HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Call police about domesti...

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:29 AM

 

Call police about domestic violence and get evicted

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Shut Up or Get Out: PA City Punishes Domestic Violence Victims Who Call the Police
ACLU


Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs' boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, "You are on three strikes. We're gonna have your landlord evict you."

Yes, that's right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown's "disorderly behavior ordinance," the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of "disorderly behavior" within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes "domestic disturbances" as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

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.


So, why stop at domestic violence? Child physical and sexual abuse should also be cause for eviction. After all, you are causing a nuisance when you report people beating and raping your kids.



80 replies, 7946 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Call police about domestic violence and get evicted (Original post)
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 OP
Drale Apr 2013 #1
politicat Apr 2013 #4
FarCenter Apr 2013 #7
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #9
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #73
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #75
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #78
kudzu22 Apr 2013 #2
R B Garr Apr 2013 #5
lapislzi Apr 2013 #10
CreekDog Apr 2013 #56
R B Garr Apr 2013 #70
CreekDog Apr 2013 #34
Solly Mack Apr 2013 #3
lapislzi Apr 2013 #6
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #8
MoonchildCA Apr 2013 #45
Gormy Cuss Apr 2013 #49
lapislzi Apr 2013 #52
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #11
Kelvin Mace Apr 2013 #12
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #16
CreekDog Apr 2013 #35
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #37
CreekDog Apr 2013 #39
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #41
CreekDog Apr 2013 #44
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #47
lapislzi Apr 2013 #50
CreekDog Apr 2013 #59
lapislzi Apr 2013 #64
CreekDog Apr 2013 #71
lapislzi Apr 2013 #74
KamaAina Apr 2013 #72
lapislzi Apr 2013 #77
CreekDog Apr 2013 #69
strategery blunder Apr 2013 #14
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #18
strategery blunder Apr 2013 #19
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #24
strategery blunder Apr 2013 #29
lapislzi Apr 2013 #15
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #17
lapislzi Apr 2013 #20
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #30
lapislzi Apr 2013 #33
noiretextatique Apr 2013 #22
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #25
lapislzi Apr 2013 #27
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #38
CreekDog Apr 2013 #61
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #65
noiretextatique Apr 2013 #79
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #80
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #21
lapislzi Apr 2013 #23
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #32
lapislzi Apr 2013 #36
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #26
lapislzi Apr 2013 #28
R B Garr Apr 2013 #51
lapislzi Apr 2013 #53
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #57
lapislzi Apr 2013 #60
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #62
lapislzi Apr 2013 #67
R B Garr Apr 2013 #68
TheMadMonk Apr 2013 #54
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #55
KamaAina Apr 2013 #40
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #42
KamaAina Apr 2013 #43
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #46
CreekDog Apr 2013 #63
NCTraveler Apr 2013 #66
lapislzi Apr 2013 #58
0rganism Apr 2013 #13
Kalidurga Apr 2013 #31
zeeland Apr 2013 #48
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #76

Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:07 PM

1. This is ridiculous

this should never happen to anyone. But that being said, I don't understand why they were still together. One instance of domestic violence is too much and they should not be together or even in the same city anymore, but 3 times in 4 months? She obviously has mental issues that won't let her let go of this terrible person, and the police should be helping her get help to help her from stopping going back to him again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:31 PM

4. It doesn't sound like they were together, except in abuso-jerk's mind.

It sounded like he was coming back to get some more torment in. It's not uncommon for a victim of domestic abuse to have to have zir abuser arrested several times before the abuser either gets the message or the victim gets the resources to completely uproot zir life and get out of Dodge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicat (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:42 PM

7. Did she press charges?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:48 PM

9. Easy questions for us to ask

 

when we don't have to worry about how we will live without that second income, or where we will stay after the shelter can no longer put us up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:53 PM

73. How true.

We don't know all the story. And sadly, when it comes to shelters, there is not really enough beds in either in women domestic violence or homeless shelters ( I have seen when the domestic violence have no place they seen the person in need to the homeless shelter).

Add to the way this law seems to be as well, if she did press charges and he caused enough problems in other ways that the cops are needed, she would still end up evicted. This law is going to cause more problems than it will help with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:56 PM

75. Very few men know what it is like to be genuinely

 

truly afraid of someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:13 PM

78. And that is one of the things that worry me about this law.

It can/will add to that fear. The fear of being hurt and then hurt again...

