Right. The officers violated the mandatory law that required that they arrest the person who turned out to be the victim in this matter. Again, you use “they.” There was no evidence in their possession that Laundrie had done a single thing wrong, so the idea that an arrest of him was even a remote possibility is not even on the table. With what should he have been charged, based upon the evidence in the possession of the officers on the scene?
Indeed. The mandatory arrest law harmed you, the victim, immeasurably. The law also took away your power of agency and treated you like a small child, unable to determine how to proceed with a terrible and abusive relationship. It took money out of your pocket.
Yes. Absolutely correct.
Same question as above. When they have no evidence, not even an accusation, that Laundrie committed an assault or battery, what should police officers do? They are powerless to even detain a person when there is no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. You can say that they should have had a better communication system so that the one accusation of Laundrie hitting her was passed to them, but that is more of a general criticism of any system and is not specific to domestic battery policy.
That is the part that astounds me. The officers were bad and need additional training because they could have prevented this…by arresting the victim! Instead of admitting that the laws are a sledgehammer hitting a fly in the best of circumstances, and cause absurd results in these situations, people are doubling down and saying that the law should have been enforced more strictly, even when presented with a specific absurd result.