IMO and IME,
POSSIBLY. I won't claim to be an 'expert' but I do work in the field.
Sorry this is long but I've been wanting to get it out and this question has been asked 100x and I have minute so here you go -
The officer was seriously mistaken in the legal definition of
"Primary aggressor" - The individual who poses the most serious, ongoing threat who might not be the initial aggressor in a specific incident.
This is on every DV training I've ever seen for LE though the wording may vary slightly.
The job of LE in a DV call isn't simply to evaluate what happened in that specific incident but to ALSO evaluate what is going
before and after such incidents and in the relationship as a whole. Who and what is causing the escalation of violence. Protocol for LE on DV calls includes lengthy instruction on how to evaluate for co-occurring crime.
Did they even ASK if they had any weapons in the van? Did they ask if BL scares her? Did they ask if she feels safe with him in the van? Did they ask about escalation? Verbal harassment (ie; does he call you names?) Sexual abuse? Why was locking her out of the van in the desert 1000s of miles away from her support network not considered a serious threat in itself? Him attempting to lock her out should be considered primary aggression. If he's threatening to lock her out and leave her - he clearly is the one that is posing the most serious and ongoing threat. Through that lens GP's actions in scratching at him become reactive abuse. Her emotional state becomes abuse victim rather than a mental health episode.
In addition - ignoring GP's claims of how he grabbed her face is against every single bit of DV training that exists. She should have been GRILLED on that. Does he grab her face often? Has he
ever (not just that day) grabbed her throat or even put his hand around it? Has he ever choked her or held her down by her neck? Victims who have been choked once are 750 percent more likely to be killed by their abusers.
So aside from correctly evaluating what should they have done?
Had a victim advocate respond. It's imperative in DV situations that there is victim centered and trauma informed support. I do believe that if GP had been given access to a good advocate it's quite possible that she would have revealed more and that advocate could have given her resources and/or connected her with family in order to get her out of the situation. An advocate along with LE can give a victim assurance that if they WANT to get away from the person that they will work in conjunction to make sure that happens (including helping to obtain financial assistance where needed) in a safe manner and that the abuser will not be able to get to them.
As it was GP was left with the knowledge that he was going to be right back with her the next day and it was further framed as "she was in trouble". NO WAY was she going to report anything at that stage. That's about the most terrifying thing a victim of DV can be told. "We're going to separate you ... (heart soars) ... for the night (utter terror)."
And OF COURSE it's possible that GP would have gone right back to BL even with a victim advocate and all the empowerment in the world involved. But it's ALSO possible that with victim centered support she would have been empowered to leave the situation and it would have turned out quite differently.
And if you want to dive into how well victim advocacy /outreach works (
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238480.pdf ) See the link.
I also attached an image from said link. When women who live with their abuser are
assigned to outreach programs a guilty verdict is entered in court 100% of the time. That falls to 33-59% with referral advocacy or no outreach programs.