We don't know what the finical set up was in this. He could be the larger bread winner. Minimum wage done cut finding a new place to live anymore. And funding for shelters have gone down in many places. Add that to knowing if you yell or make noise while he hurts you, you could lose everything because you nee help... yeah, domestic violence calls might take a drop, but at what cost?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:19 PM

2. I guess that's what the first two strikes were for

If you take back the same abusive jerk a third time, maybe you need to be evicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:39 PM

5. And even before she called police the first time,

there must have been signs that she ignored about the abuser. If not, this prevents the knee-jerk reactions of those who fit the pattern of domestic abuse of using an outside third party to intervene and then they go right back to the abusive situation. This seems to be a pattern with police departments where they only allow a couple interventions before they look at both parties as being mutually responsible for the behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:48 PM

10. There are always signs.

And they are almost always overlooked, or mistaken for what they're not. They are always controlling behavior masquerading as caring behavior. I can cite you example after example where this is the case: both in my own experience and through counseling others.

Unless you know what to look for, even a smart person will soon find themselves enmeshed on the wrong end of a power dynamic not of their making.

As for the going back part, sometimes you believe them when they say they will change (they won't). Sometimes you have some other reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #5)


Response to CreekDog (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:39 PM

70. What I was commenting on was the police response and their policy

Three responses are provided within a four-month period. It's just speculation on my part that it is due to police departments taking a more distilled approach to dealing with domestic violence calls by not getting involved in the personal dynamics but rather the quantity of calls. If there are three responses required within a four-month period, it's my speculation that they see a domestic violence situation that is entrenched by both parties and not easily remedied by ongoing police response. But my speculations could be wrong.* Why do you think the police would institute such a policy of three calls with a four-month period?

*actually there was something in my neighborhood not nearly this extreme that led me to this speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:26 PM

34. blame the victim of domestic violence on the person getting hit/punched/killed

a uniquely sexist way of blaming the victim of one kind of crime on the victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:23 PM

3. K&R

That's beyond cruel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:39 PM

6. Saddened and dismayed by the responses on this thread.

You and I, outsiders, have no way of understanding the dynamics of an individual abusive relationship. None whatsoever. We understand in general terms the arc of how things play out.

Women stay in abusive relationships for many reasons. Often these reasons are financial in nature: the abusive partner brings in a paycheck and helps to support the children. There are other, deeper emotional reasons that go to the very root of what it means to be involved in an abusive relationship. Many people simply have nowhere to go, no support system, nothing.

It is very easy to type on a message board, "why does she stay with the jerk?" when she may have some very compelling (in her mind) reasons. Until you have worked with and counseled people who have lived through this, please think before you speak.

I understood very early in my counseling work that my role was to support the victim/survivor and not to judge her choices, which are hers to make.* Of course it is desirable for her to leave, but she has to get to that point on her own, and not without a great deal of help and support.

Think. Sensitive. Don't judge.

*Using the feminine pronoun because it's usually a woman in this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:46 PM

8. You speak soothly

 

Women (and some men) in an "abusive relationship" are there for a concatenation of events. The abuse usually started in childhood, at the hands of parents, and is continued at the hands of spouses/partners. They view the abuse as "normal", and feel they have brought it on themselves.

I have seen these things run the gamut of physical abuse to murder, and it sickens me every time I have to remember it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:02 PM

45. I would suspect...

... that often times, in severely abusive relationships, the women are too afraid to leave. They probably live with the threat that more harm will come to them if they try and leave than if they stay.

It's no wonder, with the police seeming to have a "blame the victim" mentality. Who will protect them from the abuser if they do try and leave?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:16 PM

49. In addition to "Think...." I'd add "Listen. Empathize."

For those of us who've never been in an abusive relationship it may seem unfathomable how domestic abuse arises and is sustained, unless and until we see it happen to a family member or friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:21 PM

52. One of the things I always say to people:

(and it always elicits the "blinky-blinky" response).

Nobody gets punched in the nose on the first date.

