[US] Shut Up or Get Out: PA City Punishes Domestic Violence Victims

[Sagittaria]

After her first "strike," Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these "strikes," the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

That is some fucked up idea for justice they have there.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 03:49 PM ----------

Why in heck would she not kill him in self-defense one of the times she was stupid enough to let him back in?

Not all of us are just itching for an excuse to take a life.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 03:51 PM ----------

I'm more baffled by the fact that she was more terrified of calling the police, than leaving her abusive boyfriend. But at least she finally wised up and left him.

If abusive relationships are easy to get out of, there would be a lot less heartbreaking stories in the world.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 03:54 PM ----------

Not that I agree with the policy, the opposite in fact. It baffles me why a woman or a man would put them self in the position to have to call the police 3 times for domestic violence.

People do stupid things really. It's very easy to convince yourself that it won't happen again. Until it does. And again. And again.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Why in heck would she keep letting him back in? Why in heck would she not kill him in self-defense one of the times she was stupid enough to let him back in? Why in heck would any landlord keep such a foolish and self-destructive tenant? The police can't (nor is it their job to) solve a problem you willfully bring upon yourself time and time again.

wut

I think the real question is "Why did he get away with stabbing her in the neck?"

Seriously, this sort of law just makes people afraid to call police. People aren't going to change their behavior in any other way.

[lockedout]

And while that is inaccurate, it has nothing to do with this story. It's a bullshit rule for no reason. Almost as crazy as those "you can't eat ice cream on Sundays if the sky is overcast" laws. It's that stupid.

How is that inaccurate?
A police officer is there to arrest someone after a crime is committed.
He does not have to protect you.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

wut

I think the real question is "Why did he get away with stabbing her in the neck?"

Seriously, this sort of law just makes people afraid to call police. People aren't going to change their behavior in any other way.

It might be a state that doesn't have a zero tolerance if the victim ( the woman in this case) doesn;t decide to press charges. So, that could possibly have been a choice she made.

[steale]

If abusive relationships are easy to get out of, there would be a lot less heartbreaking stories in the world.

if smoking were easy to quit, there'd be a lot less lung cancer, but at the end of the day, nobody's putting a lit cigarette into my mouth but me.

[Deleted]

if smoking were easy to quit, there'd be a lot less lung cancer, but at the end of the day, nobody's putting a lit cigarette into my mouth but me.

Regardless, you ignore the simple but obvious fact that stopping such a behaviour is where the difficulty lies. If you have a nice simple solution to that which can be applied to everybody worldwide, then do share with the rest of the class.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Regardless, you ignore the simple but obvious fact that stopping such a behaviour is where the difficulty lies. If you have a nice simple solution to that which can be applied to everybody worldwide, then do share with the rest of the class.

You missed his point. The solution is pretty simple: Willpower is there is you want it.

Regardless, what are you saying? Her neighbors should just get over it, because she can't decide to say no to her abusive boyfriend?

[PizzaSHARK]

Regardless, you ignore the simple but obvious fact that stopping such a behaviour is where the difficulty lies. If you have a nice simple solution to that which can be applied to everybody worldwide, then do share with the rest of the class.

At what point do you draw the line? What happens if one of them goes for a gun, and the bullet passes through an interior wall and hits another tenant? You could easily say that's a preventable incident, by kicking problematic tenants (like repeated domestic violence situations) to the curb. I don't know if I directly support this kind of law, but I also think there's a certain point at which point it's not victim blaming, but instead getting rid of tenants that are repeatedly causing problems - I wouldn't see it as being much different than ridding your property of known drug users/dealers, or people who consistently become violent and/or aggressive with other tenants.

Especially in many cities, including the one mentioned in the original article, there are many non-profit or not-for-profit organizations that specifically deal with aiding women (and sometimes even men) who need shelter from abusive partners. If there is a recurring pattern - particularly an escalating one - among tenants, and they've repeatedly refused to accept aid being offered to them... isn't it their fault, by that point?

EDIT: Their fault in the sense of not doing something about the abuse, I mean. Not in the sense of "it's their fault they're being abused in the first place."

[Clevername]

So am I supposed to feel pity for a woman who stays in an abusive relationship or outrage towards an overworked police force that doesn't want to use their resources on idiots that will never learn or change their behavior?

I mean according to the article the police issued this warning to her after they had already responded to a domestic violence call for her and her asshole boyfriend. I mean how many times do you have to get hit / beat before you realize not to let the guy back in your house? We do have things like restraining orders here in the US. If the police have to spend all their resources responding to habitual offenders (like this guy with a victim that is obviously unwilling to help herself) then that ties them up for potential citizens who actually need their help.

I'm sorry she got hit and undoubtedly she didn't deserve it but once that happens if you go back to the scumbag, well then it's your own damn fault and not the responsibility of the police to clean up your constantly messy life.