Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them

[Dave_L]

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/21062

Domestic violence can include: (Source SD)

Physical Violence

• pushing, shoving, slapping, biting, kicking, choking, pinching, pulling hair, hitting, grabbing, beating
• stabbing, shooting
• purposely locking out of the house
• abandoning in dangerous places
• throwing objects
• destruction of property
• subjecting to reckless driving
• threatening with a weapon
• refusing victim help while sick or pregnant
• any physical restraint
• purposely cutting off victim’s hair
• use of any object to inflict pain, punishment, or to intimidate

Sexual Abuse

• telling anti-women, homophobic jokes to humiliate, embarrass, intimidate, or hurt
• forcing sex
• rape
• unwanted fondling and touching
• ritual abuse
• sexual innuendos
• accusation of promiscuity or infidelity
• forcing victim to dress in a more sexual way than is comfortable for her/him
• forcing victim to strip or perform other sexual acts
• forcing sex while others watch, or with objects, or after beatings
• using sex to bargain or withhold for punishment or manipulation

Emotional Abuse

• ignoring emotionally
• yelling at for small actions
• calling victim names, using put downs, demeaning
• constantly over-criticizing or telling victim she/he is fat, ugly, stupid
• telling victim she/he cannot do certain things well
• threatening
• harassing
• isolating from friends and family, forbidding to socialize, drive, work, or make certain decisions
• threatening suicide or homicide
• threatening abandonment, kidnapping of children, calling social services or law enforcement, outing, hurting family, friends, and/or pets
• manipulating with lies and contradictions
• punishing by withholding affection or appreciation
• not encouraging victim to build self-esteem
• little or no communication
• blaming
• humiliating in public or private
• stalking
• setting time limits
• preventing victim from leaving the house
• disconnecting the phone
• hiding the car keys
• preventing victim from going to a place of worship or from praying
• abusing a pet
• destroying victim's treasures

Economic Abuse

• taking all the money from a joint account
• stealing joint property or possessions
• withholding money
• forbidding victim to work
• forcing victim to ask for money
• not allowing access to any financial documents
• not allowing any input into financial decisions
• not allowing any control over or access to money, financial statements, and documents
• requiring receipts and exact change for financial transactions
• ruining victim’s credit
• forcing victim to work while partner refuses to
• requiring victim to turn over every paycheck to partner
• preventing victim from getting or keeping a job (including not providing agreed upon childcare or transportation, or destroying work clothes/uniforms)
• harassing victim at work
• refusing to pay child support

A lot of that seems like hogwash but I don't know. That's just what a quick search produced.

[davsel]

Ugh. Okay. Exactly what statute would have been violated in this?

And, as a side note: There is no actual criminal violation called 'Domestic Violence'; it is a definition and a sentence enhancer based upon the definition and a violation of some relevant state statute. Example: C.R.S. 18-3-204 is Assault in the 3rd Degree, a class 1 Misdemeanor. Can be charged if two people get into an altercation. If that altercation is between parties as defined in C.R.S. 18-6-800.3, then after 18-3-204 is placed on the Probable Cause statement and booking sheet, 18-6-800.3 is added with the statement, "An Act of Domestic Violence".

Really do not want to get into a legal pissing contest. You surely know more than I in this area. I am just going off what the LE officers, attorneys, judges, and DV prevention instructors told me.

As explained to me, any form of perceived intimidation falls under the definition of Domestic Violence. If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply - got me a PRO.

I believe most people think it only applies to hands-on activity. I just want to inform others that it is actually a much broader subjective definition, and they should be very careful.

[OneGuy67]

Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.

[davsel]

Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.

I'm going to go with:
What is 18-3-206. Menacing, Alex?

[Dave_L]

Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.

I understand. This is why it's good to be having this conversation. There's A LOT of misinformation out there. Davsel mentioned that it pertains to intimidation, not just physical abuse. Is that correct or not? This is the stuff I want to know. So please give me correct info so I don't look like a 'tard if some crazy lady accuses me of something in the future.

[Great-Kazoo]

And that was from a shooting that I understood to happen in front of cop cars...... With cameras (I assumed because I was/am not sure but I hope is the case)......Where I agreed that the cops acted correctly.... The guy there was committing suicide by cop...... He was wrong... Flat out..... And.....this has what to do with cops busting down an unarmed guys door to his home with family and kids around, getting tazzed while he is holding a camera... I missed something here.

One case I agree with the cops actions the other I don't.... What is the point?

EXACTLY. You're beating a dead horse arguing over semantics. Until the LE's entered the home, it was not known if there was a gun, other weapon, potential body[s] etc. Are there some LE's who take it to the extreme, YES. Are there people who know little if anything at all [first hand] how LE's respond to calls, YES. Rolling up on a scene with nothing outside the call leaves you to think on your feet. There are no cookie cutter responses for every call.