The would-be abuser enfolds his would-be victim in a cocoon of caring and solicitude that is really a net of power and control. Those cute "loving" behaviors and those "charming" jealousies that tell you he cares? Uh-uh. They won't be so cute when he slugs you and calls you a slut for talking to a man at a party. By then it's too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:51 PM

11. If the police are at the same place....

 

three times in four months, for violent behavior, the tenants need to go. There is no reason the children or adults in a community should be forcibly subjected to repeated violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:04 PM

12. Go where?

 

I would argue that if the police have been called multiple times for violent behavior committed by the same person the criminal justice system and society have failed in their duty.

So, you kick the woman out into the street and that helps her how?

Also, when the police apply the same enforcement to banks who routinely commit fraud and corporations that routinely violate the law and get people killed (or foul the environment), then the law will have some semblance of fairness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:22 PM

16. I fully agree with this part.

 

"I would argue that if the police have been called multiple times for violent behavior committed by the same person the criminal justice system and society have failed in their duty."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:27 PM

35. what you're saying is if the perp gets in trouble, his victims need to be evicted

is that for Rush Limbaugh to read on his radio show too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:34 PM

37. I never said such a thing.

 

What do I say. If law enforcement is brought out to a rental three times in four months for violence, then the people on the lease need to have eviction filed against them. That is pretty simple. Interesting that you listen to rush. I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:48 PM

39. so you're saying you don't want to kick them out but want them evicted

so you want to take the position that really harms people but not be thought of as wanting to harm anyone.

nice try. fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:54 PM

41. I think you are confused.

 

"so you're saying you don't want to kick them out but want them evicted"

Evicted is kicked out. You file, if the court agrees it is upheld, the process continues until it is finalized. What you just said doesn't make much sense. I see a pattern with you here.

"so you want to take the position that really harms people but not be thought of as wanting to harm anyone. "

This is very contradictory. Something I haven't been. You keep trying to associate things to me that can't be. It is a weak debate tactic. Stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:02 PM

44. this is your position, quoted verbatim, it sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for it:

If law enforcement is brought out to a rental three times in four months for violence, then the people on the lease need to have eviction filed against them.


the key aspect is that is law enforcement is merely brought out, they should have an eviction filed against them.

oh and you want to act like you aren't supporting eviction, but in reality you are.

what's more maddening is you taking an amoral position then not wanting to own the position you just took, in the same thread no less.

quit playing games with us. have the courage of your convictions and if you want to take the damned heartless position then own the damned heartless position and quit acting all surprised when someone calls it what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:09 PM

47. Once again, you are confused.

 

"oh and you want to act like you aren't supporting eviction, but in reality you are. "

If you read my posts, I am fully supporting eviction. I have the whole time. Have not waivered one bit. Where have you seen in my posts that I am not supporting eviction? Please show it.

"what's more maddening is you taking an amoral position then not wanting to own the position you just took, in the same thread no less. "

I have taken no such position. Now, if you want to say my position with respect to feeling it is necessary to file the eviction is amoral, then that would be an argument that you could make. Because that is my stand. Your posts really aren't making much sense. You are saying things I never did.

"quit playing games with us"

You are the only one that feels I am playing games. Mainly due to confusion on your part. Others who have responded to me, mostly disagreeing, are disagreeing with my position directly. That I can fully understand. Most of them have also made very valid arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:17 PM

50. I am going to step to the defense of NCTraveler.

NCTraveler is looking at this from the perspective of a landlord--nothing more, nothing less. It is not in the interest of the landlord to keep disruptive tenants on his property, regardless of the morality of same.

Of course it is immoral to throw an abused person out on the street. No one is disputing that point (at least, I don't think anyone is). It's a terrible, terrible thing. But, what's a landlord to do? He may have few resources of his own, irrespective of his good intentions. The landlord has other tenants to think about it.

Eviction is a legal proceeding, not necessarily a law enforcement matter (unless the tenant becomes truculent and refuses to go).

What this whole exercise shamefully points out is the utter absence of any type of support network for survivors of domestic violence.

I think everyone is in agreement that eviction is no good remedy for a problem that is community-wide and affects far more than just the nuclear family.

NC, if I am putting words in your mouth, please feel free to correct me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:08 PM

59. You defend someone who took a position you call amoral? Dumb.

You can acinowledge their positions, even the nuances, but defend?

