Is this woman the suspect or a victim? (A reality-based exercise)

[The Doctor.]

This was an issue that came up between a couple that I work with on occasion. No identifying details are included, of course. After having the issue related to me, and looking at the police report for myself, I thought it would be interesting to get the opinions of our progressive community on this subject.

*************
It unfolded as follows;


It's been nearly a year since she and her husband have been 'intimate'. Partly because she feels unworthy, overweight, and useless, and partly because he doesn't communicate with her even though she sometimes begs him to tell her what he wants, needs, or feels.
He works four nights a week, steadily, as a bartender making good money, but not enough to keep up for the family. He is a loving father.
She tried to start a business that might have been very lucrative and could have even supported the whole family, but it failed before it even started because the man she was buying the equipment from reneged on the deal he'd made with her. By the time she'd found that her cause was actionable, her investment dried up, and from there she sank into a black depression.

One morning her husband comes home after work. On occasion, he is fairly drunk on arrival. Those times are actually special to her, and she often waits up all hours just to be there when he arrives because he is sometimes talkative and reflective, and sometimes even a little affectionate.

This was one such morning.

He told her, as he often did in his state, many soothing, hopeful things. He apologized for not being better for her, and they watched TV for an hour before he went to bed.

Still glowing from the rare succor, she went upstairs a few minutes later. She put her arms around him, touched him, and tried to recapture, after so much time, a little intimacy with the man she'd pledged her life to. He threw her off without a word.

Frustrated, she went to take out the garbage, but couldn't find one of her shoes. Ostensibly, it became one of her young children's playthings.
In her frustration, she slammed a door while looking for the shoe in her own bedroom.

Her husband, without a word, got up, put the children in the car, and... still drunk... tried to drive away.

She got into the car and asked what he was doing. He yelled at her to "get out". She took the keys and went back into the house with the children. She pleaded with him to tell her what was wrong, she wanted to simply TALK about her frustration and his reaction. She wanted to work things out, but he persisted in trying to leave. She called the police, and took his phone while still hoping that he would talk to her instead of calling a friend or family member to take the children and he away.

He never said a word about the issue, instead he just demanded to have his phone and the car keys back.

The police arrived, and the parties, separated, explained what happened.

She explained that she called because her husband tried to drive away drunk with the children in the car over a slammed door.
He told the police that yes, he had been drinking, but because she acted violently on the house, he felt he had to get the children out of the house.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Now... I have spoken to both parties, I have seen the police report which reflects the details as related. Every detail herein is verified to more than my satisfaction.

It is the woman who is listed as the 'suspect', and the husband who is listed as the 'victim' on the police report.

If anyone would like to explain why the report is right or wrong, why she was in the right or the wrong, I'd be most interested to hear it. Naturally, I must maintain an objective attitude, but I'm curious as to just why she should be listed as the suspect and he the victim.

There is another purpose here as well, which I will illustrate later.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Seems we're only getting the woman's side of the story.

I'd like to know whether or not the police were able to make a determination that the man was sober enough to leave, and if the woman had done more than just slam the door.

[The Doctor.]

6. Indeed, by his account;

He was below the legal limit by the time they got there, but showed signs of intoxication. The police were of course under obligation to prevent him from driving. No breathalyzer test was administered.

Nothing by his account contradicts hers. He had his eyes closed and was attempting to sleep when she claimed to have slammed the door. There is no way to verify she did anything else. Both agree no damage was caused to the house.

[MADem]

13. Yep--that is the issue. I still don't know who's who in this zoo, though. I can't

call one a suspect or the other a victim and feel as if I know what I am talking about.

[The Doctor.]

22. That's the thing with interpersonal/spousal relationships... they're

COMPLICATED.

Given the facts as presented, would you have an opinion?

[MADem]

34. My opinion is that I don't think we're hearing the whole story.

And for this reason I cannot make a determination as to who is "at fault" in this imbroglio.

There are huge chunks missing.

Was there more than door-slamming? Did the husband throw the wife off and say "I wanna divorce?" Did the wife say "I'll cut your nuts off and make sure you never see your kids again? Who is that floozy who left lipstick on your underwear?"

Tell the story from the perspective of the husband, now, and let's see where it takes us.

Then tell the story from the perspective of the children.

Then, last but not least, let's hear the story from the perspective of the responding officers.

[The Doctor.]

43. The husband did not dispute these details.

Nor did he include anything else.

Sometimes it's not that tough to get to the bottom of things. The responding officers would simply read the police report... unless the issue went to court, in which case, they would merely confirm the report.

[MADem]

49. Come on, that's not how the police report read.

Let's hear from the cops, now.

And the kids.

[The Doctor.]

52. Oh, so you read it?

That's funny... I don't recall sending you a copy.

As I said, I verified the details to my satisfaction. No one, including the police report itself, disputes the above OP, nor is anything included that the parties did not share.

Not sure what more you could want.

[MADem]

56. No, I didn't read it. I would LIKE TO, that's why I'm asking for it.

It wasn't that load of romance-novel (as someone downthread termed it--accurately, IMO) drama in your OP. And don't give me "no susbstantive difference" because I'm pretty sure there was. I'll bet the word "succor" never appeared once in the cops' write up.

I think Tahiti Nut, though, has wrapped up your exercise with his assessment downthread.

[The Doctor.]

69. Umm... When did I say that was the police report?

It's not. Those were my words, yes. I'll remember that I'll have to make things a little more dry for those who cannot simply take the facts as portrayed and devise an opinion without getting distracted by the character.

As I said, nothing portrayed is in dispute. My apologies for the shiny, distracting words.

[MADem]

76. You didn't. You provided the "wife's" side of the story only.

Answer this, then--is the "wife" substantially stronger, larger, heavier or taller than the husband? Does the "wife" have a greater muscle to fat ratio than the "husband?" Who has more testosterone circulating in their bloodstream? The "wife?" Or the "husband?"

Is the "wife" in fact the "husband?"

The police report would provide a dispassionate account. Your report is slanted and full of the "wife's" FEEEEEEEEEELINGS. The "husband's" feeeeeeeeeeelings don't get the same treatment.

You're getting huffy about my noticing your OTT verbiage. I'm not the only one who has. Your words aren't "shiny" or "distracting" particularly, what they are is inappropriate to a fact-based account and they are slanted in a (not terribly convincing) effort to sway sympathy towards the "wife."

You need to be a little more "Jack Webb" when you pump out this exercise, and a little less "Jacqueline Suzanne." You also need to not get annoyed with people who are poking a few holes in your effort--these pokes produce a better product, if you ever want to do anything with this thing. You're too easily offended. Toughen up.

[The Doctor.]

80. No effort, nor am I 'annoyed' at all.

The 'verbiage' is for the purpose of more succinctly including a great deal more background.

I could say; "Because she felt that sitting with him after he arrived home in that condition made her feel better and more secure about their relationship, and the feeling gave her reason to...", or I could say; "Still glowing from the rare succor,"

I've had this discussion with freeper-types (No, you are not one such, nor am I 'annoyed' that I need to explain this to you), where they claim that because I use "big words", I'm trying to 'sound smart'. Notsomuch. As I've explained to them, I will explain to you for different reasons; I like to be succinct, and sometimes words with certain depth, color, and connotation can be deployed to relate much more in fewer words.

Yes, I could have "Jack Webb"ed it up a little, but I wanted to involve people in more of the depth of the issue without having to go into exhaustive, academic detail. As for the husband's "feeeeeeeeeeelings", he really doesn't much state them with regard to this issue. That's one of the things with these sorts of issues... not everyone expresses themselves similarly. As it turns out, there was a reason for that... which maybe I'll share later.

For the record, I've never read a romance novel. Think I have the stuff to write one?

[MADem]

92. I've only read parodies of romance novels, but downthread you've gotten the thumbsup!

It does read like a potboiler, in any event....or a bridge narrative from CHEATERS!

I still want a muscle to body fat ratio....is the "wife" built like Hulk Hogan, and the "husband" built like Gracie Allen?

[The Doctor.]

95. Woo-Hoo!

Thanks! ;)

In reality, they're the exact same height, and he's about 20 lbs heavier. Neither of those are really relevant considering neither has ever laid a hand on the other in anger.

[dbt]

295. You'd stick your dick in a blender for the attention, wouldn't you?

:evilgrin:

[WeDidIt]

2. The woman is a suspect because...

the husband claimed she was acting violent and there are children involved. The woman claimed no violent behavior. In a situation like this, the safety of the children always must come first. The police must turn this over to authorities equipped to handle domestic issues involving children.

[The Doctor.]

8. Yet, she admitted to slamming a door.

Is such behavior, in your opinion, violent enough to attempt to extract children from the situation... even though they are being put into a car driven by an intoxicated individual?

[WeDidIt]

9. That's neither up to me or the police

That is up to child welfare services to determine after they investigate the home life of the couple.

[The Doctor.]

14. So you are on record as having no opinion?

Then perhaps you should not have been so hasty to have one. ;)

Seriously though... I understand your point. The husband claimed violence, the wife claimed frustration, so therefore there was a slammed door.

So let's have your opinion; 'Is slamming a door cause to remove children from a home?'. I know... you want to know more. I understand. But the incident is related as understood. In my personal experience, she has a good deal of frustration in her life for justified reasons, and I have spoken with the CPS as you rightly projected. I'd tell you how it turned out, but I'm just curious about opinions on this particular point.

[dustbunnie]

20. Did he tell the police that she had tried to force herself on him sexually...

before the slamming of the door. Or that she was in a state of severe depression and he feared for his safety, along with that of the children? I guess that kind of info might sway things. If the situation was reversed, it would.

[JonLP24]

30. From what the OP said as far as touching and putting an arm around

isn't what I would call forcing herself on himself sexually. If that was the case then every married couple is guilty of that during some point. Eventually someone has got to "make a move", sometimes it comes with rejection and sometimes sexual frustration but what to call something that seems imo you're calling sexual battery but not in those words. I never heard of a couple that makes requests to have sex before any touching goes down but I'm sure they might exist. If I were to tell the police she forced herself on me by only explaining an arm around me and some touching and nothing more I'd expect them to laugh in my face.

[dustbunnie]

38. And when the cops get there, everything you said becomes...

s/he forced him/herself on me. Don't you know how it works in these cases? :)

But one thing I can tell you. If my sig other wanted sex and I didn't, and that turned into door slamming poutrage, I would be at least a little afraid. Having lived with a depressed parent for some time, I know how that can be as well.

