Do people not confront or talk to each other anymore? Do people have to mess with others property because they are too timid to talk out their frustrations?
Why is it everytime some chickens#!t gets pissed, you come out and find your car keyed or your lawn ornaments smashed?
Jeez. If I have to write one more angry ex-spouse vandalism report...
Best advice is get over it and move on. The best revenge is living well and being happy.
It's the same thing that children do.
Our so-called "civilization" is devolving to the point where there are 3 possible actions.
1. Act like brats and break the other kids toys if you're pissed at them.
2. Get a lawyer involved to act as a go-between for everything.
3. Call a cop and expect them to get your revenge for you.
They all three suck ass and are nothing more than ways of trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for anything that happens to you.
I hate people in general.
No, the best revenge is cannibalism.
"I had my ex-wife for dinner last night. I ate her liver with some fava beans and a nice Chiante."
Interseting point. On one hand, it might be a lesser "evil" than actual assault which might go to show the trend in zero tolerance for domestic violence events is actually working. On the other hand, it is creating a society of paper trails, vicarious liability and depending on the .gov to solve all lifes woes, however trivial.
My experience tends to support #2.
Ha! I crossed your shit out!
Uhh..with the shift towards officers identifying the primary aggressor in a domestic incident, I believe there is actually a shift away from arresting both parties. It is highly discouraged nowadays.
In NYS at least, yeah, we have to arrest on a verbal argument IF the other party spontaneouly makes the request without our encouragement to do so. We MUST arrest, MUST go to a judge ( no appearance ticket option), but they don't generally go to jail for simple harassment, which is what NYS calls your verbal argument.They usually get ROR'd to appear again in court at a later date.
SHot their dog
I don't think that petty crime such as minor criminal mischief is the result of domestic violence laws. I think thats a stretch. Now, you might see some jilted boyfriends/ girlfriends doing stuff like that when they get the shaft, but they aren't covered under DV laws anyway. If its a married couple and they want to break up stuff in the house, hey its communal property and you can bust up your own stuff all you want without being arrested. So why hide it like you are saying they are doing?
I think you would see less of this if it were legal to beat the living shit out of vandals. JMHO. Someone with that kind of childish mentality wasn't corrected enough as a child, and they need some emergency intervention in the form of an ass-whooping.
How about random or indirect acts of vandalism? Some dorks driving through the country one night decide to toss a rock at a mailbox of someone they don't know? Back in high school many years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see a pack of kids walk through a mall parking lot, breaking off car antennas. If it happened to them, they'd declare a jihad on whoever did it. No respect for other eople's property.
Ditto...I spent the day cleaning eggs off the front of the house...
From now on...I'm staying up with a loaded pellet rifle and fully charged paintball gun...next SOB feels the need to make a omlete on my house is going to get one hell of a surprise....
Arguing is a crime? I don't doubt you a bit, but I'm curious as to the terms of the statute that allows this. Got a link or a summary of what the law prohibits?
maybe i should edit this
Shortly after a friend of mine divorced his wife (cheated on him while he was in the navy and out to sea) all four tires on his car were slashed. He replaced them, and two days later, "someone" did it again.
Only if they have a child in common in NYS.
Here is what constitutes a Family Offense in NYS:
S 530.11 Procedures for family offense matters.
1. Jurisdiction. The family court and the criminal courts shall have
concurrent jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts which would
constitute disorderly conduct, harassment in the first degree,
harassment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second
degree, stalking in the first degree, stalking in the second degree,
stalking in the third degree, stalking in the fourth degree, menacing in
the second degree, menacing in the third degree, reckless endangerment,
assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree or an
attempted assault between spouses or former spouses, or between parent
and child or between members of the same family or household except that
if the respondent would not be criminally responsible by reason of age
pursuant to section 30.00 of the penal law, then the family court shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over such proceeding. Notwithstanding a
complainant`s election to proceed in family court, the criminal court
shall not be divested of jurisdiction to hear a family offense
proceeding pursuant to this section. For purposes of this section,
"disorderly conduct" includes disorderly conduct not in a public place.
For purposes of this section, "members of the same family or household"
with respect to a proceeding in the criminal courts shall mean the
(a) persons related by consanguinity or affinity;
(b) persons legally married to one another;
(c) persons formerly married to one another; and
(d) persons who have a child in common, regardless whether such
persons have been married or have lived together at any time.
In spite of what the above section says about Family and Criminal courts, we are now putting into place an Integrated Domestic Violence Court that will hear any and all cases that would have previously appeared in Family, Criminal or Civil courts that involve family offenses:
We are required under state law to make an arrest for any felony offense; misdemeanor arrests are optional under STATE law; agency policy requires us to make an arrest for a misdemeanor offense. Violation level offenses are at the specific request of the victim.
Not in NYS.
Arguing is not a "crime" under NYS law, which has a specific definition under state law and includes Misdemeanor or Felony level categories:
6. "Crime" means a misdemeanor or a felony.
it is what is called an "offense"..a Violation:
1. "Offense" means conduct for which a sentence to a term of
imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or by any
law, local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, or
by any order, rule or regulation of any governmental instrumentality
authorized by law to adopt the same.
. What a verbal argument violates is the following:
S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to
activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended,
the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor
management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.
3. "Violation" means an offense, other than a "traffic infraction, "
for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days
cannot be imposed.
Harassment 2nd is one the most wide-open sections of NYS law; practically anything you do has the potential for causing "alarm or annoyance" to another person. I wish they'd toss the section and replace it with something that is more defined and less all-inclusive.
Well, we just had a refresher DV in-service last week. In addition to a "primary aggressor", the pundits have now created what they call the designation of "dominant aggressor", which is SUPPOSED to be the same as the primary aggressor, but may NOT be. If you recall, the primary aggressor is that person in the dispute who is mostly at fault for the domestic incident, for want of a better description. Apparently that wasn't enough for the DV folks ( maybe too many women were being designated as the primary aggressor and arrested, I dunno). Now we have "dominant aggressor", who we are supposed to deem as the most arrestable party..and of course the dominant aggressor is defined as that party who is most responsible for continuing and not disengaging during the argument. And it sounds like they expect that to be the male in the majority of instances.
The instructors were saying that there should not be more than 1 % of DV calls where both parties get hooked,and if the number exceeds that, the officer(s) aren't doing their job to properly identify the party in the dispute who is primarily at fault.