She just said she wants them evicted and you say nobody does, ABOUT HER.

What kinda denial are you taking on so you can say with a straight face that we're dealing with a nice, good person? Not on this topic we aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:18 PM

64. Wut?

I see and understand the poster's point regarding the interests of property owners. If you read downthread, poster is by no means condoning throwing DV victims onto the streets.

It is a sad reality, and it sucks. Nothing more, nothing less. Poster takes a position grounded in reality, and I can appreciate that.

Peace to you, niners fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:41 PM

71. You're bending over backwards to defend someone who is calling for these people to be evicted

You were excellent in your discussion of domestic violence and arguing that the victim and family should not be evicted.

And then, in some attempt to be nice to that person, just decided to overlook the heartless position she's taken and now you won't even acknowledge what she's littered this thread up with --that these people have to be kicked out for the sake of the landlord and neighbors.

In other words, that poster without knowing anything else, wants these people kicked out (victims) because other people (not victims of DV) are suffering because of what the perpetrator of DV is doing.

It is so effed up and when you post that I'm not being fair to this person for calling her position exactly what it is, that's even more so.

I agree with you, you are simpatico --but don't misrepresent the odious position she's taking to make her sound reasonable.

SHE'S NOT REASONABLE. stop overlooking her posts to say she is a nice person, just misunderstood, or taking a moral position, she just cares about the landlord, the neighbors, the birds in the trees, the whales, the police officer's family ---

just does not give a **** about the victims in this case because she wants them evicted. oh but she's a nice person.

come on. i like your posts here, really i do, except when you overlook what she's said and tell me that she doesn't really feel the way she writes. no way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:55 PM

74. DV is a community issue

I think that's where we're all headed here, and we're all in agreement about that.

As it is now (and as you so rightly point out), the system now is utterly effed up. The landlord, the tenants, the victim, the abuser--they're all members of the community, and they all have rights (unfortunately, even the abuser). Now, we know nobody's sticking up for the abuser. But the landlord's done nothing wrong. He has a right to a peaceful property free of troublemakers just like anybody else. The community becomes a better place when the abuser is removed and the victim cared for and supported.

So how do we go about this? Right now, we're nowhere. We have a law on the books in the OP that is harmful to DV victims, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent of the law, despite its being an unfortunate by-product. So how do we fix that? How do we preserve what's good about the law (removing abusers, helping landlords and tenants) while ensuring that victims are not caught in a downward spiral of victimization?

I think that is what this thread is about and where NCTraveler was headed, despite her rough start. She does describe a very sad reality--but it is reality. I would much rather deal with the reality of the situation. Which, obviously, totally sucks for victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:46 PM

72. You're missing one subtle but critical point.

 

The landlord is not throwing Ms. Briggs out for a lease violation. The CITY is ORDERING him/her to do so, based on this arbitrary "three strikes" criterion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:03 PM

77. Oh, I get it.

It's a horrible law. A poster downthread mentioned something about "upping the ante" in DV cases, to emphasize the consequences of repeated disturbances.

I have no problem with ante-upping in principle, but no provisions exist to protect the displaces victims.

The motivation behind such a law is probably fiduciary in nature, as it costs money to send the cops out. And that's one reason why it sucks. It doesn't care a damn for what happens to the displaced.

If the city wants to remove the Briggs family from the property, then the city should have a plan in place to rehouse Mrs. Briggs and the children after their removal and the presumptive incarceration of the abuser. But we don't live in that kind of society.

We live in a society that can and will throw women and children out on the street. Hence the righteous outrage on this thread.

Being a solution-based person myself, I'm looking at this and trying to figure out how to work with it, how to make it an actual useful piece of legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:35 PM

69. go where? she doesn't care, not one bit. well, she cares about the landlord and neighbors

somewhere far, far, far down the list are the people that she is agitating in this thread to have evicted.

somewhere far, far below all the things she cares about. the well-being of the victims being somewhere extremely low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:09 PM

14. Yeah, let's just make the children forced to witness said violence homeless.

Or let's make them too afraid to seek the help they need for fear of becoming homeless.