[WeDidIt]

41. Without the full story, I cannot say

and I'll put it to you this way.

Nobody has the full story right now, you included.

[The Doctor.]

50. Perhaps.

But in my experience, once both parties have portrayed their recollection, disputed or verified the particulars, and reconciled all of it, one can have a fair certainty of the 'full story'.

As I said, these are the pertinent details to my satisfaction. If you'd rather not have an opinion until you've interviewed all the parties at hand, then perhaps you should opinions about politics as well. :P

If not knowing the 'whole' story precludes opinion, then no opinion is possible. ;)

[WeDidIt]

54. Political opinions and legal opinions are two different things.

In the law, knowing the whole story is vital.

That's why we have child welfare services.

Of course, this thread is an example of what happens when a physician attempts to practice law.

At least it's not as bad as when the reverse happens...

[The Doctor.]

93. Ok... now that was funny.

Not, perhaps, in the way you might think.

Who has attempted to "Practice Law" or medicine here?


Focus, Grasshopper.

[WeDidIt]

136. The designation of "suspect" is a matter of law, weedhopper. n/t

[The Doctor.]

144. You should re-read the post you were responding to... it was a QUESTION....

Do you have an ANSWER?

You see; when one is asked a question, they are expected, if they are at all intellectually honest, to answer it.


Can you do that?

[WeDidIt]

255. See my first post in this thread

I gave you an answer and, strictly speaking, the only answer that can be given is a legal one.

She did, after all, involve law enforcement in the issue.

[The Doctor.]

259. Then you are of no opinion. That's fine.

[WeDidIt]

264. I gave an opinion based upon the law

That you ignore that fact says much about you as a person.

[The Doctor.]

267. ?

I've 'ignored' nothing.

Your 'opinion' is devoid. You've passed the buck. You've washed your hands. You have abstained entirely from making a point.

You know nothing of me 'as a person', and your aversion to having an opinion of your own only proves that.

Now... wouldn't it be fun if you actually risked saying something of substance?

Try it, and see what happens.

[WeDidIt]

285. I gave a perfectly valid opinion

and explained myself. This met the requirements of your request.

Again, that you ignore that fact tells me much about you as a person.

[The Doctor.]

288. Silly person. I've ignored nothing. You said, in short, 'it's up to the police, not me'.

That's you saying that you cannot form an opinion. I don't have a problem with that, you're perfectly allowed to have no opinion. That's all really.

[JVS]

31. It is a dangerous precedent to dictate which methods of passive resistance are appropriate to...

various levels of physical violence. In some states once any violence, regardless of whether it has been directed at a person or an inanimate object, has been added to an argument it has become domestic violence. I saw a guy get arrested on cops for breaking a lamp that was the subject of a dispute. In such a situation you cannot dictate that another member of the household is obligated to stay there or leave children to whom he is a legal guardian behind.

[pnwmom]

167. You CAN dictate that a drunk person not drive children. n/t

[anigbrowl]

165. That's arguably a delay of temper.

Husband was asleep in bed until she woke him up with her angry behavior. He's foolish for trying to drive away while intoxicated, but he didn't initiate anything. Naturally, one can only form a superifical judgment from a 2nd or 3rd hand report.

[JVS]

19. Agreed.

[The Doctor.]

28. So, should she have let him drive away with the children,

rather than risk becoming the 'suspect' in a police report?

(I get the point though... she was obviously menacing with the slammed door.)

[JVS]

32. She has no right to detain him or the children.

[The Doctor.]

37. Uh... so she should have let him drive away drunk with the kids in the car?

I mean... any other point you could make might have merit, but saying that a mother hasn't the right to keep her children from harm as she perceives it is, well... kinda fucked up.

[JVS]

46. Husbands and wives don't have the right to detain each other in violent situations.

Since she was the instigator of the violence in the story, he has a right to remove himself and the children from the situation.

[The Doctor.]

55. So, a slammed door is justification enough to put one's children in danger.

Ever hear the phrase 'out of the frying pan'?

[JVS]

64. And taking away his phone so that he cannot call for someone to get them is kosher?

[The Doctor.]

77. Never said it was. Neither of them claimed the children were ever in danger.

As per the report as well.

That was his initial 'reaction', but there is one piece of information I've left out so as not to color the issue. I'm just waiting to see if anyone figures it out.

[pnwmom]

169. Since he was drunk, she had the right to protect the children from him. n/t

[pnwmom]

168. She does if he's drunk. If he's drunk, he's in no condition to be watching children

much less taking them away and possibly driving with them.

[Arugula Latte]

61. But the husband was going to drive drunk with the kids.

Talk about safety of the children!

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. "was going to" or "thought about" isn't a crime.

And the story suggests he was under the legal limit anyway.

[The Doctor.]

198. So it is your position that a mother should LET someone intoxicated drive away with her kids?

He was intoxicated, he put the children in the car, and no one disputes that he intended to drive away.

It's hard to argue that she didn't do the right thing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. Presumably he drove home from work after drinking.

Seems to me she would be concerned about that, and not eagerly awaiting his liquored-up arrival.

When the cops arrived, your story indicates that he wasn't drunk. Which is it, and on what facts are you basing it on?

Reading between the lines, he wasn't really drunk, but had simply had a couple - which the wife was hoping would be enough to get lucky. When rebuffed, she angrily left the room. Husband, who has had enough of this relationship, tried to leave. She confiscated his keys, his phone and called the cops to prevent it. If she was interested in protecting the kids from driving with someone who was not drunk but who had been drinking earlier, then taking the keys seems prudent. Taking the cellphone so he can't call for a ride? Much harder to defend.

Cops got there, found that husband wasn't noticeably under the influence.

Their therapist, (who really is her therapist), tells the internet (half) the sordid tale.

[Mojorabbit]

3. It is not easy to say who is the victim

or perhaps both are with each other. The bottom line though is that in the absence of physical abuse the children should not be wrenched away in this manner. They should seek counseling and if the relationship is not savable then there should be an orderly split for the children's sake.

[peace13]

4. And this just goes to show you..

Never call the cops unless you are bleeding or want more trouble than you can handle. If a woman is still able to talk when the cops arrive she IS the suspect!

[Dappleganger]

5. They are both responsible for their own actions.

This is a case which should be heard by a judge, for certain.

Were either of them cited or just a report filed? Bringing the children into the situation to use as pawns shows that neither of them are using self-control or good judgment. This is another disaster waiting to happen and more than likely the children will be hurt the most.

[relayerbob]

105. Agreed

Neither are good examples for the kids, and both have done wrongs and been wronged. Neither seems a victim of the other, per se. Both seem to be victims of themselves. I also agree that in the end, the children will be the real victims.

[The Doctor.]

108. Very good.

I had that discussion with them. ;)

How do you see that the children were 'used as pawns'. I'm curious how you arrived at that.

[Dappleganger]

120. If he was that afraid of her...

he would have called the police first instead of getting behind the wheel (shows his bad judgment and using the children in a selfish manner). If she was that afraid of him, instead of getting into the car with the children she would have immediately called the police (first) instead of trying to prevent a drunk man from doing so.

I've seen this tug-of-war--they can be psychological as well as physical. The children feel caught in the middle, feel responsible for their parents actions and feelings and ultimately does considerable harm. This is my old Guardian ad Litem experience speaking, here.

[The Doctor.]

129. No... SHE called the police to stop him.

[Duer 157099]

7. The woman is NOT the suspect because

is slamming a door illegal nowadays? Is that an action that should result in a call for police?

However, rounding up sleeping children and herding them into an automobile, while intoxicated, can arguably be cause for a police call.

So, if the husband had not done what he did, the police would not have been called and there would be no report to speak of.

Unless he had planned to call the police because his wife slammed a door. If so, then hell, arrest ALL OF US now because I don't know of anyone who hasn't slammed a door at some point in their life.

[Kitty Herder]

188. Yep. Last I checked, door slamming is not illegal. But...

driving drunk absolutely is.

[Xithras]

254. In many states you can be arrested for it

Punching a hole in your wall isn't illegal either, but do so while arguing with your spouse and the police are going to drag your sorry ass to jail anyway...and rightfully so.

The why is VERY simple if you think about it. There was a case several years ago where a guy got pissed off during an argument with his wife and threw a plastic soda bottle at a coffee table. That bottle bounced off of the table and hit his wife in the face. He was arrested, tried, and convicted for assault and spousal abuse, even though he never intended to strike her.

He was convicted because, by initiating ANY uncontrolled and potentially violent physical behavior, he created a situation where someone could have been injured. In his case, someone was. Now ask yourself....what if the noise had woken one of the kids and they came walking through the door to investigate just as she slammed it?

That's why something as trivial as "slamming a door" is treated as a violent act in domestic disturbance calls.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

219. First Of All, There Is NO Evidence He Was Drunk At The Time.

In fact, he claims he wasn't. We'll never know for sure.

Second of all, taking his keys AND his phone is unlawful in and of itself, in combination with the violent behavior of slamming the door.

Yes, she is a suspect legally. 100% inarguably.

[hfojvt]

10. if it's not too late, could you edit the line out of your post?

this __________________ going too long makes a post annoying to read. The reader has to scroll back and forth for every line. Because the post is wider than their screen.

At least on my computer. YMMV.

[The Doctor.]

17. On mine it's ok...

Your resolution is set pretty low, isn't it?

Sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm past the edit period on reading your post.

[Demit]

11. If the husband verified the details, your question is really for the police, to explain their report

Why are you asking strangers to offer opinions on a third-hand story told from just one point of view anyway? Weird.

[aintitfunny]

12. Because there is no suspect

She slammed a door - last I heard there was no crime in that. He was in error for trying to drive away with the children after drinking, but did not actually do so - no crime there. Definitely a family in crisis but there should be no label as to suspect or victim, I don't know why the police would file it as such, unless there is more to the story.

[mrcheerful]

58. But a door slammed in anger shows intent of possible violent behavior

many violent crimes in the home are started with the slamming of a door. The husband was in the right as he attempted to remove himself away from the home so the door slamming wouldn't continue into an argument and escalate from there. Also by attempting to remove the children from the house, the husband was also ensuring the children's safety, in the case that by his leaving the wife wouldn't take her anger out on the children.

