Backing the Blue

[Res Ipsa]

You told us that you explained to them that she was under the influence of a drug-induced psychosis. Psychotic people can do great damage with guns, knives, or what have you hours later when the victim has gone to sleep. Not only that, but you explained that she was actively operating a motor vehicle while in that state, thus endangering both herself and anyone else on the road.

I never used that terminology (drug-induced psychosis) with the cops, I merely told them she was suffering from negative effects of chemo drugs she had been taking for months and I ALSO told them that she has to take her meds to even everything out. When they first gave her steroids in the hospital it drove her nuts, but they had to balance that out with some other drug called Buspirone.

Apparently you think she was better served being locked in a cell where her necessary prescription drugs would be denied, as opposed to going back home in my care where she would just go straight to sleep after taking her meds. Apparently this is the kind of desperate mental gymnastics you're willing to entertain in order to back the blue at all costs, no matter what the circumstances.

This is why I tend to favor removing the responsibility for mental health crises from the police and giving it to a separate organization or agency. When people who are in a mental state that places themselves or others in danger, the focus should be on putting them in an environment where they are safe and can get whatever medical/psychological support they need. Obviously, there would need to be some coordination between systems.

Veritas, did a judge order her to stay out of the home? If not, how did that happen?

[Dr Exiled]

Good news. I would have been surprised had the DA pressed the case.

I will say that the nightmare continued for months until her court date had transpired, because I had to bargain with the solicitor to let her come back home. I had to go there and bear my testimony, literally, as to why she didn't pose a threat and begged them to show mercy. Because when she was released, technically she wasn't even allowed to come home because the State had deemed me a "victim" of domestic violence. So I swayed the solicitor on that point but she didn't file the proper paperwork to make sure everyone in law enforcement knew about it because a week later we took a vacation, left Miami to go on a cruise and when we returned we were stopped at Customs because they said there was a warrant or something saying she was prohibited from traveling with us anywhere. WTF? The information from the solicitor in Woodstock Georgia didn't trickle down to all the concerned parties apparently so I had to sit there for about two hours explaining the whole situation again and they wouldn't let us go until they contacted someone in Georgia to confirm our story. It was a nightmare. My mother in law and kids were there crying, not knowing if she was going to be hauled off in cuffs again.

A week later we get a visit from family services. Some woman came to the house and didn't understand why my wife was living at the house and I had to explain it all again to her. She then said she had to interview all the kids individually without the Mom present. It was just all a big hassle, unnecessary, stupid and embarrassing.

People think that there is a presumption of innocence. However, once accused, the burden seems to flip, especially in the case of family services. Also, usually there is a no-contact order given at the outset of these cases and the woman was probably going off of that when she acted surprised your wife was still living at your home. Anyway, sounds like a nightmare where you had to take the brunt of an overloaded system that can't readily distinguish the problem cases from those that aren't.

[Res Ipsa]

I will say that the nightmare continued for months until her court date had transpired, because I had to bargain with the solicitor to let her come back home. I had to go there and bear my testimony, literally, as to why she didn't pose a threat and begged them to show mercy. Because when she was released, technically she wasn't even allowed to come home because the State had deemed me a "victim" of domestic violence. So I swayed the solicitor on that point but she didn't file the proper paperwork to make sure everyone in law enforcement knew about it because a week later we took a vacation, left Miami to go on a cruise and when we returned we were stopped at Customs because they said there was a warrant or something saying she was prohibited from traveling with us anywhere. WTF? The information from the solicitor in Woodstock Georgia didn't trickle down to all the concerned parties apparently so I had to sit there for about two hours explaining the whole situation again and they wouldn't let us go until they contacted someone in Georgia to confirm our story. It was a nightmare. My mother in law and kids were there crying, not knowing if she was going to be hauled off in cuffs again.

