't, anyway. If one partner is injured and seeking aid, the police should be putting them somewhere safe. However, I would like to tell you that doesn't mean handing them control over the other partner's property is a good idea, or something that police should do, especially when it's not clear the injured partner is even a resident of the domicile they've been called to. We have domestic violence shelters, and we also have the [at least theoretical] possibility of protective custody.

Ah, ok, now see this is where you are also ignoring the facts of the case. You have a woman claiming that she has been living with the individual for over a month and is pregnant. That would make it her domicile, so your take on it here would be that DV victims should be taken out of the house and placed elsewhere as opposed to removing the actual perp. Again, we lack any kind of ability to judge the credibility of the neighbors in knowing about this situation.

As other posters have caused me to realize, a mere half hour of questioning at the police station while while they ran her fingerprints to identify her would have sufficed to prevent the lawsuit that the man has filed over his sense of grievance for having been run through the wringer [thrown in jail, having to post bond, being served a restraining order preventing him from returning to his own home, and then discovering that he'd been burgled]. It was possible to avoid knocking over the glass in the first place.

So in the middle of a DV case, when we have someone, again, showing signs consistent with DV, the police's first response should NOT be to see to the health and safety of the supposed victim but to run her ID to check, just in case, for a con that one supposes would be very rare, given that I at least, have never heard of a burglary being committed in such a fashion.

Seriously, you're supposed to be the math expert, what are the probabilities for this one?

Which leaves open several more questions about policy.

Not really, we have an officer responding to a DV call, he finds a woman making the claim that she lives with him and has done so for a month, is engaged, and is pregnant. She states that the guy has taken her purse (Which does happen, no DL, no money, bit of a problem escaping), and bears the signs that she has indeed been beaten. Given that we cannot state how credible the neighbor's statements are (Or what kind of story she has in place for that), he acts accordingly. It's later that things start to fall apart. Bad, yes, but then she is arrested and will be sentenced accordingly.

So what, exactly, would you see the police do?

[NERVUN]

Here's the thing though, in the article, it mentions that the woman bore marks consistent with DV.

Now, seriously, usually someone won't go to the trouble, and pain, of beating themselves up before calling the police. Seeing signs of DV makes what happen reasonable, at least at first.


And what did your studies actually conclude? Fraud happens, yes, this is a given. That doesn't mean that the system itself is bad.

It means that we should act like Americans and respect due process. No matter how heinous the charge, accusation does not warrant incarceration without clear and convincing proof of immediate harm..

If you read the article notes that the woman had bruises consistent with DV. May I enquirer just what you think clear and convincing proof would need to be, a steak knife sticking out of her?

[NERVUN]

In this country an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.
After the neighbors said she did not reside there, I feel the police should not have been able to find probable cause.
And most certainly there was no longer a need to arrest the man to protect the woman since she does not live at that residence. In the alternative even if the police could find probable cause, the fact the neighbors said she did not live there they should have removed her from the house as well and supervised a changing of the locks.

I think the case should go forward and the man be allowed to recover in full on his claims both against the city and the officer.

Again, I would note that according to the article that she showed signs consistent with DV. That sounds fairly probable to me.

And, again, I would also note that we don't have a way to judge the credibility of the neighbors at the time.

[The Ben Boys]

Ahh, Irvine, nice city, right in the middle of friendly territory for someone such as myself.

But these charges... the police should've detained the woman for questioning and a much quicker background search: she had a story that was much less concrete and no one to back her. I agree with the man, though: the policeman sided with someone that had nothing to go on but her word alone... unlike the man.

Caution: Mandatory social criticism ahead...

But with cross-gender domestic problems such as this, the woman is always innocent and the man is usually left high and dry. It's like rape cases: when you have the word of just one woman and one man, the man better get a plea bargain.

[Trotskylvania]

Sounds like the police took pretty reasonable precautions to try to prevent any harm coming to this woman, which is realistically the best standard operating procedure in cases of domestic violence, and just happened to be the wrong thing to do on this occasion?

I think the best standard operating procedure in cases of domestic violence is to prevent any harm coming to anyone - man or woman.

Though I think you may have the actual motive for the standard operating procedure correct - preventing harm coming to women. The problem with that is that men and women are equally likely to act maliciously, which means that if we persistently just arrest men and leave women alone, we enable maliciousness by women, as in this case.

This woman was apparently able to rely on the standard procedures of the police to steal men blind. When the bad 'uns are able to use the force of the state as a bludgeon against innocents, there's something wrong with policy somewhere.

I'm not actually quite sure what we would be able to do, policy-wise; only one of the couple showed signs of injury.

We get it, we get it. You have an ax to grind, and you'll trot out anything to fulfill your little jihad.

Here's the problem. She's accusing him of domestic violence, and she appears to have the marks of it. He's telling a story about how he doesn't know this woman. Sure, you'd like to believe him, but perps tell ridiculous lies all the time. So, the correct call in that situation was to get the alleged abuser away from the person making the complaint, because this is serious business.

Had the inverse occurred, and the police followed their protocols, the same exact thing would have occurred.