Often children become targets of an angered parent. Legally the cops hands were tied because 1, he wasn't staggering drunk and 2, he was doing exactly what people are told to do when wife, husband or SO is upset, leave. All police reports have a victim and a suspect, because the wife admitted she slammed the door in anger it made her the suspect. It all goes back to don't say a freaking thing to cops without a lawyer present, the woman clearly admitted she was angry and aggressive, which was a big mistake.

This is how people often find themselves caught up in the system, they think by telling police their story that somehow its going to change the policeman's mind on who is innocent and who is guilty. All talking to the police will do is get a person into more trouble. You are right in that by not being there you are getting part of the story, there's 3 parts to every story, her side, his side and the truth, no one knows what the truth is except for those that were involved.

Btw, there are no laws against having a drink and driving, there is a whole bunch of factors involved on if a person is legally drunk or not, blood alcohol levels, body weight and size, number of hours between the drink and the driving, etc etc etc. And no I am not a drinker, I quit drinking 16 years ago.

[The Doctor.]

81. How was the husband 'assuring the children's safety' by trying to drive away with them while drunk?

Not great judgment as he himself admitted. Should have just gone for a walk with them.

[mrcheerful]

114. Now your looking at intent which means nothing in this case as the guy never drove

or left the property. Doesn't matter what he intended to do, its what he was doing when the police arrived. Again he wasn't driving nor was he above a .8 blood alcohol level by the time the police arrived so he wasn't legally drunk.

[The Doctor.]

127. I agree, but would you let someone you knew had been drinking heavily drive away with YOUR kids?

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. Are you a counselor for the couple or a lawyer for the woman? n/t

[The Doctor.]

199. Funny... that doesn't seem to be an answer.

I'm no one. What I am is not material here. The facts are as presented on an internet message board. So far, you are engaging in the exercise in a most interesting and evasive way.

Perhaps I'll eventually answer your question, but I guarantee that will not happen until after you answer mine.

[lumberjack_jeff]

244. It's a question you didn't ask me.

I'll answer anyway. No, I wouldn't let a person who had been drinking heavily drive my kids.

I wouldn't confiscate their cellphone to prevent their departure either. I wouldn't run about the house slamming doors because I was denied sex either.

Are you now suggesting that .05 - .06 bac is "drinking heavily"? The descriptions are drifting depending on the rhetorical point desired.

[The Doctor.]

249. Wow... you really are a curiosity. So, how did you just answer the question you claim I never asked?

Seems I'm not the one 'drifting' here.

Slammed 'a' door, not 'running around slamming doors'. You are clearly the one 'revising' descriptions to fit your desires.

You might also have noticed that it was made fairly clear that she didn't throw a tantrum simply for 'not getting sex'. Again, another reason I tried to be fairly clear; so some doofus wouldn't go assigning motives and events that didn't exist.

Yet you just go right ahead and make shit up, don'tcha?


Now bright boy, let me ask you... what has to happen for someone 'drink heavily' and then have a BA level of .06? (Those were mutual guesstimates by the parties, btw. There was never any denial that he had not been drunk or otherwise impaired.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

252. Follow along; you didn't ask ME.

You asked someone else, then criticized me for not answering.

Now, for the question you just asked; a .06 bac results from two drinks in a one-hour period for an average sized man. This results in; 0.05 - 0.06 Feeling of warmth, relaxation, mild sedation; exaggeration of emotion and behavior; slight decrease in reaction time and in fine-muscle coordination; impaired judgment about continued drinking.

The definition of "heavy drinking" is entirely subjective, but the amount of time required to metabolize a .08+ BAC (i.e. legally drunk) to a .05 is not.

The above average-sized man can metabolize those two drinks in about 3 1/2 hours. I find it a little disappointing that a poster with the self-esteem to call themselves "The Doctor" gets their medical advice from someone who calls himself a lumberjack.

Now, fair's fair. I'll ask you again. How much time elapsed between the wife calling the cops on her "drunk" husband and their arrival? If the answer is measured in anything less than hours, then it becomes clear that your story is biased, ill-befitting someone who offers therapy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

220. This Whole Thread Assumes He Was Drunk, When There Was NO Evidence He Was.

Just anecdotal. He said he was sobered up by then. Could he still have been drunk? Maybe. Do we know that for sure? Nope. Could he have been within legal limits by that time? Yup. The assumptions in this thread are tiresome.

[The Doctor.]

276. Except for the police report and both parties acknowledging he was drunk... you're absolutely right!

Oh, wait... you're actually kind of a moron. Got it. :think:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

281. Oh Wait... You've Repeatedly Stated He Was Under The Legal Limit.

:think:

:dunce:

[The Doctor.]

291. Edumacation... it's FREE online!

Main Entry:
drunk
Pronunciation:
\ˈdrəŋk\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English drunke, alteration of drunken
Date:
14th century

1 a: having the faculties impaired by alcohol b: having a level of alcohol in the blood that exceeds a maximum prescribed by law <legally drunk>2: dominated by an intense feeling <drunk with rage>3: relating to, caused by, or characterized by intoxication : drunken <drunk driving>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drunk%5B2%5D

What are the alcohol and drug-related violations in New York State?

BAC = blood alcohol concentration

* DWI: Driving While Intoxicated; .08 BAC or higher or other evidence of intoxication.
* Aggravated DWI: Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated: .18 BAC or higher.
* DWAI/Alcohol: Driving While Ability Impaired (by alcohol); .05 BAC to .07 BAC, or other evidence of impairment.
* DWAI/Drug: Driving While Ability Impaired by a single Drug other than alcohol.
* DWAI/Combination: Driving While Ability Impaired by a the Combined Influence or Drugs or Alcohol.

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmvfaqs.htm#dwi

[petronius]

15. I don't think either one is a suspect or a victim

She was petty in making noise while the family was trying to sleep, he showed poor judgement in trying to drive away with the kids (making the kids pawns in the dispute). Unless there are additional details (and there always are) they both behaved badly but it shouldn't have been a police matter. Rational adults should have been able to work this out on their own...

[Warpy]

16. There is no suspect

only a complainant, the drunken husband, his nose out of joint because his slumber was disturbed by a gesture of affection and a slammed door.

There is no suspect because there was no crime.

Had she not confiscated his keys, there would have been quite a few crimes: DUI, child endangerment, and so forth.

[get the red out]

18. They need marriage counseling not cops

except for him trying to drive away with the kids after drinking. That is definitely a no-no. So he came much closer to breaking the law than she did if she just slammed a door. But these people need help not legal harassment.

[The Doctor.]

23. ... funny you should say that...

:hi:

That was MY advice too!

:D

[JonLP24]

21. I can't possibly see how she is the suspect

I re-read it twice and don't see anything "violent" from the woman. Aside from slamming the door but I've done this myself a few times with no further intentions of harming someone so taking kids out of that situation seems unreasonable and it certainly is reasonable to prevent someone you suspect as drunk from driving with children in the car(automatic felony in some states I know of). I don't really see a suspect or a victim in this case, maybe it's something you always put down on a police report and not think about it. That's about all I can guess.

[ohheckyeah]

24. She is suspected of what and he is listed as the victim of what?

Frankly the whole relationship sounds very dysfunctional.

WHY he was getting ready to drive drunk (if in fact he was) with children in the car is immaterial to the whole issue. As a matter of fact most of the information in the OP is immaterial to who is a victim or not. WAS she being violent? WAS he legally drunk when he got behind the wheel of the car? Those are the only two "facts" that are relevant and all we have is a he said, she said.

[The Doctor.]

104. The facts are as stated.

He was inebriated, that is the extent of his 'drunkeness'. She slammed a door, that was the extent of her 'violence'.

What 'he said', she confirmed. What 'she said', he confirmed.

[ohheckyeah]

117. Ok

Frankly they both sound like a pain in the ass to be married to and both sound like drama queens. :-)

Does the woman have a history of being violent? If not, reacting to a slammed door in the manner he did seems like an over reaction to me.

The only thing either sounds to be a victim of is their own issues.

[dustbunnie]

123. And both said, according to you, that the children were never in danger.

So was he falling down drunk, or fine by the time the car scene unraveled?

The moral of the story is, don't try to have sex with someone who doesn't want it, especially if you understand they are not completely sober, get help for your depression as it may force you to eschew the pathetic attempts to get love and figure out your life, and nevah, evah get the popo involved unless you really want to make a scene out of it. (Goes back to the depression thing.)

[The Doctor.]

128. From the wife, no.

That was the point.

Otherwise, you seem to be saying that if you try to have sex with your spouse, you deserve what you get.

[dustbunnie]

132. Not sure what you're saying. From the wife's POV he was drunk?

In which case, she thought he would put out earlier? From my side of equation, I wouldn't want to be with a man like that. It would disgust me. I would look at it as a form of rape. Not the usual kind, but still. Can't imagine it would be different for a man.

If she thought he wasn't drunk, then there must be plenty of crap in that family to inspire him to want to take the kids and run. Wrongly, or rightly. Her calling the cops just brings out to the public what you can't deal with, within the family. It's a cheap form of marriage counseling. The cops have to assign blame. Tis the law. Just didn't work out in her favor this time.

If I've misunderstood you, please esplain. :)

[The Doctor.]

152. Why are you so focused on sex?

She knew he was drunk.

He wasn't hurting anyone while in bed whether he was having sex or not. But if you recall, she took his phone in order to prevent his 'bringing out into the public' what she 'couldn't deal with'.

I agree that resorting to calling the police is not a great way to deal with marital issues, but in this case, did she have a choice?

Should she have tried to use force against him on her own to stop him from driving away drunk with her children? Or was calling the cops her best choice? If you can think of a third option, I'd love to hear it.

[Bonobo]

166. Some DU'ers will tell you it is rape to try to have sex with an intoxicated person. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

218. But now the story is that the man wasn't drunk.

And BTW, it is rape to have sex with an intoxicated person.

[The Doctor.]

262. No, he came home that way and was still intoxicated when he attempted to leave.

So your point has merit.

Problem is; how does a woman 'force herself' on an unwilling male? Really... there's only so far she can get.

[Hello_Kitty]

279. Doesn't matter how far she can get.

If he's intoxicated beyond being capable of the judgment involved in consenting to sex then yes, if a woman had sexual contact with him while knowing he was in that state, whether or not he was capable of having an erection, then she would be guilty of sexual assault. In the case of your OP, IMO the woman didn't commit sexual assault because he rebuffed her advances and she stopped.

