Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Unfair To Men
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/vawa-heritage-freedomworks-unfair-men.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
In a blog post, FreedomWorks criticized the cost of the legislation — $660 million — and pointed out that domestic violence is “already illegal in all 50 states.” It added: “Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back.”
Claiming that the reauthorization would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “emotional distress,” Heritage declared that the “expansive and vague language will increase fraud and false allegations, for which there is no legal recourse.”
“Under VAWA, men effectively lose their constitutional rights to due process, presumption of innocence, equal treatment under the law, the right to a fair trial and to confront one’s accusers, the right to bear arms, and all custody/visitation rights,” the group wrote. “It is unprecedented, unnecessary and dangerous.”
FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men.
“The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence,” the organization wrote. “A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn’t the same thing as violence towards her.”
True.
Side Score: 13
|
 |
Wait..., what? No!!!
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
...causes her any emotional distress, If she causes him emotional distress, no one would persecute her ...or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Just simply annoys her? That's the sixth stupidest thing I've ever hear in my entire life Side: True.
1
point
Don't get me wrong, I love women. As a matter of fact, many of the people I love happen to be women. Even my own mother is a woman. Also, my wife is a woman. My daughters are girls but they will eventually grow up to be women. Now...., I agree, 100%, that there's no reason for a man to hit a woman (except in self defense). But having said that, every time a woman claims to have gotten smacked, isn't there a little voice in the back of your head going, "Hmmm, I wonder what she did to piss him off?" Sure, it's politically incorrect to utter those words but still..., don't you ever wonder ;) Side: True.
That's not really a fair assessment of the situation. If for instance a 300lb lineman for a professional football team decided to abuse me, I for one would not be able to stop him with an arm lock regardless of the training I had. I could probably run from a 300 lb man, but what if I couldn't? Usually these cases are something like this. Usually no amount of kung fu is going to allow her to overpower him and he's faster anyway. That is not how these things work though. There's an element of psychological abuse that slowly over time takes the will to fight away. Over time it even convinces them that doing nothing is better than doing something, "because then he'll get really mad." I'm 100% for very strict laws against this and giving law enforcement the ability to put more people who do this in jail. It's very hard to arrest a husband or a boyfriend in most states if when you get there the bleeding and crying women says "No, it's okay, it was my fault" which she almost always does, because of the psychological aspect of long term abuse. I'm not for the ability to arrest based on words only though. It should be based on physical abuse, but it should be easier to arrest them based on this. Side: True.
It takes training, but you can use someone's stregnth against them and quickly incapacitate them. You just need to remember how, and practice and practice... Martial arts really help with confidence in your abilities too. I'm all for everyone having access to this from a young age, I think everyone should be capable of defending themselves. Muscle is not always the advantage, but speed and accuracy is. Side: True.
1
point
That's not really a fair assessment of the situation. If for instance a 300lb lineman for a professional football team decided to abuse me, I for one would not be able to stop him with an arm lock regardless of the training I had. I could probably run from a 300 lb man, but what if I couldn't? I don't really want to get involved, but seriously, have you ever seen a martial arts instructor? Obviously you haven't, you might want to, seeing a 5'5'' man take down an opponent a foot taller than him might change your mind. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Yeah, you can't arrest someone for saying stuff no matter how big a dick he is. It should be easier to arrest a husband or a boyfriend for physical abuse though, and to do so without the other's consent because long term abuse makes it too difficult for them to speak out against the person in question. Nevada does a descent job, they could do better I'm sure but any sign of abuse and the officer can arrest the guy on the spot (or the girl for that matter) they don't need the word of the other person. If there is a domestic violence call even from a neighbor they don't need permission to enter, they can bust in like gangbusters. I like it. It probably saves a lot of lives. Those relationships usually end very tragically. Side: True.
You can't trust anything Joe describes. On a spin rating from 1-10 he's a 10 on the far far right. I've no doubt he's completely misrepresented what the law actually says. I think I made my actual stance on the subject fairly apparent in one of the replies here. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
Nevada does a descent job, they could do better I'm sure but any sign of abuse and the officer can arrest the guy on the spot (or the girl for that matter) they don't need the word of the other person. You see, the problem with this is, it is 100% up to interpretation. One cop may see a man giving their partner a shove as a sign of abuse. One cop may see a man giving their wife some nasty remark as abuse. One cop may see a man not holding the door open for their wife as abuse. (this could all go the other way ex: a wife abusing their husband, a husband abusing their husband, a wife abusing their wife) Its like probable cause for drugs. Some cops consider things like smell and red eyes to be probable cause for searching your property. Some cops consider having a t-shirt or bumper sticker for certain bands as probable cause for searching your property. Some cops are reasonable sane people, some are crazy and some are just assholes. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
You see, the problem with this is, it is 100% up to interpretation. No it isn't. There has to be physical signs of abuse as well as an initial call that there has been abuse. Even then the accused has a day in court. One cop may see a man not holding the door open for their wife as abuse. He could, but would be fired for wasting time and being an idiot. And charges would be dropped and probably metro sued. this could all go the other way ex: a wife abusing their husband, a husband abusing their husband, a wife abusing their wife Glad you brought that up. This is some of what the actual bill now addresses. As suspected Joe's description was completely false. Its like probable cause for drugs. Some cops consider things like smell and red eyes to be probable cause for searching your property. Some cops consider having a t-shirt or bumper sticker for certain bands as probable cause for searching your property. Some cops are reasonable sane people, some are crazy and some are just assholes. No it isn't. People are hurting others besides themselves where there is domestic violence. It is not the same at all. Side: True.
|
Ah, as suspected Joe is being a right wing ass. The bill is basically the same as previous bills but includes closing loopholes like allowing law enforcement to now arrest someone who goes to a reservation to beet up a chick, then leaving immune to punishment since due to jurisdiction issues includes measures to allow enforcement to stop domestic abuse in between gay couples. It's not any stricter or more vague, it just closes loopholes. If anything it is more specific. Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1
point
|