As a child, I had to witness this stuff. Certainly more than 3 times in a 4 month period. I was already afraid enough of going to authorities because child protective services in the state I lived in had a horrendous reputation of "losing" foster children, so I did not report some things that I should have because I did not want my mother to lose custody of me.

Even then, there were the times when my mother and I went to the police...

It took a damn lot longer than 4 months for us to line up the necessary support structure to get out, but we did get out. Abuser later got fired from his job due to his anger management issues. What happened to him since, I neither know nor care.

Now sure, let's just add the fear of eviction to hang over my head in the above situation. A situation in which both my mother and I had to balance fear of losing material needs (i.e. shelter and food) against fear of the gun in the house as it was.

You have no idea of what you speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:33 PM

18. I am not talking about the children in the home.

 

I am talking about the children in the community. And yes, the children in the home need to be cared for. Lets just keep the children where they are at. Real winner of an idea. How many times will the cops show up before a neighbor decides to step in? How long can the property owner know this is going on without becoming liable? I really don't see why people don't understand the necessity of an eviction in a case like this.

I am very happy your mother and you got out. My statements still stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:41 PM

19. The threat of eviction deters victims from seeking help.

I really don't get why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

No, I should not have had to stay there. No, my mother should not have had to stay there. But the fact remains that for far too many DV victims, it really is a choice between the hell of abuse and the hell of homelessness, and society does jack shit to address the second. It might not be a "real winner of an idea," but for far too many it is the reality.

Evicting people for trying to seek justice for themselves and their children is only going to make the problem of homelessness that much worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to strategery blunder (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:55 PM

24. I do grasp what you are saying.

 

And it does make sense. It just doesn't work in reality. No owner should keep that situation in his property. Every court would accept the papers to evict. It is an awful situation. It is not a threat of eviction. It is the fact that you will be evicted if you do not hold up to the terms of your lease. Very simple. Owners are liable for things they are aware of in their property.

At no point have I said that an eviction will be best for the woman. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:10 PM

29. It's generally going to be the abuser who is breaking the terms of the lease...

You know, the wife-beater is actually the one beating the wife and creating disturbances of the peace and whatnot.

I don't really have a problem evicting violent criminals, as DV abusers are.

But hey, it's just easier for courts to evict everyone in the unit, even when the victim(s) haven't broken anything. It's easier to assign the female responsibility for the actions of the male, because hey we don't want taxpayers to possibly help with expedited rent assistance at all after the paycheck gets thrown in jail (so the victims can continue to hold up their end of the lease while putting their lives back together after the abuser is gone--naw, that'd make too much sense)!

It's the same general type of logic that calls rape victims sluts, and says that victims bring it upon themselves.

What a wonderful, DV-accepting, rape culture we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:12 PM

15. Think about what you just said.

An adult in the community is being forcibly subjected to repeated violence. This is fact. How exactly eviction and homelessness are going to rectify that situation is for you to explain.

While domestic disputes are undeniably a nuisance, nobody other than the victim is "subject to repeated violence." If the guy was running around the building swinging a baseball bat... yes. But that's not what's happening here.

Shame on you for your heartlessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:28 PM

17. Incorrect.

 

"nobody other than the victim is "subject to repeated violence."

All of the neighbors are being subjected to it. On a regular basis.

"How exactly eviction and homelessness are going to rectify that situation is for you to explain."

When removing violence from the sight and sounds of children on a regular basis it is not my problem to explain it.

What you call heartless, I call thinking about the community and its children. You see, I have been around domestic violence. For you to think that the actions of these two individuals cannot have a very negative effect on the surrounding persons is wrong.

Also, what you are not thinking about at all, is that the property owner becomes liable after so many instances. When the cops have been there three times, and the owner is aware, it is his responsibility to take action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:42 PM

20. The biggest effect is on the victim

Whose life will likely become immeasurably worse if she is evicted.

I would not suggest that violence is anything but a community's problem. But, when the community turns its back and looks inward, only to its immediate surroundings and not the larger world, that's a problem of willful ignorance, and a problem with a much larger context.

I would also remind you that violence is all around us. You cannot protect every child every moment of every day, no matter how much you would like to. "Won't someone think of the children" is a handy catchall for "just get the problem out of my sight."

I don't think you are looking at this the right way, and certainly not in a sensitive way. I don't know what your experience of domestic violence has been, but I am a survivor and counselor. Having neighbors who care and take an interest can be a huge help to the victim.