[uppityperson]

290. Men can be raped. "there's only so far she can get"? It depends

It is possible to stimulate a man's penis to get it erect, even if he is unwilling. Not every man, but for many, that is possible.

And if he was unwilling, continuing to sexually manipulate his is sexual assault.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MilesColtrane]

26. The cops probably listed her as the suspect because they were pissed off...

...that they she called them to referee a domestic dispute.

They only law that had been broken seems to be her taking his cell phone. (The car keys are debatable. Whose car was it? Was he really legally drunk?)

Disclaimer: I only play a lawyer on TV.

[walldude]

27. A suspect or a victim?

Of what? I don't see any crime here. You claim in the OP that the husband was still drunk but in a response in the thread you claim that when the cops got there the guy was not legally over the limit. No crime. There isn't even a domestic violence charge here.

[The Doctor.]

40. Correct.

But he was still intoxicated to the tune of .05-.06 (they agreed on this, and it might have just been accord.) ... enough to get a ticket.

The legal limit is .08.

So, why did they name her the 'suspect' and he the 'victim'?

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. If the legal limit is .08, what ticket can be issued for .05-.06? (nt)

[The Doctor.]

67. DUI/DWAI, I believe.

They can get you for 'Driving While Ability Impaired' under even very innocent circumstances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. On the subjective judgement of the police?

Would they be able to make that stick when no driving was actually done? It sounds unlikely to me. After all, you haven't actually described any drunken behaviour.

[The Doctor.]

84. They told him as much, and he admitted to heavily drinking. Good question though.

No, they couldn't have charged him unless she let him drive away drunk with the kids.

Perhaps she should have allowed that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. In that case, there's clearly no basis for describing him as a 'suspect'

If he's below the legal limit for driving, then I can't see that she had the right to withhold the keys. Perhaps she's the suspect of illegally stopping him driving? You seem to say that she thought he was drunk, although he had not exhibited any signs of drunken behaviour, and the police didn't think it worth breathalyzing him.

Maybe it was 'suspicion of wasting police time'. :shrug: Can't you ask them?

[The Doctor.]

107. Lol...'suspicion of wasting police time'.

I have no doubt that has been casus mali for many arrests.

Meanwhile, if you thought someone was too drunk to drive with children in the car, would you not try to stop them? If you'd been drinking, your S/O slammed a door, and even though they'd never hurt you or the children (as stated by both parties), would you not try to extricate the children?

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Maybe I would try to stop them - but would I then call the police?

And if I'd been drinking, and my partner slammed a door, I'd probably turn over and try to go to sleep - my typical action after drinking. But I don't have children, so I've no idea how I'd behave when 'drunk' if I had children to consider. How drunk this person is seems open to question - they came (drove?) home from the bar, was consdiered 'drunk' in some way, then watched TV for an hour, then went to bed. At some time after that, they did this 'take the children away' thing.

All in all, there's a lot of behaviour here that I personally wouldn't do. But it'd make things a lot clearer if you admitted what they were suspected of.

[The Doctor.]

154. All the facts available are listed. There's nothing not 'admitted'.

In your case, nothing would have happened.

Not everyone is as remotely rational as yourself. Having been online for so long should have taught you that by now.

[walldude]

103. THere are laws in some states where you can be arrested for DUI

if you are in a parked car.

[walldude]

101. Stupidity? Nepotism?

Frankly usually in domestic situations the man is arrested without question. In many states all a woman has to do is call and the man will be arrested no questions asked till later.

[dkf]

29. Are you certain the "violence" was only the slammed door?

When I read it I didn't connect the two.

It is also weird that he would grab the kids and leave just because of a slammed door.

Something doesn't sound right here.

[The Doctor.]

72. That fact was not in dispute.

He claimed on the report that she threw something, but he admitted that he was trying to sleep with his eyes closed.

[dkf]

86. This kind of looks overblown to me.

I'd say both these people were a bit overdramatic. He certainly knew the phrase to use to get him off the hook and her on it though. Once the word "violent" was thrown out there, the police didn't have a choice.

[The Doctor.]

157. Indeed.

I've come to expect nothing less than such shards of truth from you.

It's nice to see such well-driven nails by such sharp folks as yourself.

Thanks much.

[Jack_DeLeon]

33. She is probably listed as the suspect...

because she appeared very emotional infront of the police and the guy probably was less so.

As such the police probably rightly or wrongly believe she instigated the situation.

[ohheckyeah]

35. No offense but this:

"Still glowing from the rare succor, she went upstairs a few minutes later. She put her arms around him, touched him, and tried to recapture, after so much time, a little intimacy with the man she'd pledged her life to. He threw her off without a word."

sounds like something from a Harlequin romance novel. :-) Maybe you are in the wrong profession. ;-)

[dkf]

36. I'd say it sounds more like a Nicholas Sparks novel

from what little I was able to get through.

[ohheckyeah]

39. LOL

I never finished the only Nicholas Sparks novel I tried to read.

[MADem]

48. I thought he wrote copy for that insomniac's delight TV show "CHEATERS."

Doesn't it sound like a little "bridge work" to get the viewer to the next, heavily pixilated scene? http://www.cheaters.com/

[ohheckyeah]

59. It seems to me that the OP

wrote the scenario in such a manner as to elicit sympathy for the woman.

I only saw CHEATERS once and that was enough.

[MADem]

66. I think Tahiti Nut is right on the money--switch the genders.

I'd like to know if the "woman" in this scenario outweighs the man by a hundred or more pounds, and maybe is a half a foot or more taller.

I think the excercise is to show that it's the "man" who is unfairly called suspect, absent any other issues that are written down on a police report.

Of course, physical strength used in slamming a door (that two hundred and fifty pound guy will shake the house to the foundation, the ninety eight pound woman's slam will sound like a cat fart) can serve as an opportunity for the other party to feel fear, if the strength behind it is great enough. Again, though, not being there, impossible to say.

On edit--as for CHEATERS, it comes on around two in the morning in my area. I think it's hysterical, particularly when the aggrieved party is pining for a real loser, or starts beating up on the person the loser is cheating with. It's a great show to watch if you're ever feeling a bit low or stressed. When you look at the lives of some of those poor baastids, you realize how good you've got it!

[The Doctor.]

83. Heheh... thanks!

As I said in another post, there really was a depth of interaction that just couldn't be captured academically.

I'll take it under advisement. ;)

[TahitiNut]

42. It's even more interesting if one switches the genders.

Then the scenario reads like a Lifetime Channel movie. She comes home after work and he tries to force her to have sex and then slams the door angrily when she won't. Scared, she tries to escape with the kids and is prevented from doing so.

Funny how we color our perceptions, huh? :eyes:

[MADem]

51. You rather cleverly have probably cracked the nut...as it were!

I'm wondering if you haven't ruined the "Ah ha!" moment!

[Matariki]

298. Yeah, it seems obvious, doesn't it. Bet he doesn't have the balls to pony up the truth though

because he knows he's going to get an internet scorching when he does. The whole post reeks of some kind of agenda.

[dustbunnie]

53. Exactly my thoughts. You forgot to mention his dark depression though.

Not to mention he likes it when she's had few, as it makes it easier for him to "get some."

[TahitiNut]

65. Yup. So trite it isn't even noteworthy. (Unless the genders are switched.)

:thumbsup:

[ohheckyeah]

60. Yes

It was certainly written in manner to evoke sympathy for the woman. I can't say I felt any though.

[Caliman73]

63. Exactly what I was thinking...

and I think the point of the exercise. People are minimizing the male's reactions over the sexual advance and his desire to protect the children whereas if the genders were simply switched in the story it would be a classic case of domestic abuse where the mother was trying to escape with her children and the fact that she had been drinking would be overlooked. Yep the devil is often in the details or at least our perception of the details.

I would be inclined to say that she was the suspect in the report because she had made the initial advance, he rejected her, which caused her to become angry and slam the door. Perhaps the man fearing that she might escalate decided that he needed to get out to give her time to cool off and wanted to take the kids to avoid any collateral harm to them.

We tend to judge men who may be victims of domestic violence more harshly because of our perceptions of how men should handle themselves and because it is more common for men to be the perpetrators of aggressive behaviors. We also often dismiss the idea that men can be sexually harassed because men should typically be open to sexual advances at all times and are often the aggressors in sexual situations.

Did the police ask if there was any history of domestic violence in the home?

[MADem]

70. I wondered if the "wife" outweighed the husband by sixty to a hundred pounds

and maybe was a half a foot taller?

[The Doctor.]

71. LOL! Well... she had gained weight.

[Caliman73]

89. Though size, weight, and strength might be a factor

which determines that more men abuse and threaten women, I might say that how aggressive one person is and the socialization of the other partner might have just as much impact. I outweighed my ex, and could have put her down fairly easily due to strength and fighting experience, but I was socialized never to hit women. She was far more aggressive and would sometimes try to get physical if I allowed arguments to continue. There are women out there who are abusive although not nearly in the numbers that men are, which is why we often dismiss information that may point to that possibility.

[MADem]

125. Sure. I know a lady who used to smack her husband around all the time.

He'd come home shitfaced and she'd let him have it. Of course, she was two inches taller and easily fifty pounds--probably more--heavier. It wasn't a match made in heaven. He'd fight back but he was loaded and she was bigger so it usually ended as a standoff, unless she was really pissed off--in that case, she usually "won."

Neither was interested in police intervention. That was the way those dysfunctional twits communicated, I guess.

However, that is the exception. The rule is that the aggressor is often--not always, but often--the male in the relationship.

[Caliman73]

130. Definitely

Unfortunately because it is so one sided in general, we tend to overlook the times when women are the aggressors. We also tend to overlook times when fathers are making the choice to protect the kids and get them out of harms way because typically it is the mom doing it. That is the point some are making. Our preconceived notions sometimes interfere with objectivity in investigation.

[The Doctor.]

278. "Preconceived notions" indeed.

Well put, and point well taken.

[The Doctor.]

73. That thought occured to me too.

Funny how things would be 'different' under those circumstances.

[Hello_Kitty]

90. Bullshit.

Your so-called "switch" is a strawfable you created by changing certain words and the false premise that (typical) men and women have equal physical strength and ability to pose a threat. The woman in the OP was not trying to *force* her husband to have sex with her. When he rebuffed her, she left to go do something else. There may be more to the story about her slamming the door but don't trivialize what people who have really had sex forced on them in their lives (and I am one of them) have been through to make your silly point.

