It’s not hard to stay in LE with a DV on your record. Not at all. I found out a detective who interviewed me as a witness to a battery but acted too emotional(of course, I didn’t know he was friends with the perpetrator, a prosecutor, at the time) and he made threats during the interview. I decided to check him out and sure enough, about 10 years ago, he was charged with misdeamanor DV, battery and child endangerment, after being arrested for punching his wife in the face while she was holding their infant, b/c she had asked him to feed the child. He was wrist-slapped, diverted for two years, then his record was expunged, but no record is truly cleared up. His, you could find out about online. And I did.

During a capital murder case, the defense atty asked me about this officer, and I wasn’t going to lie about the DV so I told him. He came back from the table while court was in session and said, are you sure? I said, yes. So, he asked the cop if he had been in trouble with the law, and the cop got really quiet and said, yes. But the way he explained it, it was an allegation that was dismissed. NOT TRUE. They brought it to a hearing, and the judge decided his actions were admissible as impeachment. The DA was stunned, b/c he didn’t withhold information, he just never thought to criminally check out a cop, before putting him on the stand. Now this cop, is impeached with his DV whenever he testifies. He has been promoted twice after his DV, once while in diversion, and now is a sergeant working in Internal Affairs. Among other responsibilities, the IA division screens ALL inhouse DV allegations, for administrative and/or criminal investigation.

(Another sad thing, was he was only the first cop I was asked about during that trial, who had a DV record)

This officer is a rarity though, a cop actually charged with DV, b/c most cases don’t make it that far. A study conducted by the Center of Women and Policing(which is under the umbrella of Feminist Majority) found that at least 40% of all LE admitted to DV behavior. The conviction rate in LE agencies is much lower, between 1-5%.

Further research led me to five other officers, detectives and sergeants with possible DV, noted in police reports and TROs filed by women, either wives, ex-wives or girlfriends. At least, three others, identities unknown, brandished firearms at their SOs in the past year, yet IA ignored the complaints filed by the women. Our police chief was investigated for misdemeanor DV late last year, and even though prosecution was recommended, no charges were filed.

We’re currently trying to come up with a written policy governing inhouse DV reporting and investigation. Only 45% of all LE agencies have them.

In California, battery and other DV charges pertaining to spouses, children, other relatives carries a 10 year prohibition on firearm ownership or possession. Cops get out of this ban, by pleading guilty to lesser misdemeanors instead of those that carry firearm prohibitions, i.e. disturbing the peace, or they get diverted.

More on police DV, including resources:

http://www.abuseofpower.info/

oh….my….god….they….did….not. Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s political commentary on the Schiavo incident (of course, Cartman’s the one who wants to pull the plug). I’ve been following

You’re fit to administer the laws when you don’t obey them yourself? What’s the word I’m looking for?

The fact that beating up a woman–like beating up a man— doesn’t seem to be a crime seems to be escaping a lot of people. Why is that? Hell, beating up animals is worse than beating up a woman. Is there some sublety that I missed? This guy beat up his wife. He beat up a woman. IF he’d beaten up a man, there’d be commissions and civil rights protesters and shit. The minute he hit somebody with a vagina, though, it became what I’d guess is called a ‘misunderstanding.’

So, Robert, you got some ambiguity here? He beat up a woman and your issue is with his ability to…do a job where he’d have to help other women who’d been beaten by guys like him. What’s more important to you? The gun? Or the woman?

It’s moments like this that make me realize why I’m a feminist—-because I can value a woman’s right to be unbattered as being more fucking important than a man’s right to carry a gun. and to not see one goddamned thing wrong with that.

That depends on your jurisdiction. In Colorado, most of the crimes classified as domestic violence are felonies (assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder, etc.). Some harassment is considered a misdemeanor, other harassment is a felony. Stalking is a misdemeanor the first time, a felony if you repeat.

Don’t know what your podunk legislature’s done.

I think somebody’s got their priorities wrong here.

The withdrawel of firearms rights from people convicted of domestic abuse is on the basis that these people are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Therefore, it stands to reason that they are also too dangerous to be allowed the responsibility of anything that requires them to have a gun. For example, police work.

In any case, police are supposed to protect the very people that this guy harmed. This is a conflict of interest. I really think people convicted of violent crimes should be banned from becoming police officers, in much the same way that convicted child molesters and sex offenders are prohibited from working in schools.

Yay.

What leads you to think that I have endorsed letting violent criminals have guns?

Off the top of my head, because you started responding to this post, which was about a violent criminal who was allowed to have a gun, and this quote:

Also, as a second amendment absolutist, I can’t see a constitutionally-acceptable case for taking away someone’s weapon. (I can see a case for locking someone up if they’re a threat, with due process.)

Nowhere do you say “someone (except for violent criminal)’s weapon”. So it looked like you were talking about everyone. Now, if you’re talking *only* about people with restraining orders, you need to be clear.

As much as any citizen has a right to bear arms, other citizens (read: women) have an equal right not to be terrorized (Amendments IX and XIV).

A restraining order–which, I assume, must be considered legally reasonable–is a good minimum for taking away someone’s weapon, at least temporarily. If someone has been convicted of beating his wife, that’s an even stronger case. It’s an indication that he’s a threat, that his behavior could escalate into greater violence. I don’t see why we as a society should be expected to take that risk by allowing him to keep his gun.

If we’re going to make mistakes, it’s better to err on the side of safety.