What "liability" is the property owner subject to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:10 PM

30. I like everything that you have posted here.

 

Sometimes reality is not very sensitive. At no point have I said eviction will help the victim. I also agree that the possibility of eviction can be detrimental to the thought process of calling the police in the first place. In reality the property owner has the responsibility of evicting them.

Owners can be held liable for what they are knowledgeable about going on in their property. If they know people are mixing meth in their house, and the tenants are busted, they could loose their house. If they are aware that a woman is being abused in their house, and said woman dies, the family can sue the owner. If they are aware the structure is not sound, resulting in injury, they can be sued.

The owner can always be held responsible for what they are knowledgeable about.

"Having neighbors who care and take an interest can be a huge help to the victim."

Neighbors, family, friends. So important in a situation like this. The victim can truly feel helpless without some for of support. They can often feel helpless with that support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:23 PM

33. Points taken, all.

In a perfect world, the landlord could, with the help of law enforcement, neighbors, family, and victim advocates, assist the victim with an order of protection and rental subsidy until the situation stabilizes. The landlord himself is perfectly within his rights to seek an order of protection if a tenant is causing mayhem on his property.

The reality of abuse (as I am sure you know) is that the abuser does everything in his power to separate his victim from any and all support structures. It can and does become quite extreme. The victim is typically terribly isolated. Case in point: my abuser moved us nine times in the course of two years. By the end, I was literally perched in a cottage on the very southernmost tip of Africa. There was nothing between me and Antarctica. One road in and out, and no car--and an infant. No one could hear, and no one would have cared if they had. That's what it means to be separated from your support structures.

Really, one person and one person only is deserving of eviction. The victim deserves every available resource to ensure and reinforce the decision that leaving an abusive relationship is the only safe, sane way to go.

I am saddened that we don't live in such a world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:48 PM

22. these laws are an abomination

that punish women, in particular. people have the right (under the first amendment) to petition their government...that includes the police department. people, like this women, should not be afraid to call the police when they are a victim of a crime, even if it is repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:57 PM

25. The first amendment has nothing to do with her renting a piece of private land.

 

Not sure how you made that jump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:01 PM

27. Redress of grievances.

Upthread.

Any person ought to be able to summon law enforcement without fear of repercussions. Sadly, this appears not to be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:42 PM

38. Ummm, "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Instead THE STATE is punishing her petition for redress by FORCING the landlord to evict her.

THE STATE is effectively declaring: "This is a person who is not welcome, you will be punished if you offer her shelter."

    What if the property is owned by the victim?
  • If it's mortaged, should the city require the lender to foreclose and evict?
  • If she holds title full and clear, should the city do as it threatened to do to the landords and condem the property as unfit for habitation?


What this is, is the modern equivalent of the bums rush. This the city saying loud and clear:
"Get the fuck out of town. Go be someone else's problem"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:13 PM

61. You hear domestic violence and your top worry is $$$ and private property

Nice morals there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:20 PM

65. Once again, you are not understanding.

 

You seem to be the only one. I did not bring up the first amendment. And yes, lawsuits are a big concern for property owners. The manner in which victims are treated is a concern for society as a whole. Not sure how you don't see this. Please stop playing a game with this. It is a big picture issue that involves many things. I see you could not back up your statements up thread, so you come here and try to go on the attack again. As I said before, your pattern is clear. You have attributed many things to me that I have not said. You have attributed a thought process to me which is not accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:58 PM

79. WTF? here's the 1st amendment issue...from the article that you did not read

"Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Briggs, challenging the ordinance. These laws violate tenants' First Amendment right to petition their government, which includes the right to contact law enforcement. They also violate the federal Violence Against Women Act, which protects many domestic violence victims from eviction based on the crimes committed against them, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and was enacted 45 years ago this month. The ACLU has long argued that evictions based on domestic violence can discriminate against women, because such evictions are often motivated by gender stereotypes that hold victims responsible for the abuse they experience, and because the vast majority of victims are women."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #79)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:27 PM

80. Read it and understand it.

 

Still doesn't back up what you said. Not sure why you would say I didn't read it. In order for it to back up the claim, the suit would have to be won on that account. Pretty simple stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:45 PM

21. Oooh, that looks like fun. Can I put the boot to the defenceless too?

 

What would you suggest should happen to any resident children?