[The Doctor.]

100. Don't be so hard on TN... it's an academic proposition, that's all.

And a clever one at that.

Think if it were the other way around and it were the husband who was rebuffed and went on to do something else. It's likely that might have shown up as 'forced himself on her' in the police report... even if he didn't.

Thanks for making a valid point though. It's really tragic that so many people are willing to make BS claims that trivialize the reality of what you have gone through.

[TahitiNut]

138. That's how it would be portrayed, imho.

A (larger, stronger) male physically made uninvited sexual advances to a drunken female. The last time I heard, inebriation makes 'consent' impossible.

Like I say ... funny how our perception is colored. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

139. Now you're digging in deeper.

So the woman made *uninvited* sexual advances to a *drunken* male. He rebuffed them and she stopped. If his level of inebriation was such that he was rendered incapable of legal consent and she had sex with him then she would be guilty of sexual assualt. (That did not happen, nor did she attempt to "force" him, which was the description you initially used.) If he was too drunk to consent to sex than he sure as shit would be too drunk to drive, with the kids in the car no less.

And if you honestly think that a portrayal featuring a woman who comes home drunk regularly, refuses to provide her sad and lonely husband with sex for over a year, and tries to drive off (drunk) with the kids would be sympathetic to her, I've got some oceanfront property here in Arizona to sell you.

Honest to god, people need to let go of this tired fantasy that women have sooooooo many advantages in domestic violence situations.

[redqueen]

204. +1

[Hello_Kitty]

91. Oh, and you forgot to add that the woman is drunk and about to drive with her kids

In your little Lifetime movie. Where I live that's aggravated DUI, a felony.

[lumberjack_jeff]

181. You missed the part where he passed a breathalizer. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

186. You missed the part where he has a new paramour and is looking for an excuse to leave.

Frankly, this whole tale is turning into the DU version of an urban legend.

[The Doctor.]

201. ??? He never took a breathalizer. Now you're just making shit up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. ".05 blood alcohol" implies he took a test.

Your storytelling skills leave a lot of blanks to be filled in. You say he was "drunk" when he tried to leave the house with the kids, but he wasn't by the time the cops arrived. How long did that take? Your narrative suggest significantly less than an hour. People don't metabolize alcohol *that* fast.

It doesn't seem to me that I'm the one making shit up, and more to the point, I'm not doing it about my clients.

[lumberjack_jeff]

180. Indeed. n/t

[ieoeja]

44. She is the suspect because he did exactly what the cops would have recommended.

Flip the genders, and you'd have the cops and every social worker in the country recommending that you remove yourself from the situation. Which is exactly what he attempted doing.

Far worse yet, by taking his keys and phones, she was acting in an aggressive fashion to keep him from leaving. Again, flip the genders, and the alarm bells would be going off!

Now I will go read every body else's responses to see if that changes my mind.

[The Doctor.]

85. But it was ok that he was attempting to drive drunk with the children in the car?

Perhaps if he took them for a walk... but he was drunk.

[ieoeja]

190. You have already admitted he was not legally intoxicated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5497430&mesg_id=5497858

[Hello_Kitty]

96. Flip the genders and she's the drunk one who's about to drive with the kids. eom

[ieoeja]

191. He was not drunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5497430&mesg_id=5497858

[Hello_Kitty]

210. Something we didn't find out until later.

In the OP the impression I got was that he was still intoxicated.

[The Doctor.]

302. Incorrect. You've failed to make the distinction between 'drunk' and 'under the legal limit'.

Intoxicated is still intoxicated. Playing semantics does not change the fact that he'd arrived home drunk, and tried to drive away barely over an hour later.

[pnwmom]

170. No cop or social worker would recommend that a drunk person try to drive off

with children, or be responsible for them at all.

She slammed a door. He tried to drive drunk, with the children.

This is a no-brainer.

[ieoeja]

192. He was not drunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5497430&mesg_id=5497858

[pnwmom]

197. The police considered him impaired. Did you know that you can be

charged with drunk driving even if your blood alcohol doesn't hit the .08 limit? You can if you are judged to be impaired.

And this mother didn't have a machine to test her husband with. She was justified in using her judgment that he shouldn't be driving. Any reasonable person would want to error on the side of the children's safety. It's not as if the husband or the children were at any risk from a woman slamming a door while she's search for a missing shoe.

[Spike89]

45. Although not actionable (probably) she was the violent one

He didn't actually drive drunk with the kids. He didn't do anything (in this report) that could be called violent toward her of the children. He reported that she had been violent toward the house and the part about the shoe being a child's plaything infers she was angry/frustrated with the child, bolstering the husband's claim of fearing violence.

All that said, it sounds like a very mild domestic dispute and very unlikely to result in a prosecution. One of the people in these cases must be listed as the victim. She could probably file some charges and be listed on those forms as the victim. However, just like suing someone--taking action isn't the same as winning or even being vindicated.

[AngryAmish]

47. Maybe the cops didn't know what to do

Not seeing the police report it is hard to determine anything but...

The cops have to fill out the paperwork. Things like suspect and victim can be dicey in domestic situations (as well as other things). But it is important to get everyone's name on the report. maybe they couldn't figure it out and put her down as the suspect, knowing that if anything is done at a later date the people who decide what to charge them with (if anything) can fix it.

Sometimes you just want to finish the paperwork and go home.

[The Doctor.]

88. Yep... pretty much.

Fun stuff for message boards tho.

[Peacetrain]

62. The intimacy between the couple, love, lack of it.. has nothing to do with

the factor, that the husband tried to drive away with the kids and he was drunk.

The fact that so much is made in that about how she felt about herself and does he love her of not.. makes me quite suspicious.. maybe she did get violent.

This is all from one perspective basically.

But still in the end, the safety of the children is the main overriding component. And with the information presented, and nobody refutes the fact the husband was intoxicated, the bulk of the "blame" as it were rests with him. He put the children in danger by attempting to drive in a car intoxicated

Let me edit to add..she did call the police,

[The Doctor.]

74. That's merely how she explained herself.

Indeed, he worked long hours at the bar and was often tired.

[Peacetrain]

98. Ah but attempting to put children in a car and take off intoxicated.. we had just a couple of days

ago, five children killed in a car driven into a waterway by an intoxicated driver.

[madmom]

68. I actually had something very similar happen to me. My So was drunk, we got

into an argument, he cornered me, I pushed him out of the way to get away from him, he fell down. Lost his footing because he was drunk. He called sheriff. I was the suspect. I now have a mark as 1st time domestic violence on my record. Sheriff told me he knew the real culprit, but since he was the one who called...... When I went to court I told the judge he fell because he was drunk, the judge said he fell because I pushed him, case closed.

[The Doctor.]

82. Isn't it just swell?

Amazing how some people manage to twist things, eh?

[Dogtown]

75. No vote

Police report forms, often mandatory on "domestic dispute" calls, are sometimes designed with illegal activity in mind and are not representative of the officers' "keep the peace function".

Much like the jurisdictions that mandate a ticket in all accident reports, the officer usually "wings it" on naming a "suspect", if there is no actual charges to be filed.

It's just a short-cut on recording an incident when there might be a subsequent complaint made, and has no legal significance.


All polls really should have an "other" option.

:hi:

[MADem]

79. I couldn't vote either due to a paucity of information. NT

[Dogtown]

239. True that, MADem.

Plenty of nuance, but little detail.

[The Doctor.]

87. Exactly right.

I left out 'other' because I wanted to look for something in particular.

Good answer, and pretty much what I figured when I first read it... they had to name someone... but the issue was complicated enough that I figured I'd throw it in the crucible here.

And what fun it's been!

:hi:

[Dogtown]

237. I supposed you were stimulating discussion

and you certainly did.

It remains an interesting example of subjectivity in law enforcement.

[The Doctor.]

294. I do have to wonder though....

Would anyone be arguing about this at all if the genders were reversed?

[Lilith Velkor]

97. She crossed the line when she took the phone - but slamming a door isn't 'violence.'

I hate it when definitions broaden so much they become diluted. It's a sneaky way to demean victims of real violence.

[Hello_Kitty]

99. Exactly. And some people on this thread are doing it with rape.

Her alleged actions of putting an arm around her husband and touching him, and then stopping immediately and even leaving the room to go do something else, have been transformed into her attempting to "force" sex on him by some nice people here. :puke:

[merh]

102. I'd say she was not the suspect since she is the one that called

the police. He had been drinking and was behind the wheel of the car when the police arrived.

I don't know what either one could be charged with - no signs of abuse to justify a domestic violence charge against either, he didn't have the keys so he couldn't be driving the car or in control of it, so DUI is out.

Drunk and disorderly on his part? that one is a possibility, depending on how drunk he was and how he behaved around the cops.

[rvablue]

106. Door slamming is a crime? n/t

[LiberalPersona]

109. Based on the story I can't see how

there was any victimization but I can't rightfully vote because the story seems to be from her point of view, and sounds biased in her favor.

[The Doctor.]

110. He had little more to say, and did not dispute the facts as given.

There turned out to be a reason for that, but I'm not ready to share it just yet.

[bobbert]

111. There was a lot more than door-slamming

You do not get your children up and out of bed to leave based on door-slamming. It could have been earlier in the week or that same night, but there was something else. Unfortunately, because the only aggresiveness that night was shown by the woman (the man was even intoxicated and showed no signs of violence) it sounds like she is the suspect. She also would not allow him to make any phone calls, would not let him do anything. It sounds like the man (& kids?) has been suffering emotional (and probably physical) abuse if she is ripping things out of his hand and slamming doors about 1 missing shoe.

She was the agressor, the man was passive and tried to leave, she was the agressor again and would not let him leave. I'm sure he could have acted better in that situation, but he's probably hitting his breaking point with her. I expect another call to the house in a couple months.

[The Doctor.]

112. Actually... no one claimed anything else.

He said that he was trying to sleep and he heard a 'bang' like a door.
She said she slammed a door.

Pretty clear-cut.

There is 'more' as you say, but I'll get to it later.

[ohheckyeah]

115. The way it reads they stayed in

separate bedrooms. Is that correct?

[The Doctor.]

