Man, this comment is naive.

Domestic abuse happens very regularly in the western world and there are still some that do try to justify it. It may be that most of the population against it, but what good is that going to do if no one actually does anything about it?

Just watching the video, it did angry me to see what happened, but as I read the comments, I did begin to think well, what are the police supposed to do in a reported domestic abuse situation.

A few things that crossed my mind are... firstly, everyone is different, some sensible and some not so; some clever and some not so. This is fact, and one would expect the police to know this and be able to deal with different situations appropriately. Sure there are many possible reasons why they don't handle situations properly like poor pay, assuming everyone is at their worst from experience, personality types etc, but this is not what the public wants or expects - hence the dislike.

Secondly, no matter any other context, if the person holding the camera did not have a weapon in their hand, did the police have to taze him?

Now having read the article, I wonder if some previous commenters still believe that their behavior is justifiable. The police were reported to have turned up in their numbers with guns in hand without explaining the situation.
For those who may ask why he didn't get go out there or let them in... bear in mind that he has returned from serving in the army to return home to have guns pointed at unarmed civilians by people who were not able to hold a calm enough conversation long enough to handle the situation properly.

In regards to the police state, it isnt just about how the police behave, it's about what the mob are willing to accept. Judging from the comments, it seems that the some are willing to accept to a lot already. The questions is how many and how easily they could be persuaded into accepting more.

You asked for context. It seems to be consistent with what everyone thinks. The only debate is whether the use of force was justified. Personally, I feel that they should have opened the door, or at least brought everyone out front so the police could verify their safety. I can see why domestic abuse allegations would qualify as exigent circumstances. Sure, there will be pranks and false charges, but absent reason doubt the caller police should act. It sounds like the call was made in good faith and amounted to a misunderstanding. You can't help but wonder if the neighbors had observed a pattern of behavior that contributed to their decision. I know I'd be hesitant to call if I observed a single instance of a woman crying in the backyard. There are just too many other things I could assume, and the charges are too serious.

If a cop knocks on my door and says he wants to ask me a few questions, I say "Sure, what's up? What can I help you with?"

Because here's the really odd part . . . If I'm not doing anything wrong, he's going to leave. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A POLICE STATE. *ahem* But yes, any normal, sane person doesn't freak out the moment an officer approaches them. Who typically freaks out? People that are guilty or crazy. I've had officers knock on my door before, and I didn't pull out the camera and start threatening to kill them.

But, on the other hand, I've had officers pull me over for no just cause and my first question to them is "Why did you pull me over." If they don't answer, I tell them point blank that unless they have probable cause I don't accept this as legitimate.

If an officer shows up to a potential domestic abuse, quite frankly, I would expect nothing less than what these officers did. Too many women have died because the officers couldn't intervene in domestic affairs. Under a Republican, mind you Bob. As long as the man said nothing was wrong, that was the end of the story.

So what if someone was critically injured, or near dead, or the child would be severely beaten if the woman didn't tell the officers she was okay? Then what? You'd be crying about how incompetent they are.

You're seeing what you want to see, simple as that. For those of us who are rational, we'll wait until there's more information before jumping on the screaming and moaning bandwagon.

Not to be treated as objects. Making it so women are unable to expose or do whatever you want with their own bodies is a sign of treating them as an object. The fact that they are getting such a strong reaction just for showing their breast says something about the surrounding culture. If some women were to do this in Denmark it wouldn't be a big deal. Once again, saying something about the surrounding culture.

relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom

They also mentioned how domestic abuse is rampant in their country. Past that I don't know. I agree that they should have a more clear and articulate message but I didn't only take away that it was only about generic female equality.

Updated the list

@Sepacore - In the case of Nazi Germany, The Taliban, 1970's Chile and the confederate south, the gun owners were the tyrants. I think gun owners are more likely to support a repressive government smashing it's citizens than stopping it. Even if you don't take recent history into account, guns don't do much against tanks, drones, helicopters, SEAL teams and stealth bombers.