A week later we get a visit from family services. Some woman came to the house and didn't understand why my wife was living at the house and I had to explain it all again to her. She then said she had to interview all the kids individually without the Mom present. It was just all a big hassle, unnecessary, stupid and embarrassing.

People think that there is a presumption of innocence. However, once accused, the burden seems to flip, especially in the case of family services. Also, usually there is a no-contact order given at the outset of these cases and the woman was probably going off of that when she acted surprised your wife was still living at your home. Anyway, sounds like a nightmare where you had to take the brunt of an overloaded system that can't readily distinguish the problem cases from those that aren't.

Is there any kind of due process before the non-contact order is issued? Or there only a post-order remedy?

[Vēritās]

I never used that terminology (drug-induced psychosis) with the cops, I merely told them she was suffering from negative effects of chemo drugs she had been taking for months and I ALSO told them that she has to take her meds to even everything out. When they first gave her steroids in the hospital it drove her nuts, but they had to balance that out with some other drug called Buspirone.

Apparently you think she was better served being locked in a cell where her necessary prescription drugs would be denied, as opposed to going back home in my care where she would just go straight to sleep after taking her meds. Apparently this is the kind of desperate mental gymnastics you're willing to entertain in order to back the blue at all costs, no matter what the circumstances.

This is why I tend to favor removing the responsibility for mental health crises from the police and giving it to a separate organization or agency. When people who are in a mental state that places themselves or others in danger, the focus should be on putting them in an environment where they are safe and can get whatever medical/psychological support they need. Obviously, there would need to be some coordination between systems.

Veritas, did a judge order her to stay out of the home? If not, how did that happen?

This was several years ago so I'm doing my best to remember the details but I do remember specifically going to the solicitor's office while she was still being detained because I was told she wouldn't be able to come home without her agreeing to it. When I arrived that Morning they thought I was there for their regular interview, they didn't know I was there trying to get them to release her into my custody.

They interviewed me for about 30 minutes and made it clear to me they viewed me as the victim and that they were not working to do what was best for my wife, only me and the kids. It really pissed me off so I ended up getting my wife another attorney and everything eventually went away and I can't even remember if we had to pay a fine or if there was probation of any sort.

[Dr Exiled]

People think that there is a presumption of innocence. However, once accused, the burden seems to flip, especially in the case of family services. Also, usually there is a no-contact order given at the outset of these cases and the woman was probably going off of that when she acted surprised your wife was still living at your home. Anyway, sounds like a nightmare where you had to take the brunt of an overloaded system that can't readily distinguish the problem cases from those that aren't.

Is there any kind of due process before the non-contact order is issued? Or there only a post-order remedy?

Only post-order remedies. I'm sure it's the same in all jurisdictions, but, it is really easy to get a protection order because they are granted on an ex-parte basis, as domestic violence is a huge problem as all are probably aware. However, you can get a relatively quick hearing to request that the TPO be cancelled and make your case.

Sometimes, unfortunately, the system is abused. I recently had a case where my client's former girl friend made up a bunch of lies and used the TPO to kick my client out of his own property because he broke up with her. He had to live in a hotel and with friends for two weeks prior to our being able to reverse the TPO and get one against her. My client filmed the cops escorting her out of his property. There is justice at times.

[Dr Exiled]

This is why I tend to favor removing the responsibility for mental health crises from the police and giving it to a separate organization or agency. When people who are in a mental state that places themselves or others in danger, the focus should be on putting them in an environment where they are safe and can get whatever medical/psychological support they need. Obviously, there would need to be some coordination between systems.

Veritas, did a judge order her to stay out of the home? If not, how did that happen?

This was several years ago so I'm doing my best to remember the details but I do remember specifically going to the solicitor's office while she was still being detained because I was told she wouldn't be able to come home without her agreeing to it. When I arrived that Morning they thought I was there for their regular interview, they didn't know I was there trying to get them to release her into my custody.

