Yet Another Outrageous Act From The Chief Nitwit

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:16:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"jeff miller" wrote in message
...
wrote:


But no jurisdiction makes it practice
to make a "tactical, storm trooper" response to _all_ domestic calls.


And I'd agree that _some_ cases get out of hand, and in some cases,
arrests probably aren't the best thing to have happen. But that still
doesn't translate into _all_.

TC,
R



all DOMESTIC VIOLENCE... (hint) VIOLENCE...complaints. ... here, it's
_all_.

jeff

I'd have to back Jeff up on this one, from the cops I know around here. ANY
report of domestic violence in rural Berks county gets not one, but two
squad cars with a total of 4 officers.

See my response to jeff.

No matter if either party or both
refuse to file a complaint, if blood is drawn, the other party goes to
jail(24 hours before bond hearing here), no ifs, ands or buts. I think this
might be typical of most jurisdictions, in this day and age.

That's a law, not a mandated policy response to a call. IOW, even if
the parties are calm and cooperative when LE gets there, whether one or
42 cops show up, the cops are legally required to haul one or both in.
And it has nothing to do with protecting the cops or attempting to
direct the response by LE, but rather, a protection of the victim (or
supposed "victim," as the case may be).

TC,
R
Tom

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:16:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"jeff miller" wrote in message
t...

wrote:


But no jurisdiction makes it practice
to make a "tactical, storm trooper" response to _all_ domestic calls.

And I'd agree that _some_ cases get out of hand, and in some cases,
arrests probably aren't the best thing to have happen. But that still
doesn't translate into _all_.

TC,
R



all DOMESTIC VIOLENCE... (hint) VIOLENCE...complaints. ... here, it's
_all_.

jeff

I'd have to back Jeff up on this one, from the cops I know around here. ANY
report of domestic violence in rural Berks county gets not one, but two
squad cars with a total of 4 officers.


See my response to jeff.


No matter if either party or both
refuse to file a complaint, if blood is drawn, the other party goes to
jail(24 hours before bond hearing here), no ifs, ands or buts. I think this
might be typical of most jurisdictions, in this day and age.


That's a law, not a mandated policy response to a call. IOW, even if
the parties are calm and cooperative when LE gets there, whether one or
42 cops show up, the cops are legally required to haul one or both in.
And it has nothing to do with protecting the cops or attempting to
direct the response by LE, but rather, a protection of the victim (or
supposed "victim," as the case may be).

TC,
R

nope...you're wrong as far as what happens here. the response methods
are agency procedure/policy, and not mandated by any statute. No
statute requires 4 officers or 2 squad cars. Nor is the officer
required to charge or arrest anybody, unless he/she sees a crime being
committed (usually involves misdemeanors)or is provided sufficient
evidence of a crime that warrants an arrest. In fact, in many
non-domestic affrays, with similar conduct involved, arrests are less
common. Lots of discretion involved.

jeff
of course, i have no experience in NO or Miss.

"jeff miller" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:


Oh, that sententious caviling were a medal event!


uh...it hasn't been said in quite a while...but that is sublimely
hilarious!!

Thanks.....but a punch line is only as good as the joke to which it is
appended.

Wolfgang

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:07:52 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:16:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"jeff miller" wrote in message
et...

wrote:


But no jurisdiction makes it practice
to make a "tactical, storm trooper" response to _all_ domestic calls.

And I'd agree that _some_ cases get out of hand, and in some cases,
arrests probably aren't the best thing to have happen. But that still
doesn't translate into _all_.

TC,
R



all DOMESTIC VIOLENCE... (hint) VIOLENCE...complaints. ... here, it's
_all_.

jeff

I'd have to back Jeff up on this one, from the cops I know around here. ANY
report of domestic violence in rural Berks county gets not one, but two
squad cars with a total of 4 officers.


See my response to jeff.


No matter if either party or both
refuse to file a complaint, if blood is drawn, the other party goes to
jail(24 hours before bond hearing here), no ifs, ands or buts. I think this
might be typical of most jurisdictions, in this day and age.


That's a law, not a mandated policy response to a call. IOW, even if
the parties are calm and cooperative when LE gets there, whether one or
42 cops show up, the cops are legally required to haul one or both in.
And it has nothing to do with protecting the cops or attempting to
direct the response by LE, but rather, a protection of the victim (or
supposed "victim," as the case may be).

TC,
R

nope...you're wrong as far as what happens here.

I think we're getting off the track here (surprise, surprise...), and
you may be misreading my response combined with Tom's. I'm not
commenting, and nor does it appear Tom is commenting, on what happens in
NC, but rather, what happens (apparently by law) in PA (and in other
jurisdictions) with regard to mandatory arrests on "domestic violence."


the response methods
are agency procedure/policy, and not mandated by any statute. No
statute requires 4 officers or 2 squad cars.

Which is what I was differentiating.

Nor is the officer
required to charge or arrest anybody, unless he/she sees a crime being
committed (usually involves misdemeanors)or is provided sufficient
evidence of a crime that warrants an arrest.

Now that is some interesting wording - does NC (or local jurisdiction)
not consider marking, bruising, blood, etc. evidence of a crime that
warrants an arrest? Frankly, I'm in favor of allowing a fair amount of
officer (and prosecutorial and judicial) discretion in all matters, but
your wording seems, well, slightly at odds with such in domestic cases.

In fact, in many
non-domestic affrays, with similar conduct involved, arrests are less
common. Lots of discretion involved.

See above.

jeff
of course, i have no experience in NO or Miss.

TC,
R

wrote:

Nor is the officer
required to charge or arrest anybody, unless he/she sees a crime being
committed (usually involves misdemeanors)or is provided sufficient
evidence of a crime that warrants an arrest.


Now that is some interesting wording - does NC (or local jurisdiction)
not consider marking, bruising, blood, etc. evidence of a crime that
warrants an arrest?

ok, i'll play and parse nits...sure, it might be evidence of a crime
that warrants an arrest, but you know it's not always evidence that a
crime was committed. if husband makes a show of force at wife, placing
her in fear of imminent bodily harm, and she strikes him in the mouth to
repel him, and his lip is bloodied, and the officer shows up 20 minutes
later...who does he believe and who does he arrest and what is the
evidence he should accept to justify the arrest? should he arrest
somebody? or, should he explain he doesn't know who is being truthful
and tell each of them they can go see a magistrate if they want to
pursue the matter?

my point is (and was) that there is no statute dictating leo
policy/procedure for tactical squad approach to domestic violence
complaints, or that requires an arrest. from my reading, you seemed to
say otherwise.

officers, prosecutors, and judges have a boatload of discretion...that
is a problem, because they sometimes abuse that discretion. they arrest
when not necessary or justified, and they don't when they should. i
know it can be a tough call for them (but that's why they get paid the
big bucks! g)


Frankly, I'm in favor of allowing a fair amount of
officer (and prosecutorial and judicial) discretion in all matters, but
your wording seems, well, slightly at odds with such in domestic cases.


me too, within limits that can be reasonably and rationally articulated
and justified (which i think is what you mean by "fair amount" of
discretion). ...or else there would be that problem with the rule of law
thingy.

jeff