@aimpoint - You make a good point about growing up with guns. To those who grow up in more rural/isolated areas, guns are a useful part of life - hunting, sport, defending your property from nasty critters, etc. Those who grow up in urban/denser settings see guns as things that facilitate crime - drivebys, robbery, murder, domestic abuse, etc.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^lantern53:
White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.

And once again the point goes screaming over your tiny little head.
Let me put it in terms you can understand.
Hypothetically, I am a disabled hispanic wiccan lesbian (covered all the bases there I think) and horrified at the number of people killed on our roads every year, I propose a law banning all cars.
When asked by an interviewer if I have ever wondered why people drive, I respond that I'd never really thought about it. Clearly this shows I'm not really qualified to legislate on this issue (at the very least I haven't performed due diligence).
This has nothing to do with my gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or favourite flavour of ice cream. It's because I simply haven't thought the issue through.


Finally. Bravo!

Bravo!

Or rather should I say "brava", you gorgeous wiccan lesbian you?

In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


And once again the point goes screaming over your tiny little head.

Let me put it in terms you can understand.

Hypothetically, I am a disabled hispanic wiccan lesbian (covered all the bases there I think) and horrified at the number of people killed on our roads every year, I propose a law banning all cars.

When asked by an interviewer if I have ever wondered why people drive, I respond that I'd never really thought about it. Clearly this shows I'm not really qualified to legislate on this issue (at the very least I haven't performed due diligence).

This has nothing to do with my gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or favourite flavour of ice cream. It's because I simply haven't thought the issue through.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


And once again the point goes screaming over your tiny little head.

Let me put it in terms you can understand.

Hypothetically, I am a disabled hispanic wiccan lesbian (covered all the bases there I think) and horrified at the number of people killed on our roads every year, I propose a law banning all cars.

When asked by an interviewer if I have ever wondered why people drive, I respond that I'd never really thought about it. Clearly this shows I'm not really qualified to legislate on this issue (at the very least I haven't performed due diligence).

This has nothing to do with my gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or favourite flavour of ice cream. It's because I simply haven't thought the issue through.

>> ^lantern53:

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.
By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.
Your logic is porked.


Sorry, but that's just fucking sad.

This particular dipshit (I didn't see any other white men being interviewed) didn't pass the protections you mentioned all by himself (if he had anything to do with them at all). For all you know, he fought tooth and nail against them. By your "logic" this idiot shouldn't be criticised because those protections exist at all.

What in this video made you believe he has ANY regard for the well-being of women, outside of allowing an abortion to save her life? Or are you just running to his defense because he has an "R" next to his name?

About 30% of the world population is white. Do you think only white men had anything to do with laws that protect women? By your logic, those white men were ALSO solely responsible for the housing market collapse, 3 unneccesary wars, the world-wide recession, and all the financial scandals that seem to be exposed on a daily basis. They could use a little maligning. Cherry-picking history and regurgitating logical fallacies seem to be all you Repugs have in your arsenal nowadays. It's pitiful.

The whole point of the video is that this crusader against abortion hasn't even considered the view of those who would be most affected by anti-abortion laws. Why do you think that is? Money from anti-abortion donors? Religious nuttery? Towing the party line? Incapable of empathy (a sociopath)? That he is a man who wants to pass laws that only affect women makes it even more disgraceful.

We can always count on the gop-bots to bring the stoopid.

White men are the most maligned people on the planet. We make laws here protecting women from domestic abuse, providing health care and free breakfasts for their kids, etc. yet because this man is not a woman, he is some kind of shit to be abused.

By your logic, since he is a man, he must be thinking that woman are property to be utilized in any way with no regard for their well-being.

Your logic is porked.

Thanks!!
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*quality

>> ^Enzoblue:

Thing is, I don't think the parents can ever accept him, I marvel at his need for this. That would mean they'd have to own up to all that torture which must lead to their apostasy eventually right? Given their nature I'm sure they'll just hate him for the rest of their lives, they almost have to when you think about it.


That's just one of the horrifying results of domestic abuse. People will almost always try to love their families, or find ways to justify or understand what they did. At least he understands that he's not responsible for their actions. Many people never even make it that far.

I'm not sure whether this was a question as to the legal mechanics of why the criminal is still pursued or if it was a rhetorical one as to why society should care to pursue him. I'll try and answer the first one and hope it helps someone. This is in general as applies to legal theory, my command of US criminal law is scant to say the least.

Certain crimes in certain jurisdictions might need an express wish of the victim to be pursued, in other cases police and prosecutors will simply ignore a crime if the victim does not want the investigation to proceed on practical grounds (the victim might be the chief witness etc.). But that is not always the case or even necessarily the rule.

The main reason why police and prosecutors would continue to pursue a case is likely because some more serious crimes are considered to be of interest to the state itself (as safeguarding public order, upholding the laws of the state and all that), thus it is not only up to the victim to decide what extent an investigation is pursued; police and prosecutors might determine of their own accord that a case should be pursued (the reasons why this might also be practically necessary can be seen in, for example, domestic abuse cases where children or spouses might deny or not want to press charges regardless of the severity or obviousness of the crimes against them, it also helps to discourage threats and the social and mental burden on criminal victims). So his wish to press charges might not matter in this case, depending on the law of the state in question.

There is also (in some jurisdictions) the choice of private prosecution, where the victim (or someone of similar status) can compel courts into criminal proceedings against someone even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case. This is done to safeguard the possibility of justice in the individual case and as a check to prosecutorial power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Question, why do the cops still care? It is obvious the store owner doesn't want to press charges.

Definition 'of' and 'what' are two different things. Common use versus written defs. Take the word "Majority" and in the dictionary it says the "most," and in popular culture people use it to mean most. However, try telling that to an English teacher, and she flunks you for it... Majority apparently applies only to voting. So let's not pretend that "feminist" or "feminism" means the archaic definition that was placed into Wiki because it's most politically correct.

Feminists lost their grasp on equal rights because they had too many members who want greater rights. Most feminists are good people--but they fucked up when they let bad people in their group.

Ie., Feminists allow these women to take their mantra by not disclaiming them in a loud enough manner.

So yeah--epic analogy success.

And feminists may not follow a book, but their doctrines might as well be written on stone tablets. "And the first commandment is that all women shall be paid equally to men regardless of profession. All men shall have no say in court, as it pertains to marriage matters. This I shall command, in the name of the Great Vag, all shall spread my word from their lips."

And sorry, you're right. Feminists shouldn't worry about "right" or "wrong," or, about decency when it comes to matters like this. No, like you note, they should be worried about money, I mean, equal pay. When you put it like that, I like feminists less and less.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow, talk about analogy fail.
According to what definition of "feminism" are these women feminists? Oh yeah, your own prejudicial stereotype (one which seems quite common unfortunately). As for comparing it to Christianity, you are way, way off.
Christians have a book of doctrine; some follow it closely (like this guy), and are called "fundamentalists". Others distance themselves from some of its many moral failings, and are called "moderates". What Harris criticises about the moderates is that, as a silent majority, they lend credence to the loud, hateful fringe (this criticism applies just as well to muslims and jews). And why do they hesitate to take a firm stance against the fundamentalists? Because they know that, religion-wise, the fundamentalists are right, and that they - the moderates - are the half-hearted christians.
I don't think I have to spell out the other half of your failed analogy, by now the point should be quite clear. Next time, you might want to read up on your social history before giving lessons. For starters, have some wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
As for complaining about feminists not swarming to the podiums to call out this display of extremely bad taste, don't you think they have much more important things yet to do? You know, like fighting for equal pay, reproductive rights, against job discrimination, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc etc, not to mention the battles to be fought in developing and/or religion-ridden countries?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.
What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.
This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."
I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...
And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.