126. No, same bedroom. Sorry for the ambivalence.

[ohheckyeah]

131. Ok, I was just wondering. It really had nothing to do with

anything but my curiosity.

[nini]

116. Not enough info

What was his alcohol level? Was he in any condition to drive? If not, he endangered his children regardless of the wife's state of mind and should be dealt with though that is a separate issue from the wife/husband issue.

What was his side of the story?




My guess is if she is the suspect there is more to the story than we know here and she is using her emotional pain (whether legit or not) against her husband to get out of it. Was the issue of her missing shoe a clue the children were abused?

Sounds odd but again, there's not enough info to know for sure without being there to see the mental state of all involved.

[The Doctor.]

140. All the facts are as stated to my satisfaction. There are other bits, but not directly related

to the main point.

No abuse of the children ever took place.
His alcohol level was likely not high enough to be significantly dangerous due mostly to his tolerance. The parties both agree that her door-slamming did not anticipate a threat either.

[rucky]

118. Niether: What's the crime?

almost a crime, maybe, but there wasn't one, so there's no victim or suspect.

[anonymous171]

119. I blame society. nt

[petronius]

121. I blame my mother. (nt)

:)

[Dappleganger]

122. I blame my father, he's still alive, the bastard.

[ohheckyeah]

124. I blame Obama.

:-)

[Lilith Velkor]

176. I blame Canada.

[readmoreoften]

142. I blame the media. /nt

[noamnety]

133. Two answers.

If either spouse claims violence by the other, the police are likely required to report them as a suspect. An investigation - or trial - would possibly find a married partner innocent, based on only door slamming because our laws trivialize domestic violence and sexual coercion ... but nevertheless, the police took the proper action. I could potentially make the case, and they would be right to at least consider it even if it's thrown out later, that by making a sexual advance and then reacting with a violent outburst when it was rejected, she was being sexually coercive. If that were a repeated action, for instance, the nonviolent spouse might learn to go along with unwanted sex in order to avoid temper tantrums. I can understand that they might feel threatened. If you create a hostile environment if sex is rejected - and if a person goes along with it to avoid a hostile reaction, that would be within the definition of rape.

The husband should have also been listed as a suspect for attempting to drive drunk, and for endangerment of the children. If he took a breathalyzer on the scene and was not intoxicated, then I retract that statement, the evidence would have exonerated him on the spot. If he was drunk, endangerment of the kids and attempted drunk driving were the wrong course of action for him to take - the right course of action if he felt threatened was to take the kids and walk, or call 911.

There's a great deal of irrelevant information here. How long it's been since they've last slept together seems even borderline offensive as something we should be considering when determining guilt.

[The Doctor.]

147. Great response.

Under no circumstances should we forget that people are human, however. That is material regardless.

[noamnety]

270. I missed the phone confiscation in my first read.

It wasn't until I read other people's comments that I saw that, and my first comments still stand, but I will add that I would definitely consider it abusive if - for any reason - my partner forbid me from contacting other people. I don't know how that's viewed in the eyes of the law ... if you can arrest someone for emotional abuse ... I don't know, but you sure can divorce them, and that would be a good time to consider it. It's not so far from holding someone hostage against their will - and it goes beyond simply not allowing them to drive because they've been drinking.

[McCamy Taylor]

134. She is the suspect because she resorted to physical violence. Period.

Unless the husband was drunk at the time he decided to take the kids to safety (and from what is written above it sounds as if he had already sobered up), then he did nothing illegal. It is his obligation as a parent to protect his kids if he feels that they are in danger. His wife's psychiatric history--depression--puts her at risk for infanticide followed by suicide.

The reason I can imagine anyone posting this "poll" is because they are trying to justify unjustifiable violence.

Try switching genders. A depressed husband got violent. Who here would say that the wife should not leave the house.

As for the broken lines of communication, in my experience, bartenders know how to talk. I think the wife needs help, because if she feels that she can not express herself, then something is wrong with her.

[The Doctor.]

143. I'm really shocked at how many DUers have never slammed a door in their lives.

You must be a saint.

;)

I'll not forget that you've posited that 'depression leads to infanticide' either. I'm sure I'll find your post useful in those threads about depression. Thanks.

Do you have any actual questions, or have you made up your mind based on what you apparently do not know?

[ecstatic]

135. It seems like she was the one who was drunk

and abusive as well. :shrug: I mean, seriously, who wants to get it on with a drunk person? Something doesn't sound right about that. I don't know who the suspect is, but it sounds like they need to break up.

[rufus dog]

137. there is 1- minutes of my life wasted.

[The Doctor.]

141. Then the waste is yourself.

I'm sorry you haven't anything useful to contribute.

Might I suggest a 'GameBoy' or 'Playstation 3'?

[adamuu]

145. suspect. she effectively made a citizen's arrest. n/t

[Toucano]

146. Slamming the door is not violence, but it is aggressive

and perhaps a bit threatening.

But he over-reacted.

There is no victim in this scenario.

If the police report lists her as the suspect it is because of the aggressive action of slamming the door.

[dorkulon]

148. Slamming a door is an entirely appropriate way to vent anger

without hurting anyone. People do it all the time, and it's not a harbinger of impending violence, and everyone knows it.

These people need to separate. They have so much built up frustration with each other that any little thing is enough to set off an escalating dispute. Classic bad marriage.

[Toucano]

149. Any "entirely appropriate way to vent anger" can be threatening.

When people get angry, other people sometimes get scared.

As adults, we have all learned to accept that it's just anger coming out and not be afraid.

Perhaps the husband over-reacted because he had been drinking and his perception of the anger being vented was heightened.

[dorkulon]

150. Speculating of course, but I'd say the husband got mad, not scared.

It's not like I've never been in a bad relationship. I know how people can escalate at the drop of a hat, or slam of a door, when their unresolved issues are so close to the surface.

[The Doctor.]

151. Excellent.

Consider also that he was trying to sleep.

Have you studied psychology?

[Toucano]

153. Thank you.

I never studied as a student, only as a patient. ;)

[The Doctor.]

155. Then you are a student.

Your insight is particularly bright, and very applicable to this subject despite the fact that the given information is barely informative to the conclusion you've derived.

I'm very impressed.

I'll bet you ran a few quacks around real good. :evilgrin:

{oe}- Sometimes it's worth a brick of a thread to find just one jade. Good to meet ya'.

[Toucano]

158. That's very kind of you to say.

Have a great night!

[Canuckistanian]

156. Alcohol.

He should be treated as the aggressor. And he should ordered to attend AA or Al-anon therapy.

THEN he can be allowed to make reasonable decisions about his family's disposition.

[The Doctor.]

159. Yeah... but he was trying to sleep, then he had to wake to a slammed door....

Honestly, he's a good guy, exhausted by work. I figure I might as well drop a piece of info that makes a difference, but only because I'm responding to such an esteemed DUer ;) (ok, really it's just late and I want to do a RTS game now)

Turns out he admitted that he'd been looking for a reason to leave because of the VERY wealthy chic he'd hooked up with a couple months before hand.

I still counsel her, but he stopped coming to sessions.

He drives a nicer car than I do by far now.

The sad part is knowing how things are going to (not) work out between he and his new girl. My job is to keep her focused on her own future. I get why these things happen, but people's short-sightedness will always seem to be a tragedy to me.

[bettyellen]

160. so he wants to leave her for someone with money and foist the guilt on her... screwing his kids..

his ex and the rich bitch all at the same time.

not just fuck over his ex, but make her - and the kids- blame her. and you say he's a nice guy?

[Lilith Velkor]

177. "Boys will be boys" n/t

[Canuckistanian]

162. It still doesn't detract from my original statement

He was impaired, period.

And people sometimes do things under "the influence" that they normally wouldn't do. And I'm surprised that he hasn't had a revelation or two after this event.

And you're not painting a flattering picture of the sober man to begin with.

I'm not a temperance man, but this guy has a problem.

I still take the wife's side in this case.

[pnwmom]

171. The good drunk guy had to wake to a slammed door? Tough.

He's exhausted and drunk -- no way should he be putting kids in a car and trying to drive off with them. Period. End of story.

Who's the victim here? The children.

[pnwmom]

174. So he admitted that the slammed door was an excuse. How can there be any

doubt that it is the wife and kids who are the victims here, and this guy is just a self-centered hard-working sometime-drunk?

[Blue Diadem]

235. Yes, that's typical of the behavior he exhibited.

The secret affair and him looking for any way to justify that she's to blame. It's an easy out so he can leave and in some cases make her look violent or crazy so he can get the kids.

In the long run she'll be better off without him. I just hope she never reads the story on DU discussing her marriage. It would only make a depressed person more depressed.

[dustbunnie]

161. Not at all how it would be played out in Canada, but dream on.

[Canuckistanian]

164. Meaning what, exactly? n/t

[dustbunnie]

172. Meaning you should party with us next time we get up to Blackstone Lake.

Don't just speak for everyone. :)

[Canuckistanian]

173. Delighted

And I don't think I do.

[dustbunnie]

175. I don't drink either, but there's lots to do, and I'll ask you.

:)

Also, don't know why it's all diff between the US and Can, but it is. So very much.

[flvegan]

163. Why am I hearing the COPS theme in my head?

Waaaaaayyyy too little substance from the parties to make a call on this. Too one-sided in the account.

[lumberjack_jeff]

179. Must there be a "suspect" and "a victim"?

If there must then yes, the woman should be it.

Dad tried to leave the house because he felt violence was likely. She took his keys and phone to try to prevent it.

If the genders were reversed, there's no doubt what the conventional DU wisdom would be. "Controlling, MCP asshole" I suspect.

If you're friends with both parties, try to get them hooked up with a therapist.

PS it would have been relevant to the OP, and would have demonstrated less bias if you had disclosed in it that dad passed a breathalizer.

[The Doctor.]

202. There was no breathalizer test. Why are you making shit up?

Both parties acknowledge that he'd been drinking heavily, both parties agree that he was not likely at or above the legal limit of .08 for DWI.

Really... deal with the facts that are stated without making shit up, please.

[lumberjack_jeff]

233. To say that I find your account confusing is an understatement.

"But he was still intoxicated to the tune of .05-.06 (they agreed on this, and it might have just been accord.) ... enough to get a ticket."

The facts are clearly malleable. Either he was drunk (.05 isn't legally drunk) or he was not. He wasn't drunk when the wife called the cops and sober 15 minutes later when they arrived.