Why can't the cops just do their fucking jobs, and deal with the abuser as they bloody well should?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:50 PM

23. I know your question is rhetorical, but there are possible answers.

Sometimes the victim doesn't want to press charges, because if the abuser is in jail, he's not bringing in a paycheck, etc....Sometimes by the time the cops show up (called by others), he's intimidated her into keeping quiet.

There are a lot of reasons. And, sometimes cops are jerks.

If only were as simple as hauling the miscreant off to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:18 PM

32. Why shouldn't it be? Cops don't require that corpse lodge a complaint.

 

Abused children aren't required to file in order to receive justice.

There are many, many examples of crimes, where simple fact of evidence that a crime has take place is enough to get the police to act.

As you probably know, abuse victims suffer from something highly akin to Stockholm Syndrome. They are not mentally competent to choose whether or not to press charges. Requiring that they do so in this day and age, speaks only to the laziness/penury of the police and the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:28 PM

36. No argument, but sometimes that's the way it goes down.

The economic realities of the abused basically all suck. And they're getting worse every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:59 PM

26. Ignoring the rest of you post, this is spot on.

 

"Why can't the cops just do their fucking jobs, and deal with the abuser as they bloody well should?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:08 PM

28. I'm sure they are.

They're called; they show up.

The rest of it can go any one of a number of ways. They can arrest the guy. Or not, depending on what they find when they get there.

Cops respond to domestic disturbance. Guy says, just a marital argument that got out of control, nothing to see here, officer. Woman agrees. Woman says, don't arrest him, he needs this job. Don't arrest him, there's no one to watch the kids and I'm on shift in an hour.

Is the guy actively drunk and disorderly? Maybe they can make an arrest. Are there bruises or other injuries on the victim? Maybe they can persuade her to press charges. Maybe.

What's a cop to do? There are very few good answers here. Evicting the victim is not among them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:18 PM

51. You've pretty much made the cops case for them by illustrating the decisions they face themselves

Your posts on this thread are very insightful, and I see why, as you are a survivor and a counselor and very knowledgeable. But it seems police forces are trying to extricate themselves from the decision-making processes you are describing here and going instead with the very basic and well-documented dynamics of domestic violence. I'm no expert by any means, but I think we all know some of the basics about DV: it always escalates and is usually based in alcohol/substance abuse and/or long-term life patterns of abuse often based in childhood.

It seems like the police are not willing to keep responding to the same dynamics involving the same individuals without upping the ante on them, if you will. By giving the situation a couple responses and then seeing the same situation arise for a third time, I guess they are deeming the problem so entrenched that police response is not the answer at that point. The police need to escalate it themselves by bringing in other resources of their own, such as court procedures. In the long run, this woman will be better served by dealing with the root issues that kept her there in the first place for such violence than in keeping herself in a situation where she is being stabbed in the neck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:28 PM

53. Now if only we had a safety net.

Because absent one, absent community involvement and resources, you're looking at homeless women and children. The court proceeding only solves the landlord's nuisance problem, so only part of the domestic violence "problem" (if you will) is addressed. You can up the ante all you like, but if the victim has nowhere to go if she is evicted, her choices are stark: suffer the abuse, or be on the street.

If the eviction could be contingent upon rehousing the displaced victim, that would be a great thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:01 PM

57. I am and have been talking about the way that things are today.

 

"If the eviction could be contingent upon rehousing the displaced victim, that would be a great thing. "

That does sound like a great idea. I do think the way things are can cause a series of problems for the victims, and that is wrong. Where we are at, and where we can be, are two totally separate issues. I think that it is great that you are thinking forward and put up an idea that would be excellent if implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:11 PM

60. You're giving me an idea =)

Really, it is in the interest of the entire community to stabilize the family. Law enforcement, too. If women see that viable options exist, they will take them.