But somehow, this incident is proof positive that the MRAs are rights, and there's a systematic oppression of men.

[Greed and Death]

Yes, they did end up making good. It's like how I knock glasses over more often than average, but often manage to catch them before they spill, thanks to my fast reflexes. They did have fingerprints, the perp did get caught after skipping town, and they eventually figured it out. Which, given that the suspect is alleged to have gotten away with it several times previously, may mean that the Irvine police are better at this than the average police department. I should give them credit for that, but I'd rather they not knock over glasses in the first place, capiche?

Because the police have magic powers amiright? Please, the system worked as it should have. Given the OTHER arrest warrants, it would seem as if other jurisdictions were aware that something was wrong as was looking for her.

Now, funnily enough, this does not mean police have some kind of magic crystal, they have to go with the info that they have and given that the two met on a Korean match matching site, I'm fairly confident in stating that, yes, she didn't report that she was wanted by the police on her profile either.

Now... NERVUN, you're dodging the question I asked you.

Not really, I'm refusing to answer your primrose path'd question.

So. Let me re-iterate the facts that make that question necessary: There is well over a ninety percent chance that the neighbors were not Korean, and in fact, if multiple neighbors were talking to the police officer, the odds that all neighbors present were Korean are less than a single percent [that's accounting for the possibility that only neighbors from one house talked to the police, and it was a Korean family living next door].

Irvine's population is only 5.3% Korean, there are no Census-identified regions with higher than 7%, and the neighborhood in question is not even on the high end for Irvine in terms of Korean population. Yes, I actually went and looked up the victim just now to make sure, and yes, he lives basically where I did two years ago. Not quite close enough that I would have been one of the neighbors on the scene, but very close.

So. Unless there's something really weird about the next block of houses over that I didn't notice, we're not talking about "calling from a community that has a tendency to treat DV as something between a husband and wife," and not even talking about "Oh, Korean neighbors are covering up the domestic violence!!!" It's a pretty generic neighborhood except for its proximity to campus, which means that a lot of people have some kind of connection to the university and are thus a little more liberal and cosmopolitan than average for Irvine.

Baloney, you are still assuming so.

Or to put it another way, Reno has a negligible Japanese population, when my wife lived there, most of her neighbors were Japanese. So no, we DON'T know how many neighbors (Your article doesn't say), what cultural background (Your article doesn't say), their connection with the victim (Your article doesn't say, it could very well be they are the closest of friends, or maybe it was 'Yeah, I see him take the garbage out sometimes'), all of these add up to how credible they would be to the police officer in question when confronted by a woman showing signs of DV (Something you keep ignoring).

You are attempting to paint all things equal to show there's some kind of bad policy at work here, sure, if we accept your take on it, but given that we lack the specifics of this case... no.

The answer sits you firmly on one or the other horn of a dilemma, at this point:

• First, if it does change your answer, then the officer was dropping the ball in some fashion, and would have been dropping the ball generically in a similar situation nearly anywhere in the country outside of some small subcommunities.
• Second, if it doesn't change your answer, then it wasn't the "important contextual detail" that Avenio claims, and you don't have grounds to complain about my failure to emphasize that in the OP.

I think it's option two: It doesn't change your answer. It shouldn't, anyway. If one partner is injured and seeking aid, the police should be putting them somewhere safe. However, I would like to tell you that doesn't mean handing them control over the other partner's property is a good idea, or something that police should do, especially when it's not clear the injured partner is even a resident of the domicile they've been called to. We have domestic violence shelters, and we also have the [at least theoretical] possibility of protective custody.

Ah, ok, now see this is where you are also ignoring the facts of the case. You have a woman claiming that she has been living with the individual for over a month and is pregnant. That would make it her domicile, so your take on it here would be that DV victims should be taken out of the house and placed elsewhere as opposed to removing the actual perp. Again, we lack any kind of ability to judge the credibility of the neighbors in knowing about this situation.

As other posters have caused me to realize, a mere half hour of questioning at the police station while while they ran her fingerprints to identify her would have sufficed to prevent the lawsuit that the man has filed over his sense of grievance for having been run through the wringer [thrown in jail, having to post bond, being served a restraining order preventing him from returning to his own home, and then discovering that he'd been burgled]. It was possible to avoid knocking over the glass in the first place.

So in the middle of a DV case, when we have someone, again, showing signs consistent with DV, the police's first response should NOT be to see to the health and safety of the supposed victim but to run her ID to check, just in case, for a con that one supposes would be very rare, given that I at least, have never heard of a burglary being committed in such a fashion.

Seriously, you're supposed to be the math expert, what are the probabilities for this one?

Which leaves open several more questions about policy.

Not really, we have an officer responding to a DV call, he finds a woman making the claim that she lives with him and has done so for a month, is engaged, and is pregnant. She states that the guy has taken her purse (Which does happen, no DL, no money, bit of a problem escaping), and bears the signs that she has indeed been beaten. Given that we cannot state how credible the neighbor's statements are (Or what kind of story she has in place for that), he acts accordingly. It's later that things start to fall apart. Bad, yes, but then she is arrested and will be sentenced accordingly.