HOWEVER you have gone beyond making your point and now sound like NYNCO defending his voting [broken] record. Move on, or start your own LE bashing thread.

AM TOO, ARE NOT, AM TOO

[OneGuy67]

As explained to me, any form of perceived intimidation falls under the definition of Domestic Violence. If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply - got me a PRO.

Ugh. Once again, let's talk statute. If you are arrested, you needed to have violated a statute, not a list, not a compiling of thoughts or beliefs.

1). If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-3-303 False Imprisonment may apply.

2). If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. I can't find an appropriate statute to apply to this, which is why I asked you for one.

3). If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-9-309 Telecommunications Crime may apply. Some jurisdictions charge 18-9-302 Wiretapping, which could be charged as a felony.

4). If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-4-501 Criminal Mischief will apply.

5). If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-9-111 Harassment may apply, depending upon the specificity of the statements.

6). If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply. C.R.S. 18-4-501 Criminal Mischief may apply; however, there is the Patrick Waugh defense on this part. If one is to destroy their own property, it isn't considered an act of DV under this statute. It might be charged under a different statute. And let me say, I have personal knowledge to this defense.

It doesn't take much to get a Temporary Restraining Order, nor does it take much more to get a Permanent Restraining Order, especially if the served person doesn't fight it.

So, you can see that it is a VIOLATION of statute that applies, not a violation of a list found using Google. When the officer arrests you, it is because he/she has probable cause to believe you have violated a state statute and they will need to articulate that violation in the probable cause statement.

[davsel]

OneGuy67,

Understood.
I should not have used the terms "DV crime," or "committed DV."

I was never arrested or charged with any crime, just got hammered with a PPO (previously mis-stated PRO) because she "was afraid of me."

And, while on the subject, gun owners should know that you cannot possess firearms with a Protective Order against you. If you get a Permanent Protective Order against you, it means for life. The protected party can remove it at will, but you must wait 4 years before being allowed to have another hearing. If you lose that hearing, 4 more years. It ain't no joke, and divorce attorney's seem to push for it.

Again, be careful who you trust. It does not take much to get yourself in a bind for a long time. If you do find yourself facing a possible Protective Order, get the best damn attorney you can afford.

[OneGuy67]

OneGuy67,

Understood.
I should not have used the terms "DV crime," or "committed DV."

I was never arrested or charged with any crime, just got hammered with a PPO (previously mis-stated PRO) because she "was afraid of me."

And, while on the subject, gun owners should know that you cannot possess firearms with a Protective Order against you. If you get a Permanent Protective Order against you, it means for life. The protected party can remove it at will, but you must wait 4 years before being allowed to have another hearing. If you lose that hearing, 4 more years. It ain't no joke, and divorce attorney's seem to push for it.

Again, be careful who you trust. It does not take much to get yourself in a bind for a long time. If you do find yourself facing a possible Protective Order, get the best damn attorney you can afford.

Peace brother.

You are correct that Protection Orders will have a detriment effect on your ability to possess firearms, that can be obtained at the drop of a hat. There isn't a judge in this country that wants to be the first judge to deny a TPO and the victim gets killed. So, all TPO's will be given with an additional hearing at a later point in order to have the Restrained Party have the ability to make an argument against it.

[spyder]

Absolutely not. It is a complete fabrication. And I can't imagine where that rumor ever came from. Thanks to the internet though, the lie lives on.

I've actually heard it a lot from most people, actually about everyone I've ever talked with about a DV case. This is literally the first time I've heard that it was false. I've always wondered because of my particular case. Now I know.

You've gone full retard, dude. Never go full retard.

^ This was friggen funny.

Anybody else notice how liberally Bailey throws around "Stupid"? If you don't agree with him or the cops point of view....

In Bailey's America, only cops know the secret sauce. The rest of us are stupid for even asking.

Did you ever think that maybe he's trying to calmly tell you how it is in the real world, how things actually work, and not the happy magical land everyone would love their arguments to work in? You can fight all day long about how you wish it were, or hope it would be, but Bailey is arguing about how it is. This is really reminding me of arguing with liberals (how things are, vs how they wish things were).

Yeah, and I explained the difference between ignorant and stupid. That probably went over your head, too.

You've really stayed in this, I'm surprised. Now, I really really want someone to take a camcorder, and test this theory out. Seriously, have your friend call in a DV on you and your wife, and try your theory out. This should be another nice youtube video..... As your smart ass is getting it handed to you, I want you to call out "this is for you spyder!"