Sounds like a ripe opportunity for grassroots community organizing. I will discuss the idea with the women's shelter and the DV advocacy group I'm with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:15 PM

62. It is a very good idea. And one I believe many legislators would get behind in many states.

 

Overall evictions are a state issue. They also get into contract law. I am glad that we(women) have someone like you out there. The way things are currently do not work in the communities best interests. They are set up to protect property owners, and to an extent, renters from abusive property owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:22 PM

67. ^^^why I love DU^^^

I was prepared to take issue with poster, but we reached common ground and came up with the outline of a plan...a plan that I can take to my group the next time we meet. We have counsel on the board and can discuss the legal issues at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapislzi (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:26 PM

68. You make a good point about a safety net and this seems like an extreme case

In this instance, it sounds like she was warned by the police about future calls because it says she was afraid of losing her home and didn't want to call them again. Her neighbors called when they heard the disturbances. So in that regard, in a very harsh way, she was provided a warning that could be viewed as a type of safety net. They give three calls within a four-month period. I doubt the police were threatening her not to call -- they were probably warning her that her situation is dire for a number of reasons, number one being her personal physical safety, as if that wasn't motivation enough.

It is too bad an extreme case like this can't be diverted to a counseling type situation and shelter provided the victim. I thought there are ways to stop the eviction process; for instance, a 30-Day Notice is provided that is not viewed as an eviction and if complied with, will stop the eviction process. The article also says that the landlord is responsible for the domestic calls as well, so as long as she leaves the property, maybe that's all the compliance needed instead of a full court ordered eviction. That would hopefully give her some time to make living arrangements. It's a tough case, no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:48 PM

54. So the ofspring of such a woman should be deemed lost...

 

...and simply left to whatever fate befalls her?

Or at best deserve only the scrapheap of a perpetually underfunded foster care system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:56 PM

55. I don't feel it should be that way.

 

Reality sucks and needs to change. Yes, the fate of offspring are often left to whatever fate befalls their parents. Not sure how you don't understand that reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:50 PM

40. How about just the violent tenant?

 

He's the one who needs to go. Hopefully to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:59 PM

42. The people on the lease are evicted. All parties.

 

Say it was just him on the lease. He would be the only one on the eviction that is filed. Once finalized, all persons on the premise would have to be gone. It would be up to the owner if they wanted to have her sign a new lease. The owner would be renting to her as if she was a new tenant. If both of them were on the lease, both would be evicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:01 PM

43. Yes, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Or even legal, for that matter. I can't imagine why real estate interests haven't challenged this in court. Corporate and property-owning types usually don't take kindly to gummint telling them who they can and cannot do business with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:03 PM

46. No. It is not right.

 

And the victim will suffer even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:16 PM

63. You say it's not right but you argue for it here

Like it's mom and apple pie and all that.

Don't pretend you care while taking the cruel, uncaring position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:22 PM

66. You continue to be dishonest about my position.

 

Not very good of you. You left up thread when called on it. Now have continued in two other places. Pattern and all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:06 PM

58. Of course it isn't right.

But I can see the point in a property owner wanting to protect his interest. He has x tenants to think about. Think about "those" buildings...you know, the ones where the cops are always showing up? Would YOU want to rent there, be it a shabby dilapidated row house or a high-end gated community? Either way, the answer would be no.

What sucks about these laws and precedents is that they serve the property owner, but make the victim's situation much, much worse. Why? Because there are few resources in place to serve the victim. And they're getting fewer.

That's what sucks about this story--not that the landlord has some legal recourse to remove troublesome tenants (that's pretty much always been the case). For the landlord with a conscience, no good options either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:05 PM

13. because nothing solves a person's problems quite like evicting them

hey, when you're concerned about freezing to death at night, all those other issues just kind of melt away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:14 PM

31. I have read all the comments.

I think I understand both sides. But, to me it seems everyone and I mean almost everyone in this country and possibly the world has missed the most obvious solution. Keep the perpetrator in jail. He shouldn't have been let out to keep repeatedly abusing the same person. What is wrong with three strikes and you are in jail for a very very long time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:14 PM

48. Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous for


cops to respond to. This may very well be a way protect law enforcement
unfortunately at the cost of putting women (or men) at risk.

In 2009 more cops were shot responding to domestic violence dispatches
than any other kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeeland (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:58 PM

76. That is their job.

If this was placed in to "protect" law enforcement but not the people, it is a bad law.

This law puts people in danger to protect police, the ones with the training and the equipment to protect themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread