I understand how domestic violence victims are conditioned to be victims. But you know what? If that’s how they’re gonna be, they’re beyond help, and I still need to get up in the morning. I’m not obligated to constantly be disturbed by their drama.
A domestic abuse victim can get over it given the right help. Shelters are not great and fairly scary to seek help from for some. Being able to move isn’t particularly indicative of anything. Leaving, moving, finding a safe place for kids while getting and enforcing a restraining order takes a ton of time–not to mention going through a divorce if you’re married.
If the victim had a low paying job, it’s likely this time and effort will amount to unemployment. Many male abusers make sure the woman doesn’t have a job so she can’t easily be independent.
Many victims need to take baby steps to finally leave. Abusers are excellent at cutting off support systems and destroying the victim’s self esteem and belief that he/she can get out or deserves to get out. Add that to the fact it usually takes several times of leaving for it to finally stick and the remaining support system tends to disappear since the victim keeps going back. Kinda’ like the frustrated people here.
The frustration that the victim won’t leave or keeps going back is understandable. However, there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of real understanding about why the person keeps going back.
Yeah, I don’t see this as the Law being an Ass; I see this as the law trying to protect the other tenants from having to live near multiple instances of domestic violence, which can be annoying, scary, and possibly dangerous to them. It may, possibly, be a bad law because of the unintended consequences of discouraging victims from calling for protection. The story in the OP made me wonder how the boyfriend (who I’ll bet was neither boyish nor friendly: discuss) was allowed to keep coming back and attacking over and over.
I’m just not going to argue with that statement. They do however have a valid point.
[QUOTE=Inner Stickler]
[snip]That landlord is a dick. A good businessman, maybe, but still a dick.
[/Quote]
Not just a businessman but also an investor. If he should incur large penalties or lose his license due to not abiding by local ordnance then he’s no longer in business. Whether or not he’s a dick becomes a moot point.
My guess is that the dicks stay in business longer than the warm compassionate landlords that let the domestic violence situations live under their roof.
Who am I supposed to be mad at?
I mean, the abusive husband is a gimme but I the impression the OP thinks I should be mad at someone else.
What’s the morally correct course of action for the landlord? Get a shotgun and blow the boyfriend away?
A lot of people don’t realize that the neighbors of the camps were the true victims of the Holocaust. Having to listen to so much suffering can be a real drag.
I feel sorry for perpetual victims of domestic violence the same way I feel sorry for fall-down drunk alcoholics. But just like I don’t want a fall down drunk alcoholic passed out in the courtyard of a residential building we manage I don’t want the many other paying customers in that same residential building to persistently and repeatedly lose the quiet enjoyment of their home due to domestic violence.
Generally, landlords are not equipped to solve domestic violence, but we are equipped to take action when one set of tenants denies other tenants at a property the quiet enjoyment of their home. Especially when it is strengthened with local ordinance, as it appears to be here.
As a human being I’d love it if I could wave a wand and “save” that woman in the story from her abuser. But this is the real world, and whatever problem that has lead to her being a victim, it’s not something a land lord is equipped to fix. Since she allows the situation to continue there is no way to provide relief for the rest of the tenants without legally removing both of them from the property.
And naive in the extreme. It’s taking longer than we thought, indeed.
But yeah, I hate it when I hear people getting continually beaten. It really harshes my buzz. Those victims need to stop being so selfish.
If only the victims had someone they could call. I don’t know, some sort of armed authorities trained to prevent this sort of thing. Too bad there is no such entity.
Does the guy live there? No? Then you’re not getting evicted. Stop making up shit to fit your agenda. Someone invades your space and you call the police does not equal ‘domestic disturbance’.
I shudder at the very idea that having ‘compassion’ and tolerating ongoing domestic abuse of another human are the same thing. There is no empathy that makes this tolerable, understandable, whatever.
Compassion and Empathy aren’t sitting back and leaving someone in the same situation, getting beaten and possibly killed just because doing something is uncomfortable or risks morons calling you ‘assholes’ and accusing you of being unsympathetic. The proper words for this kind of inaction are Fear and Cowardice.
Clinging vines, man. Clinging vines. (that’s an I Ching reference)
Am I the only one wondering why the boyfriend isn’t in jail?
I’m not really following your “logic” here. It’s OK for someone to break into your home and beat you as long as he doesn’t live there?
What the fuck dude? Stop blaming the victims already. It’s sickening.
I think the distinction Chimera is drawing is that if the man lives there or not. If they’re both tenants living there and have periodic instances of “incidents”, then they can be evicted because they are stuck in an infinite loop of peace, fighting, police calls, and then apologies. Something has to break that cycle, and that something is them getting evicted, both for the victim’s safety and the neighbors’ safety.
If the case is that the woman lives in the property by herself and the man is coming over, uninvited and attacking her, that’s not what the statute is meant to cover. You can’t evict someone from being a stalking victim. You can evict a couple who periodically have fights to the point that the cops show up and yet still keep on living together. At least I hope that’s how the statute is meant to be interpreted.
In many cases, getting a restraining order increases the chances of actual murder. Of course, if he would just go ahead and kill her then the neighbors wouldn’t be disturbed.
Yes but it has to be less than 3 times within a 4 month period.
What neighborhood, Odesio?
Now you’re an asshole, ignorant and wrong. In Texas you can be in a dating relationship and although called “dating violence” you still file for a domestic violence protective order. Although cohabitation is a factor, it is not necessary. If the victim’s child is the abuser’s cohabitation or marriage doesn’t matter. Calls re this would be a “domestic disturbance.”
A dating relationship (w/o cohabitation) is considered domestic abuse and a “domestic disturbance” in California
Re domestic abuse, Pennsylvania (where the offending ordinance exists), considers “current or former sexual or intimate partners” as “family or household members.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102. And, not surprisingly, such abuse is considered domestic violence. See, e.g., 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2711.
Need I go on? And yes, IME a call for domestic violence is a “domestic disturbance” which is backed up by California law and likely other states if defined in the penal code or elsewhere.
Bubba Dog, what point does this idiot have? That it’s sad and frustrating that victims often can’t help themselves without a lot of trying? That it would not be good to live next to a neighbor where this happens a great deal? That’s conceded and not what this dumbass is saying.
Apparently, it wasn’t even the woman calling the police. I am so not a fan of the ACLU, but I support removal or editing of this ordinance.
Kick out only the boyfriend, if he lives there. If not, refuse to allow him on his property. If boyfriend comes back, call the police for trespassing.
If the law is a problem, kick them both out, and then release with the woman only. If that’s not legally possible, work with the woman to find her somewhere else to live, perhaps even an abuse shelter. When a law inspires an immoral action, you work around said law. You don’t just throw up your hands and follow it.
You have a moral duty to deal with these sorts of things by doing the least harm possible. This landlord is forgoing his moral duty by causing harm to the victim as well as the abuser when he has other choices. That’s why people are upset with him.
And we are upset with the law for inspiring the landlord to do this.
What’s the deal with victims of abusive relationships? If they’re being abused, why don’t they just leave? Am I right? Get it together, people!