They interviewed me for about 30 minutes and made it clear to me they viewed me as the victim and that they were not working to do what was best for my wife, only me and the kids. It really pissed me off so I ended up getting my wife another attorney and everything eventually went away and I can't even remember if we had to pay a fine or if there was probation of any sort.

The standard here for the first offense, without any enhancing circumstances such as choking the alleged victim, is a 2 day suspended sentence for 6 months, stay out of trouble during that 6 month period, domestic violence classes and a fine of around $400 to $500. Also, they will dismiss the case at the end of the 6 months if the above are fulfilled.

[Res Ipsa]

Is there any kind of due process before the non-contact order is issued? Or there only a post-order remedy?

Only post-order remedies. I'm sure it's the same in all jurisdictions, but, it is really easy to get a protection order because they are granted on an ex-parte basis, as domestic violence is a huge problem as all are probably aware. However, you can get a relatively quick hearing to request that the TPO be cancelled and make your case.

Sometimes, unfortunately, the system is abused. I recently had a case where my client's former girl friend made up a bunch of lies and used the TPO to kick my client out of his own property because he broke up with her. He had to live in a hotel and with friends for two weeks prior to our being able to reverse the TPO and get one against her. My client filmed the cops escorting her out of his property. There is justice at times.

Thanks. I have no experience in protective orders at all. So, in a case like Kevin's, the prosecutor simply moves for a TPO based simply on an affidavit from the LEO?

[Res Ipsa]

This is why I tend to favor removing the responsibility for mental health crises from the police and giving it to a separate organization or agency. When people who are in a mental state that places themselves or others in danger, the focus should be on putting them in an environment where they are safe and can get whatever medical/psychological support they need. Obviously, there would need to be some coordination between systems.

Veritas, did a judge order her to stay out of the home? If not, how did that happen?

This was several years ago so I'm doing my best to remember the details but I do remember specifically going to the solicitor's office while she was still being detained because I was told she wouldn't be able to come home without her agreeing to it. When I arrived that Morning they thought I was there for their regular interview, they didn't know I was there trying to get them to release her into my custody.

They interviewed me for about 30 minutes and made it clear to me they viewed me as the victim and that they were not working to do what was best for my wife, only me and the kids. It really pissed me off so I ended up getting my wife another attorney and everything eventually went away and I can't even remember if we had to pay a fine or if there was probation of any sort.

Thanks. It sounds like Dr. Exiled's explanation fits.

by the way, my dad had similar experience involving his ex-wife, who spoke little English. She was also arrested and confined, but I don't recall for how long. After she was released, he hired an attorney for her. She told them that my dad's ex would receive a subpoena in the mail, which wasn't actually legal service of process. Mail is cheaper than a process server, and most people would simply sign an enclosed form consenting to the service of process and show up at the hearing. So, the City saved money by doing it that way. The attorney told them to throw the subpoena in the trash. The attorney then appeared on the hearing date and moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The judge granted the motion, and that was the end.

The attorney also said that this is well known by family law attorneys in the area. So, if you can afford and attorney and hire one, you get off scott free. If you don't and do what you think you are supposed to (sign and return the consent form and show up at your hearing), you're then subject to being ordered out of your home, mandatory classes, or criminally prosecuted.

That ain't justice. But it is the result of having a citizenry that wants the benefits of law enforcement and a court system but is too cheap to pay the necessary taxes to support it. If the citizens won't fund the services they demand, the system will squeeze the money from somewhere in a dysfunctional way. When the DOJ investigated Ferguson, what it found was shocking. The entire court system was funded by fining those least able to afford the fines and appear in court. Failure to appear or to promptly pay the fines was met with draconian increases in fines and penalties. Rather than being financed by the taxpayers, the court system was financed by preying on its poorest citizens. In the same vein, there is a very good reason why Hawkeye is talking so much about predatory speed traps, while I have never encountered such a thing in my lifetime.

[Gadianton]

In the same vein, there is a very good reason why Hawkeye is talking so much about predatory speed traps, while I have never encountered such a thing in my lifetime.