So what, exactly, would you see the police do?

The police are supposed to investigate, an ID check should be done before hauling anyone to jail.
Especially in situations where the neighbors say the person does not live there and there were no sounds of violence.

If there are questions of the neighbors believability then the police can investigate, but more scary then that the police asked the neighbors, that means they were collecting evidence. This to me suggest the police were going to believe the neighbors if they collaborated the girl, and dis believe the witnesses if they collaborated the guy.

AS for what to do with the woman.
The police officer should have said the following.

Ma'am, since I can not verify your ID, and the neighbors say you don't live here, I can not take this man out of his home at this time. We will investigate this matter to the fullest of our ability, until such time please let us take you to a domestic violence shelter, or better yet to a hospital to check on your pregnancy.

[Greed and Death]

I think the best standard operating procedure in cases of domestic violence is to prevent any harm coming to anyone - man or woman.

Though I think you may have the actual motive for the standard operating procedure correct - preventing harm coming to women. The problem with that is that men and women are equally likely to act maliciously, which means that if we persistently just arrest men and leave women alone, we enable maliciousness by women, as in this case.

This woman was apparently able to rely on the standard procedures of the police to steal men blind. When the bad 'uns are able to use the force of the state as a bludgeon against innocents, there's something wrong with policy somewhere.

I'm not actually quite sure what we would be able to do, policy-wise; only one of the couple showed signs of injury.

We get it, we get it. You have an ax to grind, and you'll trot out anything to fulfill your little jihad.

Here's the problem. She's accusing him of domestic violence, and she appears to have the marks of it. He's telling a story about how he doesn't know this woman. Sure, you'd like to believe him, but perps tell ridiculous lies all the time. So, the correct call in that situation was to get the alleged abuser away from the person making the complaint, because this is serious business.

Had the inverse occurred, and the police followed their protocols, the same exact thing would have occurred.

But somehow, this incident is proof positive that the MRAs are rights, and there's a systematic oppression of men.

If the neighbors say the girl does not live there, and the girl has no ID the correct call is to get the girl out of the house.

Man did not get needlessly arrested and robbed, and an abused girl is still safe.

[Tahar Joblis]

In this country an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.

Well, you may not have probable cause that she lives there, but while I'm not familiar with the way things are in Texas, generally, whacking people with a stick is not legal in California, and it's really quite rare for folks to beat themselves up the way she did for this occasion.

After the neighbors said she did not reside there, I feel the police should not have been able to find probable cause.
And most certainly there was no longer a need to arrest the man to protect the woman since she does not live at that residence. In the alternative even if the police could find probable cause, the fact the neighbors said she did not live there they should have removed her from the house as well and supervised a changing of the locks.

I think the case should go forward and the man be allowed to recover in full on his claims both against the city and the officer.

Do you think the amount he's asking for [one hundred fifty thousand dollars] is appropriate? Too high? Too low?

[Avenio]

If I had no such intention, then I wouldn't have been so quick to answer with overwhelming levels of detail when someone made an incorrect presumption about that cultural context.

When that assumption contradicted the narrative you were trying to tell, yes. You were very quick indeed to point out that the neighbourhood wasn't composed mostly of Koreans, who might have been covering potential abuses up and necessitating an intervention by police.

OK, then show me the "easy answer."

I think NERVUN's articulated it very nicely. The police acted appropriately given the circumstances.

As I mentioned previously, I don't see one. I don't see an answer that doesn't inconvenience some actual victims of domestic violence.

It is better in this case, in my mind, to act to protect a victim of alleged assault and remove the suspect from the scene and face the consequences later than to not act and allow potential abuse or worse to continue.

[Greed and Death]

In this country an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.

Well, you may not have probable cause that she lives there, but while I'm not familiar with the way things are in Texas, generally, whacking people with a stick is not legal in California, and it's really quite rare for folks to beat themselves up the way she did for this occasion.

After the neighbors said she did not reside there, I feel the police should not have been able to find probable cause.
And most certainly there was no longer a need to arrest the man to protect the woman since she does not live at that residence. In the alternative even if the police could find probable cause, the fact the neighbors said she did not live there they should have removed her from the house as well and supervised a changing of the locks.

I think the case should go forward and the man be allowed to recover in full on his claims both against the city and the officer.

Do you think the amount he's asking for [one hundred fifty thousand dollars] is appropriate? Too high? Too low?

But we have neighbors who say there was no domestic violence sounds from the apartment, and the women did not live there. Yes there might be reliability questions of the witnesses, but we also can not make the accused bear the burden of proof. Further the officer can not ignore the existence of evidence which the witnesses were. There most certainly enough contra indicators that the officer should have been required to investigate more before making an arrest. For instance call the land lord if it is a rental, find out how many people are on the lease.

What particularly irks me is the police asked the neighbors with the hopes they would collaborate the girl's story, and then ignored the neighbors when they did not.

Surprisingly low, most false arrest claims I worked on ( summer of 2011) normally demanded 1 million, given most of those were full of crap. The Pro Se would often write it and repeat it over and over again.