[Dorian Gray]

287. That's the one point that gets to me

for a man to be at .08, he couldn't have been drinking heavily. Heavily implies LOTS of drinking, which would push you well above the legal limit. That's where the disconnect comes in for me in this whole story.

[alittlelark]

182. F'ed up poll... Where is 'HE is at fault'

You are not an arresting officer (I Assume).

You are giving 2 choices.... there are many more than 2.

I bristle at the 'She is at fault/not at fault' schtick.

[krabigirl]

183. Um, he's an idiot. So she slammed a door. BFD. He was a drunk and drove with kids while wasted?!?!?!

[Lex]

185. my take on it too!

since when is slamming a friggin' door equivalent to attempting to drive drunk with children in the car

[lumberjack_jeff]

195. a) he wasn't drunk.

b) he didn't drive anywhere with the kids.
c) she called the cops after confiscating his cellphone so he couldn't call for a ride.
d) the biased OP was written by the wife's counselor. (The husband stopped attending. I frankly understand why.)

[The Doctor.]

196. People hate to recognize their own bad behavior.

The OP is not 'biased' simply because there is no other 'side to the story'. He eventually admitted things about himself he didn't like, including his part in the incident, and stopped going to counseling for that reason.

The ride he was calling for was likely the woman he was seeing, but the wife didn't know that. She thought she was just trying to save her marriage. Certainly she came to understand that it's often best not to try to 'force' someone to stay and talk, but she was confused and desperate. I'm sure that if she had known about the affair, she likely would have just let him go. But then the incident would likely not have taken place.

He was certainly inebriated, just not likely over .08 by the time the police arrived.

The point of this was merely to see what people's opinions on the issue are. I understood the report, and that the police had to name a suspect/victim, but I found the issue curious nonetheless.

From what I gather, you believe the wife was out of bounds. I can fully see your point there. It's also interesting how vehemently you seem to be defending the husband.

[redqueen]

206. Interesting, indeed. (nt)

[lumberjack_jeff]

242. Don't try to do a Dr Frist on me by keyboard remote.

Your projecting.

I'm not defending the husband or criticizing the wife. I don't know them, I only know your third party account. I'm doing two things:
a) pointing out that your story is full of words like "drunk" to describe someone who was "not likely over .08" BAC, and "desperate" to describe someone who hopes that their spouse comes home intoxicated enough to get lucky, but confiscates their cellphone when it turns out they are not. One needn't be "The Doctor" to recognize the bias.
b) objecting to your professional conduct. You are confusing couple therapy with wife sympathy. People don't quit counseling because they "now recognize things about themselves they don't like". That just what people say to get out of the room. "Yup doc, you win. I recognize things I don't like about me. Can I go now?"

They don't quit therapy for that reason, they quit the therapist.

[The Doctor.]

246. Funny, but you know nothing of my 'professional conduct'.

For that matter, you know nothing at all really. This is an anonymous message board. There are a small, very small handful of people here that know what I do with any certainty, and I keep it that way for a reason.

I mentioned no real specifics of therapy, only that they are a couple I have a professional relationship with. The subject at hand is the question; "Who is the victim?"

Now, the very legitimate reason that I presented the incident as I did was to limit the tendency of the reader to jump to conclusions that are either irrelevant or simply wrong. I was very careful to make her intentions, as confirmed by both parties, very clear so that some doofus wouldn't make shit up in order to perceive the issue in any way they chose, but rather to rely on the facts at hand. Yet you somehow managed to do it anyway.

You turned this; "Those times are actually special to her, and she often waits up all hours just to be there when he arrives because he is sometimes talkative and reflective, and sometimes even a little affectionate."

Into this; "someone who hopes that their spouse comes home intoxicated enough to get lucky"

:wtf:

On top of that, you've run around claiming that he 'passed a breathalyzer test'. :wtf:

What's fascinating is the way that people like you just go ahead and make shit up in your head in order to believe what you want to rather than the facts in front of you.

In the case of an internet message board, you can chose to believe or disbelieve what you like, but you cannot choose to believe what was never said and state it as fact without looking like an idiot. That's what I love about the internet... verifiability.

So far, it is quite clear that you are either full of shit, or just plain delusional in pursuit of a preferred belief.

I actually have a test for that kind of behavior... and guess where it is?

:evilgrin:

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. That's entirely true. I know nothing about you. You could be lying, after all. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

251. He Seems To Be Doing A Lot Of That.

I've found it rather amusing, for a so called professional.

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

184. Slamming a door is not placing anyone in danger, nor is it illegal.

It's disruptive and done in anger, but it's NOT placing anyone's life in danger as driving drunk with kids in the car is.

[Control-Z]

187. Crap. I read through the entire thread

and still no answer? Did I miss something?

It is late.

edit to say: The woman was probably considered suspect because she somewhat "imprisoned" him or violated his freedom, when she took his keys and phone.

[BoneDaddy]

189. Neither

Just two people who need to grow up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. A reminder to readers. The guy was not drunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5497430&mesg_id=5497858

Reading further, don't bother to suggest that they seek counseling, because the OP is the counselor. Given the bias in the story as related, I'm unsurprised that the guy no longer attends. One hopes neither party are readers of DU.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. You're the doctor, why don't you tell me?

I find the act of telling your clients tales on DU highly unprofessional, and the way you relate those tales to be reflective of a bias which would clearly explain why the husband no longer attends therapy.

When reading over the OP, I initially glossed over the part which suggested your role. People tend to ignore things which contradict their world view - I never anticipated a therapist posting their clients' story on the internet.

Think about this for a moment, if the couple was still in therapy, would there be a better chance for a positive outcome? If so, then you should do a post-mortem of whether you could have done more (or less), keeping both parties invested and involved.

Your whole narrative depends on whether the husband was drunk. One moment he was, but when the police arrived he was not. Which is it?

[The Doctor.]

247. Wow. You're definitely a curiosity.

"One moment he was, but when the police arrived he was not. Which is it?

Ummm... couple things here;

1) 'Drunk' means somehow impaired. As per Mirriam-Webster;

1 a: having the faculties impaired by alcohol b: having a level of alcohol in the blood that exceeds a maximum prescribed by law

In this case, he met both criteria and no one with knowledge of the situation said otherwise. I have not stated otherwise. Why is it that you continue to insist otherwise?

2) Alcohol does this thing where it metabolizes and breaks down. So yes, one's blood alcohol level does go down over even a short period of time.

Do you think that by being deliberately oblivious or ignorant you're accomplishing something? Really, all you're doing is looking kind of foolish.

What's really neat is that I never did say I was their professional counselor. Missed that too, didn't ya?

[lumberjack_jeff]

250. Thanks, "The Doctor", I fully agree that you're not a professional.

You have said both that he was drunk and that he was below the legal limit. Apparently we are supposed to understand that he was drunk, right up until the time that the police arrived, otherwise seizing his phone and his keys would clearly and obviously be an unjustified control tactic. It is reasonable to assume that a matter of minutes transpired between the time the wife called the police on her husband and the time they arrived. Alcohol does not metabolize in that brief period.

I think that you have done a disservice to the... what? Friends? Patients? Clients? Study subjects?

[The Doctor.]

271. Well, aren't you a transparent 'one-trick pony'. Making shit up seems to be your ultimate fallback.

If you could do something besides making shit up and creating misleading subject lines, I wouldn't consider you to be useless.

So, bye for now. I'm sure that you think that getting me to ignore your idiocy is some kind of 'victory'... so good for you.

[NashVegas]

200. Suspect? What's the Charge?

[The Doctor.]

203. No one was charged.

It seems that the police simply had to name a suspect on the report.

[Control-Z]

205. So that's it? n/t

[The Doctor.]

208. Yeah, pretty much. Funny world eh?

[Control-Z]

231. If the woman called the police,

out of fear for her children, then the police naming her as suspect were exercising their male prerogatives. Plain and simply. Funny world? Yeah. But I'm not laughing.

[NashVegas]

217. K. I'm Not Voting

I think the whole question of who's right, who's wrong, and who's "suspect" is all not worth bothering about for these people. Focusing on any of that is just a great way of avoiding the real issues.

[dysfunctional press]

209. you should also include the guy's perspective...

if you've only spoken to the woman about it, then you don't have both sides of the story.

btw- do you often relate patients personal stories/situations on public message boards?

[The Doctor.]

211. LOL...

There names are 'Fred' and 'Wilma', they live at 222 Flintrock Boulevard in Boulder Colorado.

:eyes:

Read up on HIPAA silly.

Meanwhile, as has been explained, his 'side' is included to the full extent that he shared it. Also as explained, one of the reasons he was unwilling to share his full 'side', was because he knew (and eventually admitted) that he had ignoble ulterior motives.

[redqueen]

214. Why didn't you put his ignoble motives in the OP?

Just curious...

[The Doctor.]

226. It was discovered after the fact, and not material to the question itself.

Basically, it's not pertinent to the question, and although it explains some things a little, I didn't want to instill any more bias than could be derived from the pertinent background given.

[dysfunctional press]

216. it just seems that any reputable dr. wouldn't run to a message board to formulate an opinion.

which probably also explains why you ask people to formulate that opinion without all the information, either. :shrug:

[redqueen]

222. " I thought it would be interesting to get the opinions of ..."

Where did that 'formulate an opinion' stuff come from?

Seems to me he was just curious what people would say.

[dysfunctional press]

232. it just strikes me as extremely un-professional.

moreso even than the off-duty cop who's in trouble for being taped talking in a bar about one of HIS cases.

[The Doctor.]

303. Wow... you're right!

That guy... what a fool!

What's his name? The names of the people?

Oh, I'm sorry... you have not a clue.

My apologies, but I'm sick of dealing with morons politely, so I'll just tell you; you're a moron.

[The Doctor.]

228. You'd be right... if that were in fact my purpose. I recommend a more critical perusal

of a given post before drawing such conclusions.

As for the information, what more would you like to know?

[dysfunctional press]

234. there's nothing more i'd like to know about it.

i just find it a little unseemly and unprofessional for a supposed doctor to be discussing their patients cases on a public message board.

[The Doctor.]

243. LMAO!

Like I said, do some studying, learn to read more critically, then maybe you'll understand what's really going on. K?