There is a such thing, it's called the red light camera. One of the biggest cons ever in the state of California by the government against the people. Ultimately they were all ripped out all over the state because they began to lose money -- the cost of court became too much, but initially, it was quite a scam, an easy way to generate revenue. My beef with Ajax is that I think government falls into the problem of self-justification and profit-maximizing, and it's biased toward selecting participants who enjoy using force and power, but I don't think LE is fundamentally corrupt. If you got rid of cops, no matter how broken things are, things would still be worse.

The fam wanted to see Beverly Hills one day and so I shrugged and drove up there into the nightmare, and every single left turn required running a red light with a camera because there was just too much traffic. I didn't get a ticket but it's a role of the dice.

And like you mentioned, it's a numbers game that selects the easiest to prey upon. A family member got a red light ticket once. The ticket came with a long explanation, encouraging the perp to contact the police department and review the ticket with them. LOL. Because the car was mine, the ticket was sent to me. I called a traffic lawyer who, for a hundred bucks, walked into court with the picture and said, "this isn't my client", and they dismissed no questions. That's the level of stupidity.

With your basic speed trap it's a little different because you've got a cop that found an easy way to justify his existence for the morning at the bottom of a hill. That isn't hooking himself up with cash. Maybe in Mexico, but not here.

Oh, the replacement to the red-light fraud in California is toll-road fines.

[Res Ipsa]

In the same vein, there is a very good reason why Hawkeye is talking so much about predatory speed traps, while I have never encountered such a thing in my lifetime.

There is a such thing, it's called the red light camera. One of the biggest cons ever in the state of California by the government against the people. Ultimately they were all ripped out all over the state because they began to lose money -- the cost of court became too much, but initially, it was quite a scam, an easy way to generate revenue. My beef with Ajax is that I think government falls into the problem of self-justification and profit-maximizing, and it's biased toward selecting participants who enjoy using force and power, but I don't think law enforcement is fundamentally corrupt. If you got rid of cops, no matter how broken things are, things would still be worse.

The fam wanted to see Beverly Hills one day and so I shrugged and drove up there into the nightmare, and every single left turn required running a red light with a camera because there was just too much traffic. I didn't get a ticket but it's a role of the dice.

And like you mentioned, it's a numbers game that selects the easiest to prey upon. A family member got a red light ticket once. The ticket came with a long explanation, encouraging the perp to contact the police department and review the ticket with them. LOL. Because the car was mine, the ticket was sent to me. I called a traffic lawyer who, for a hundred bucks, walked into court with the picture and said, "this isn't my client", and they dismissed no questions. That's the level of stupidity.

With your basic speed trap it's a little different because you've got a cop that found an easy way to justify his existence for the morning at the bottom of a hill. That isn't hooking himself up with cash. Maybe in Mexico, but not here.

Oh, the replacement to the red-light fraud in California is toll-road fines.

I've been in areas where making a left turn during heavy traffic periods required running red lights as a practical matter. We have a couple of them in my area, but they used for intersections that have left turn lanes with cycles that include green arrows for left turns. In those intersections, there is no reason to run the red light and I have no objection at all to the cameras. I don't have any idea whether they make money, but if they deter people from running red lights and causing accidents, I have no beef with them.

We also have cameras in school zones, but drivers are warned they are active by flashing lights. I have no objections to those, either. I got hit with a ticket in a nearby zone just after they became active and paid it without a qualm because I wasn't paying attention and hit the zone at 35 mph. I got hit a second time on day when school was not in session, so I chose to maintain the regular speed limit. I filled out an online form and included a link to the school district's calendar. Citation dismissed.

I think the existence of predatory practices by local government agencies is highly contingent on location, including who's in charge. I agree with you that there is nothing inherently predatory about police departments. But there are some natural human tendencies that have to be guarded against and the taxpayers have to be willing to pay for the level of service demanded.