[Caninope]

In this country an officer needs probable cause to make an arrest.

Well, you may not have probable cause that she lives there, but while I'm not familiar with the way things are in Texas, generally, whacking people with a stick is not legal in California, and it's really quite rare for folks to beat themselves up the way she did for this occasion.

After the neighbors said she did not reside there, I feel the police should not have been able to find probable cause.
And most certainly there was no longer a need to arrest the man to protect the woman since she does not live at that residence. In the alternative even if the police could find probable cause, the fact the neighbors said she did not live there they should have removed her from the house as well and supervised a changing of the locks.

I think the case should go forward and the man be allowed to recover in full on his claims both against the city and the officer.

Do you think the amount he's asking for [one hundred fifty thousand dollars] is appropriate? Too high? Too low?

How much was stolen from him?

[NERVUN]

Because the police have magic powers amiright? Please, the system worked as it should have. Given the OTHER arrest warrants, it would seem as if other jurisdictions were aware that something was wrong as was looking for her.

Now, funnily enough, this does not mean police have some kind of magic crystal, they have to go with the info that they have and given that the two met on a Korean match matching site, I'm fairly confident in stating that, yes, she didn't report that she was wanted by the police on her profile either.


Not really, I'm refusing to answer your primrose path'd question.


Baloney, you are still assuming so.

Or to put it another way, Reno has a negligible Japanese population, when my wife lived there, most of her neighbors were Japanese. So no, we DON'T know how many neighbors (Your article doesn't say), what cultural background (Your article doesn't say), their connection with the victim (Your article doesn't say, it could very well be they are the closest of friends, or maybe it was 'Yeah, I see him take the garbage out sometimes'), all of these add up to how credible they would be to the police officer in question when confronted by a woman showing signs of DV (Something you keep ignoring).

You are attempting to paint all things equal to show there's some kind of bad policy at work here, sure, if we accept your take on it, but given that we lack the specifics of this case... no.


Ah, ok, now see this is where you are also ignoring the facts of the case. You have a woman claiming that she has been living with the individual for over a month and is pregnant. That would make it her domicile, so your take on it here would be that DV victims should be taken out of the house and placed elsewhere as opposed to removing the actual perp. Again, we lack any kind of ability to judge the credibility of the neighbors in knowing about this situation.


So in the middle of a DV case, when we have someone, again, showing signs consistent with DV, the police's first response should NOT be to see to the health and safety of the supposed victim but to run her ID to check, just in case, for a con that one supposes would be very rare, given that I at least, have never heard of a burglary being committed in such a fashion.

Seriously, you're supposed to be the math expert, what are the probabilities for this one?


Not really, we have an officer responding to a DV call, he finds a woman making the claim that she lives with him and has done so for a month, is engaged, and is pregnant. She states that the guy has taken her purse (Which does happen, no DL, no money, bit of a problem escaping), and bears the signs that she has indeed been beaten. Given that we cannot state how credible the neighbor's statements are (Or what kind of story she has in place for that), he acts accordingly. It's later that things start to fall apart. Bad, yes, but then she is arrested and will be sentenced accordingly.

So what, exactly, would you see the police do?

The police are supposed to investigate, an ID check should be done before hauling anyone to jail.
Especially in situations where the neighbors say the person does not live there and there were no sounds of violence.

Except that she provided a believable story as to why she didn't have an ID. And again, she had signs that supported her story of DV. Physical evidence trumps he said/she said, you know that. You also know that the police's responsibility is mainly to protect people, here is a woman showing signs of having been beaten. This isn't a matter of she said he did, she could show off the bruises. That is probable cause in any legal book you care to name.

If there are questions of the neighbors believability then the police can investigate, but more scary then that the police asked the neighbors, that means they were collecting evidence. This to me suggest the police were going to believe the neighbors if they collaborated the girl, and dis believe the witnesses if they collaborated the guy.

Except that's not quite how it panned out. Apparently according to this:

With Kim displaying injuries consistent with domestic abuse, Jun began to take Lee into custody, but the lawsuit contends the accused asked that police first confirm Kim was who she said she was.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... awsuit.php (Yes, it is a blog). So apparently this was a matter of Lee shouting out and THEN the police start to ask questions, which Kim was able to provide cover for.

But wait, there's more:

But the woman who made the report did not identify herself as Sunmee Kim--and it struck the responding officer odd that the "victim" could produce no identification under the name she gave.

The cop did some nosing around and through government databases was able to find a photo I.D. of the woman whose name Kim provided. Their physical descriptions matched, but while Kim looked similar to the female in the photo, the officer still felt something was not exactly right. So, Kim was asked about it, and she is said to have explained she recently had cosmetic surgery.

Unconvinced, the cop took fingerprints that were processed back at the station. The name that came back from law enforcement data systems based on prints was Sunmee Kim's, not the person Kim allegedly passed herself off as.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2 ... t_irvi.php

So from the chain of events it would seem that she provided a believable cover story for lack of ID (And yes, this does happen) and was trusting to her physical similarities to the ID she stole to protect her when the police did check up on the name. The police however didn't believe her and decided to investigate further, thus uncovering her.

So in other words, given the physical evidence present at the site, the officer acted prudently in order to prevent further violence, which he did have reasonable suspicion to believe to have occurred, and then started to match the pieces when the timing wasn't as dangerous.

AS for what to do with the woman.
The police officer should have said the following.

Ma'am, since I can not verify your ID, and the neighbors say you don't live here, I can not take this man out of his home at this time. We will investigate this matter to the fullest of our ability, until such time please let us take you to a domestic violence shelter, or better yet to a hospital to check on your pregnancy.

I'm sorry sir, I know you say that this man robbed you, but since you happen to lack ID right now, I'm going to let him go. But in the meantime, let's get you to the hospital in order to check that nasty bump on your head.

[NERVUN]

Well, you may not have probable cause that she lives there, but while I'm not familiar with the way things are in Texas, generally, whacking people with a stick is not legal in California, and it's really quite rare for folks to beat themselves up the way she did for this occasion.

Do you think the amount he's asking for [one hundred fifty thousand dollars] is appropriate? Too high? Too low?

But we have neighbors who say there was no domestic violence sounds from the apartment, and the women did not live there. Yes there might be reliability questions of the witnesses, but we also can not make the accused bear the burden of proof. Further the officer can not ignore the existence of evidence which the witnesses were. There most certainly enough contra indicators that the officer should have been required to investigate more before making an arrest. For instance call the land lord if it is a rental, find out how many people are on the lease.

What particularly irks me is the police asked the neighbors with the hopes they would collaborate the girl's story, and then ignored the neighbors when they did not.

Surprisingly low, most false arrest claims I worked on ( summer of 2011) normally demanded 1 million, given most of those were full of crap. The Pro Se would often write it and repeat it over and over again.

And exactly where are you getting that from?

Again, all we have is a line stating that the neighbors corroborated Mr. Lee's statement that she didn't live there.

[Tahar Joblis]

Because the police have magic powers amiright? Please, the system worked as it should have. Given the OTHER arrest warrants, it would seem as if other jurisdictions were aware that something was wrong as was looking for her.

And in those other jurisdictions, the glass hit the floor. The police figured out too late that she had used them as accomplices to her thefts.

Not really, I'm refusing to answer your primrose path'd question.

Well, it's good that I dealt with either possible answer, then, isn't it?

Baloney, you are still assuming so.

The odds that the neighbors were Korean is very low. You assumed that they were Korean and in a Korean neighborhood. I bloody well lived in that neighborhood, and I'm accurately representing the odds that multiple neighbors, talking to the police, would be a bunch of Koreans, let alone a bunch of Koreans feeling obliged to maintain some cultural code of silence when a Korean police officer is questioning them. Again, less than one percent. Low enough that your assumption was a very clearly bad one, and that therefore, you need to consider my question: Considering that the "community" bit of your statement was based on an incorrect premise, does your answer change?

Remember, I lived in that neighborhood and I know how real estate works in Irvine. [Which does have its freaky local curlicues, by the way.] So, I recommend you move along to admitting you made a crap assumption and answering my question.

So no, we DON'T know how many neighbors (Your article doesn't say),

It uses a plural noun. So two or more.

what cultural background (Your article doesn't say), their connection with the victim (Your article doesn't say, it could very well be they are the closest of friends, or maybe it was 'Yeah, I see him take the garbage out sometimes'), all of these add up to how credible they would be to the police officer in question when confronted by a woman showing signs of DV (Something you keep ignoring).

The Irvine PD has claimed, after the fact, that her credibility was suspected by the police officer immediately.

I've explained why I'm a little dubious of that fact - they reacted with about the same speed as if they hadn't suspected a thing until the burglary was reported, and it takes [my lovely lesson for today] an average of 27 minutes for police to run fingerprints through the system.

Ah, ok, now see this is where you are also ignoring the facts of the case. You have a woman claiming that she has been living with the individual for over a month and is pregnant. That would make it her domicile,

If such a claim is true. Which there was absolutely no evidence for, and which claims were contested by both the documented legal resident of the house and the neighbors.

The officer had, in other words, only her word that she had any legal right to the house.

so your take on it here would be that DV victims should be taken out of the house and placed elsewhere as opposed to removing the actual perp. Again, we lack any kind of ability to judge the credibility of the neighbors in knowing about this situation.

No, that would be putting words in my mouth. I haven't made any great big statements of what ought to be done in DV cases in general.

I have stated that this raises a question about what should be done when one party doesn't have a clear legal claim to access to a property.

So in the middle of a DV case, when we have someone, again, showing signs consistent with DV, the police's first response should NOT be to see to the health and safety of the supposed victim

If she's hurt bad, that involves medical attention, and quite possibly removing her to somewhere else to receive care.

At the point when the police officer arrived, there was no violence in progress; i.e., no imminent danger.

but to run her ID to check, just in case, for a con that one supposes would be very rare, given that I at least, have never heard of a burglary being committed in such a fashion.