[Blue Diadem]

212. I'm surprised they didn't charge her for holding him against his will.

:eyes:

After all, she took his keys and his means of communication so he couldn't leave to get away and save his children from this woman who had dared to attempt to have sex with him and would later frighten/threaten him with a violent door slamming.

He would not have attempted to leave had it not been for her behavior. Once she took his keys, she did not have to take his means of communication. It appears he was possibly going to call a friend to help him "save" his children.

So yes, the report is technically correct that she is the suspect and he the victim.

[ismnotwasm]

213. Drunk driving with kids?

He's at the least, a complete asshole. Drunk driving at all? Still an asshole, putting the lives of other innocents in danger.

The relationship between the two doesn't matter, thier actions do. Did the police have probable cause to field test him? Is there a history of domestic violence? Do the kids need intervention? As many details as the story holds, there are a few left out.

In my state both partners will be charged with domestic violence if accusations are made. Here it sounds like he made the accusation. Sounds like she didn't. Sounds like the police dropped the ball on the potential danger of a drunk driver.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. Of Course The Woman Is The Suspect. How's That Even Up For Consideration?

She slammed the door violently and for whatever reasons the man felt she could've escalated to further violence. Granted, it's a silly case. Granted, it would be thrown out of court. But of course she's the suspect in this silly case since her 'violent' action of slamming the door is what prompted everything else, including possible false imprisonment after taking his keys and phone. Taking the phone itself can be considered domestic violence.

Being listed as the 'suspect' on a police report doesn't make you some hard ass criminal. You could be a suspect for the most minuscule of reasons, as this case shows. But it's a no brainer that she's the suspect in regards to this police report, and I'm a bit boggled as to why the question even needs to be asked.

[Control-Z]

225. Why do you hate women? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. Oh God The List Would Be Wayyyyyyyyyyy Too Long To Take The Time To Post Here.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

245. ROFLMAO!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You just hate me because of my superior intellect. That's ok. I get that alot.

:rofl:

[Control-Z]

256. Never mind

You are not worth it.

[Name removed]

257. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

258. Glad you're admitting it. eom

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

260. Why?

Seems to me your life would have to be really empty or something in order to be glad of such a petty thing as to what an online poster does or doesn't admit. Seems rather silly. Are you in too deep for your own good? You might be. Maybe ya should take a step back for a while.

:rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

277. Uh dude, you know, you're here too, posting about it.

Pot, meet kettle.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

280. Listen Honey, You Totally Missed The Point.

It wasn't talking about the OP that my response was towards. It was you're ridiculously being 'glad' that I admitted something (even though you looked asinine for actually thinking for a second my admission was genuine). Get a life.

[Hello_Kitty]

283. Yeah, I know your admission was insincere, albeit accurate.

Which was why my post was facetious. But I know enough about your posting history to know your deal.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

286. "But I know enough about your posting history to know your deal."

Yet one more thing you 'know' that in reality has no bearing in truth. Color me shocked.

[Control-Z]

265. And ain't it

mind blowing?

[The Doctor.]

261. Now there's a point to make a case out of...

And I mean a case of beer.

Hell, the case would run out before we could put a dent in the list. To be fair, I'm sure it would get into wtf is wrong with humans territory eventually.

Eventually.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backtoblue]

224. How could the woman possibly be considered the suspect?

So she slammed a damned door. Her husband had absolutely no right to put children in harms way by trying to drive off drunk with them.

She is the one who called the police to make a complaint about a DRUNK driver with CHILDREN. Her tantrum (that apparently hurt no one) is no reason to make her out to be the bad guy. :mad:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

230. Very Easily.

She not only slammed the door, but also took his keys and phone. That is false imprisonment and shows someone who wanted to be a control freak. That form of control, taking the significant other's phone to force him from talking to others, is a form of domestic violence in and of itself.

Furthermore, it now appears he was under the legal limit at the time of the incident and therefore NOT legally drunk.

[backtoblue]

238. okay, so taking the phone

away wasn't very smart and unnecessary. But, by taking his keys she was being a responsible parent. It doesn't matter if he'd had 4 beers or 20, he shouldn't have gotten behind the wheel after drinking.

[HamdenRice]

241. Let me guess. They are white and this is the burbs. In Brooklyn or Harlem they'd both be in jail.

So from my perspective it depends on who you are and where you are. In most of New York they'd both be perps.

[nonconformist]

248. I'll tell you where this went wrong - when she took his phone to prevent him from

calling for a ride to leave.

Flip it... if this was a man who made a sexual advance at his wife, was rebuffed, then started slamming doors and took his wife's phone away so she couldn't call someone to pick up her and her kids, would your opinion of the situation be different?

The irony that she finds it "special" when he drives home drunk from work wasn't lost on me, either.

[ret5hd]

263. I vote for "I should ask the wife to forget the bum and marry me".

That's what it sounds like you desire deep down.

(But I do have a suspicion that Tahiti Nut accurately deconstructed this fantasy)

[The Doctor.]

269. LOL. Cute.

No, this really is just a curiosity to me. She's not my type at all, and TN only made an academic point. There has been no 'deconstruction' in any real way.

I do happen to agree with Tahiti Nut's point though. It makes a good deal of sense.

It's rather human to assign motives to others that you might rationalize for yourself. Sorry... I can't give you her number at all.

Nice try though. ;)

[ret5hd]

272. Give --ME-- her number??? I'm talking about YOU!

:rofl:

Your crush is obvious.

[The Doctor.]

273. Wow.

Is everything 'High School' to you?

Has it perhaps occurred to you that maybe the genders are reversed as TN suggested? Has it occurred to you that perhaps I am the husband? Has it occurred to you that I might be the wife? Are you such a silly critter that it has not occurred to you that you have no actual idea what these people look like, act like, or who they may be?

No.

The answer is pretty simple;

You're an armchair social worker with delusions of psychological competence directed at an issue that you've gone right ahead and made a great number of assumptions about in order to feel 'special'.

Well... good for you. Sadly, you won't review the substance of this thread because I'm sure you 'can't be bothered', but really it's because you're just plain too lazy to understand what mildly intricate interactions have taken place by reading the whole thread.

No, it's nice and simple for you just to think in the most base modality... because that's essentially the only place you operate.



But I'll tell you this... she was a GREAT lay. :evilgrin:

[Nikia]

266. How did she manage to take the keys and phone?

If he had been in possession of them on his person and didn't want her to take them.

[The Doctor.]

268. Well, for starters... he'd been drinking quite a bit. (It's in the OP)

They were never violent with each-other.

[MadMaddie]

274. Well if he threw her off as the report says then

he may have committed the first act of aggression.

The fact that he drove home drunk and the later got the kids in the car while drunk seems like another issue.

As for her she slammed a door...no one was hurt by the slamming door.

She had every right to take the keys from him if he was going to drive off with the kids while drunk.

[The Doctor.]

275. Yet he only did what he did Because she slammed the door.

Now, Tahiti Nut made an interesting point...

What if the genders here were reversed?

[Juche]

282. We are only getting the woman's POV

from this story. However, I do not think that the guy was a victim as he was attempting to commit DUI. I knew a guy a long time ago who was arrested for DUI merely for sitting in his car with the keys in the ignition while drunk. The fact that the husband put the kids in the car didn't help.

I really don't see how the woman can be the suspect. Slamming the door may've created an intimidating atmosphere, but if the husband was worried about violence he should've called someone to pick him up or walked out of the house, not tried to drive. If slamming a door is DV, then yelling is potentially DV. Then arguing is potentially DV. Then just getting drunk is potentially DV because any of those events could increase the odds of DV happening.

However her taking his phone and keys w/o his permission is possibly a crime itself. Maybe it has something to do with that.

[Hello_Kitty]

284. Taking the phone was out of line but not the keys.

As a parent, her first responsibility is to protect her kids so wresting the keys from his hands was perfectly reasonable if he'd been drinking and wanted to drive with the kids. But taking the phone from him was over the line. He had a right to use the phone.

Basically, it sounds like they need a therapeutic divorce.

[JanMichael]

292. You don't put your kids in the car shitfaced. "Drunk" is of course subjective...

...other than state laws which are usually .08 which I consider ridiculous, it should be .10 or .12, that said if you've had enough to be labeled "drunk" YOU SHOULD NOT DRIVE.

Nor should you shove your children in the car for a dumbassed drive when "drunk". PERIOD.

People who do are dumbfucks.

My only flexibility on this is if the person in question and the children are in real immediate no way out of danger of being fucked up permanently.

Then it would be a survival move. Minus immediate danger call a fucking cab, chill the fuck out and go to sleep, or chill out and have the balls to explain you've had an affair (I think added earlier in the thread).

[Vektor]

293. Not the suspect. Slamming a door is not a crime. Drunk driving is. Kids in the car makes it worse.

If there is more to the story than what is listed here, and the woman actually struck someone, then they are both guilty of illegal activity. If she ONLY slammed a door, then he is the only one guilty of illegal activity.

[Matariki]

296. You switched the genders, didn't you? n/t

[The Doctor.]

301. Why might I do such a thing?

[quiller4]

297. The woman is a suspect because she engaged in menacing

behavior: both the slamming of the door and the taking of the keys.

She claims her spouse is drunk. A police report would note whether the man behaved in an obviously intoxicated manner if, in fact, he did.

If the police had believed the children were in any danger with the father, they would have noted that and the husband could have become a suspect. The police must have believed the man was able to operted a vehicle safely and was not endangering his children.

[Matariki]

299. Something I agree with Dan Savage on - if a person expects sexual fidelity from their partner

they better be 'putting out'. That doesn't, of course, justify 'forcing oneself' on said partner. But it certainly justifies finding a new relationship. Or maybe it justifies having a 'paramour' on the side if you value the other parts of the relationship and stability for the kids.

I'm saying this because I strongly suspect that you switched genders in this tale, and even that the story is yours - your the husband/suspect.

It's sad - no one wants to feel sexually rejected by their partner.

[Taitertots]

300. Why don't we take the gender tags completely away?

Two people live together and have children. After work one has a few beers and tired from a day working wants to sleep. The other in a fit of rage slams a door. Upset, person #2 wants to leave and takes the children to the car to peacefully escape. Person one steals their keys, phone, and refuses to let person #2 leave.

The police show up. #2 appears to have had alcoholic beverages but is not disruptive, combative, or overly intoxicated. #1 explains stealing the phone, jumping into the car to prevent #2 from leaving, stealing the keys and the door slamming.