He did attempt to identify her, and - if we are to believe what we read in the newspaper - asked the neighbors. Looked up the identity she was borrowing for the occasion. Took fingerprints.

Did I mention my experience with the Irvine PD? Yes, I did. Previous page. They love making a fuss over ID. The thing is, though, after having made all that fuss, they barred the actual owner of the house from going near it, made a presumption of legal residence based solely on the testimony of a woman whose identity was not confirmed, and became unwitting accomplices to burglary.

Seriously, you're supposed to be the math expert, what are the probabilities for this one?

Of a false and malicious accusation, or of one specifically motivated by burglary?

The former is non-trivial, even if the latter is.

The question you should be asking, though, isn't the probability that a woman will make a false and malicious DV report. It's the contingent probability that she has no claim to the domicile or malicious intentions given that the person she's accusing denies her claimed identity, claimed relationship, claimed status, and claimed residence.

How many cases have you heard of where someone filing a domestic violence complaint is accused of having engaged in having fabricated everything - not simply the act of violence, but their identity, their claims to having been resident, et cetera et cetera?

I rather doubt it's a large number of cases in the divisor here.

Now, I think it has become clear what the central issue is here: How do we balance our desire to help and protect victims of domestic violence [unfortunately, in practice only female victims of domestic violence, but I have faith that we will make progress towards recognizing male victims as well] against the requirements of due process that prevent us from aiding and abetting crimes? Is there a policy change that can be made here that will work to improve that balance?

[Tahar Joblis]

But we have neighbors who say there was no domestic violence sounds from the apartment, and the women did not live there. Yes there might be reliability questions of the witnesses, but we also can not make the accused bear the burden of proof. Further the officer can not ignore the existence of evidence which the witnesses were. There most certainly enough contra indicators that the officer should have been required to investigate more before making an arrest. For instance call the land lord if it is a rental, find out how many people are on the lease.

What particularly irks me is the police asked the neighbors with the hopes they would collaborate the girl's story, and then ignored the neighbors when they did not.

Surprisingly low, most false arrest claims I worked on ( summer of 2011) normally demanded 1 million, given most of those were full of crap. The Pro Se would often write it and repeat it over and over again.

And exactly where are you getting that from?

Again, all we have is a line stating that the neighbors corroborated Mr. Lee's statement that she didn't live there.

The line states:

Lee, 45, insisted that all of those statements were false – which Lee's neighbors corroborated

This is a little vague, to say the least, and they would not necessarily have been able to hear a beating.

Granted, if they're the ones sharing a duplex/triplex with him, the walls in those houses are pretty thin and you do hear a lot, so it's quite possible that they asserted there was no beating with some measure of credibility, depending on what sort of neighbors they were, but she apparently whacked herself with something pretty hard repeatedly to produce the bruising.

[Tahar Joblis]

When that assumption contradicted the narrative you were trying to tell, yes. You were very quick indeed to point out that the neighbourhood wasn't composed mostly of Koreans, who might have been covering potential abuses up and necessitating an intervention by police.

Your racist implication, not mine, for the record. I figure objecting to the premise vitiates the need to address the implicit claim.

Again, I fucking lived there for a year, and I can tell you what the neighborhood is like.

It is better in this case, in my mind, to act to protect a victim of alleged assault and remove the suspect from the scene and face the consequences later than to not act and allow potential abuse or worse to continue.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," said Blackstone. Franklin upgraded to one hundred.

The Old Testament, generally not the most forgiving work, says that God agrees to spare Sodom if there are ten righteous out of the entire urban population. Considering this is the same deity that's seen throwing hissy fits for a variety of patently ridiculous reasons, that's really quite a remarkable standard for not punishing the innocent.

However, I do buy into the idea that punishing the innocent is worse than letting the guilty go free, and I don't buy into the conception that the suffering of men is as nothing next to the suffering of women.

As I pointed out, you are engaging in a rather significant conflation: Protection of the victim and punishment of the suspect are only loosely linked acts. The options are not solely between punishment and inaction; we have a wide array of positive actions available to us.

[Tahar Joblis]

I think the best standard operating procedure in cases of domestic violence is to prevent any harm coming to anyone - man or woman.

Though I think you may have the actual motive for the standard operating procedure correct - preventing harm coming to women. The problem with that is that men and women are equally likely to act maliciously, which means that if we persistently just arrest men and leave women alone, we enable maliciousness by women, as in this case.

This woman was apparently able to rely on the standard procedures of the police to steal men blind. When the bad 'uns are able to use the force of the state as a bludgeon against innocents, there's something wrong with policy somewhere.

I'm not actually quite sure what we would be able to do, policy-wise; only one of the couple showed signs of injury.

We get it, we get it. You have an ax to grind, and you'll trot out anything to fulfill your little jihad.

Here's the problem. She's accusing him of domestic violence, and she appears to have the marks of it. He's telling a story about how he doesn't know this woman. Sure, you'd like to believe him, but perps tell ridiculous lies all the time.

But then there are the neighbors.

So, the correct call in that situation was to get the alleged abuser away from the person making the complaint, because this is serious business.

Had the inverse occurred, and the police followed their protocols, the same exact thing would have occurred.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure of that. I haven't looked up the Irvine PD's record on the matter, but a lot of police have had a de facto policy of arresting the man given a report of domestic violence even if he shows signs of having had physical violence inflicted on them, or of laughing off men making reports of domestic violence.

My money would be on them actually taking the call seriously. Damn, you're restoring my faith in the Irvine PD. I mean, I'm told they pay homeless people to take buses out of town and tell them they'll have hell to pay if they show back up in town, but I do think they would take a domestic violence call from a man, if even just out of boredom.

But somehow, this incident is proof positive that the MRAs are rights, and there's a systematic oppression of men.

This incident is proof positive that someone has been abusing the way that police are very quick to arrest men and take them away for a night or two given a domestic violence complaint, in a totally unexpected way that MRAs have not been generally talking about.

EDIT: Well, not even quite proof positive. Call it proof probable and proof of concept, because we've seen it can work. Her trial is just about to start, and I'll twig to the possibility she's innocent of the charges.

[NERVUN]

Because the police have magic powers amiright? Please, the system worked as it should have. Given the OTHER arrest warrants, it would seem as if other jurisdictions were aware that something was wrong as was looking for her.

And in those other jurisdictions, the glass hit the floor. The police figured out too late that she had used them as accomplices to her thefts.

My God man, you have concluded that the police were unable to stop a crime before it took place do to her using false IDs!

Absolutely brilliant Sherlock! Now, where'd she hide the crown jewels?

Not really, I'm refusing to answer your primrose path'd question.

Well, it's good that I dealt with either possible answer, then, isn't it?

The world doesn't spin according to you.

Baloney, you are still assuming so.

The odds that the neighbors were Korean is very low. You assumed that they were Korean and in a Korean neighborhood. I bloody well lived in that neighborhood, and I'm accurately representing the odds that multiple neighbors, talking to the police, would be a bunch of Koreans, let alone a bunch of Koreans feeling obliged to maintain some cultural code of silence when a Korean police officer is questioning them. Again, less than one percent. Low enough that your assumption was a very clearly bad one, and that therefore, you need to consider my question: Considering that the "community" bit of your statement was based on an incorrect premise, does your answer change?

Remember, I lived in that neighborhood and I know how real estate works in Irvine. [Which does have its freaky local curlicues, by the way.] So, I recommend you move along to admitting you made a crap assumption and answering my question.

No, I will admit that you still want to make it how you want to make it for your own personal reasons to prove your usual "Look how badly men are treated" motif which is all that you bloody do on NSG now-a-days. Point blank, you and I both don't know unless you happen to have lived next to him yourself, which you admittedly haven't.

So no, we DON'T know how many neighbors (Your article doesn't say),

It uses a plural noun. So two or more.

That's the best you can do? Ok, at least two people, still doesn't answer the other issues.

what cultural background (Your article doesn't say), their connection with the victim (Your article doesn't say, it could very well be they are the closest of friends, or maybe it was 'Yeah, I see him take the garbage out sometimes'), all of these add up to how credible they would be to the police officer in question when confronted by a woman showing signs of DV (Something you keep ignoring).

The Irvine PD has claimed, after the fact, that her credibility was suspected by the police officer immediately.

I've explained why I'm a little dubious of that fact - they reacted with about the same speed as if they hadn't suspected a thing until the burglary was reported, and it takes [my lovely lesson for today] an average of 27 minutes for police to run fingerprints through the system.

Right, so according to the sources I linked to above, first the officer took a look in the database when he returned to the station for her IDs (He does have to book Mr. Lee, I'm assuming we're talking a bit of time here) after finding the stolen identity, he proceeds to view it as not quite right and returns to confront her, getting her cover story about cosmetic surgery. THEN he can get her fingerprints and run them.

All at night.

Of course, I suppose you think this should happen in 45 minutes ala CSI as well?

Ah, ok, now see this is where you are also ignoring the facts of the case. You have a woman claiming that she has been living with the individual for over a month and is pregnant. That would make it her domicile,

If such a claim is true. Which there was absolutely no evidence for, and which claims were contested by both the documented legal resident of the house and the neighbors.

Again, believably of the cover story. It does happen. The officer has a believable story as to why she doesn't have an ID on her at the time.

The officer had, in other words, only her word that she had any legal right to the house.

And, as you keep ignoring in the hopes that it goes away, signs of physical violence.

so your take on it here would be that DV victims should be taken out of the house and placed elsewhere as opposed to removing the actual perp. Again, we lack any kind of ability to judge the credibility of the neighbors in knowing about this situation.

No, that would be putting words in my mouth. I haven't made any great big statements of what ought to be done in DV cases in general.

I have stated that this raises a question about what should be done when one party doesn't have a clear legal claim to access to a property.

Again, physical evidence of violence done recently. Now... call me crazy, but usually protecting a person from harm take precedence over protecting someone's stuff.

So in the middle of a DV case, when we have someone, again, showing signs consistent with DV, the police's first response should NOT be to see to the health and safety of the supposed victim

If she's hurt bad, that involves medical attention, and quite possibly removing her to somewhere else to receive care.

Put some ice on it and hope he doesn't hit you again does not strike me as an acceptable suggestion.

At the point when the police officer arrived, there was no violence in progress; i.e., no imminent danger.

Oh you've got to be kidding me. Show me, anywhere, where imminent danger requires someone actually going after someone.

Wait! I know! This shows that President Bush was ok in ignoring or downplaying intelligence stating that Osama was determined to strike at the US, after all, the planes weren't in the air so there was no imminent danger!

but to run her ID to check, just in case, for a con that one supposes would be very rare, given that I at least, have never heard of a burglary being committed in such a fashion.

He did attempt to identify her, and - if we are to believe what we read in the newspaper - asked the neighbors. Looked up the identity she was borrowing for the occasion. Took fingerprints.

Yes, because something didn't ring right. Again though, the idea is protecting people lives.

Did I mention my experience with the Irvine PD? Yes, I did. Previous page. They love making a fuss over ID. The thing is, though, after having made all that fuss, they barred the actual owner of the house from going near it, made a presumption of legal residence based solely on the testimony of a woman whose identity was not confirmed, and became unwitting accomplices to burglary.

Ah yes, because all things are always equal, right?

Seriously, you're supposed to be the math expert, what are the probabilities for this one?

Of a false and malicious accusation, or of one specifically motivated by burglary?

The former is non-trivial, even if the latter is.

The question you should be asking, though, isn't the probability that a woman will make a false and malicious DV report. It's the contingent probability that she has no claim to the domicile or malicious intentions given that the person she's accusing denies her claimed identity, claimed relationship, claimed status, and claimed residence.

I never slept with her, the kid ain't mine!

Again, physical evidence consistent with DV trumps everything else.

IF she had called and there was no evidence, I would be in agreement, but in this case, yes, the officer had plenty to go on that here was a situation where someone could have been in danger had their attacker been allowed to stay. Better safe than sorry.

How many cases have you heard of where someone filing a domestic violence complaint is accused of having engaged in having fabricated everything - not simply the act of violence, but their identity, their claims to having been resident, et cetera et cetera?

I rather doubt it's a large number of cases in the divisor here.

Which is why it is ludicrous to assume the officer should have been suspicious of something so improvable.

Now, I think it has become clear what the central issue is here: How do we balance our desire to help and protect victims of domestic violence [unfortunately, in practice only female victims of domestic violence, but I have faith that we will make progress towards recognizing male victims as well] against the requirements of due process that prevent us from aiding and abetting crimes? Is there a policy change that can be made here that will work to improve that balance?

Is it even a problem? We have A single case here. A, that's not a significant number.

[Cannot think of a name]

They didn't look for mail addressed to her or something that would establish residency? Since the dude was saying she didn't even live there then wouldn't it have been reasonable to take her somewhere else, thus removing her from any potential temporary danger while still not handing over the house keys to someone who has no evidence of actually living there?

You can protect the assumed victim of domestic violence and still take the matter seriously without immediately condemning the accused.

[Avenio]

Your racist implication, not mine, for the record. I figure objecting to the premise vitiates the need to address the implicit claim.

NERVUN pointed that out the East Asian cultural attitude towards domestic abuse and you didn't question it.

The race card is a classy move, though, I have to admit.

Again, I fucking lived there for a year, and I can tell you what the neighborhood is like.

And yet you didn't in the OP. Curious.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," said Blackstone. Franklin upgraded to one hundred.

The Old Testament, generally not the most forgiving work, says that God agrees to spare Sodom if there are ten righteous out of the entire urban population. Considering this is the same deity that's seen throwing hissy fits for a variety of patently ridiculous reasons, that's really quite a remarkable standard for not punishing the innocent.

However, I do buy into the idea that punishing the innocent is worse than letting the guilty go free,

I'm more of a utilitarian myself. The potential harm caused by arresting the man was outweighed by the potential harm caused by allowing the potential abuse to go on. Hence the arrest was justified, given the circumstances.

and I don't buy into the conception that the suffering of men is as nothing next to the suffering of women.

Ah, and here it is. Nice to have it in the open for once. It would have saved us a fair bit of trouble if you had just stated it from the get-go, rather than go through this song and dance about your scenario.

As I pointed out, you are engaging in a rather significant conflation: Protection of the victim and punishment of the suspect are only loosely linked acts. The options are not solely between punishment and inaction; we have a wide array of positive actions available to us.

And I agree, for the most part. Had the officers involved known what we do now about the case, they probably would have acted very differently.

Unfortunately, they had to operate under ambiguous conditions, and had to make a choice to try and stop a potential domestic abuse situation. Given everything they knew at the heat of the moment, they made the right one.

[Forsher]

Quite simply they should have found some alternative means of identification, arrested the "guilty" party and placed an eye on the "victim" to make sure things were under control. Maybe searched the "criminal's" stuff to find the ID because he's been accused of theft. How it panned out reveals altogether too much trust but that's in hindsight, the response is understandable but there should have been a better attempt to identify the woman (passport or something, a bill even).