Pa. Lawsuit: Renters fear eviction over 911 calls

I've been a victim of domestic violence, I've done the classes, taught the classes (literally), and written many a research paper on the subject.

In the long run, it comes down to choices. Scared or not, it was still her choice. She chose to endanger herself and her child, by allowing this man to have a presence in her life. And frankly, maybe we should start punishing for that. Even in the days where I was trapped in my abusive relationship, an eviction would have gone a long way towards making me realize that my life was over if I stayed.
 
I've been a victim of domestic violence, I've done the classes, taught the classes (literally), and written many a research paper on the subject.

In the long run, it comes down to choices. Scared or not, it was still her choice. She chose to endanger herself and her child, by allowing this man to have a presence in her life. And frankly, maybe we should start punishing for that. Even in the days where I was trapped in my abusive relationship, an eviction would have gone a long way towards making me realize that my life was over if I stayed.

That doesn't address the issue of people who did leave, and who have restraining orders...I would sure hate to be in a position of hesitating to call the police to enforce a restraining order for fear of eviction!

And really when it comes down to it this law is putting the responsibility for other adults on other adults which is just plain ridiculous.

Reminds me of an incident in high school. The teacher was fed up with students talking during class. She finally announced that if one more person said another word the entire class would get detention. After a few quiet moments a kid started talking to the guy next to him. The teacher was like "okay everybody gets detention now." I said, "why do we all get punished for something we can't control?" The teacher answered that I should have made him stop talking. When I asked her how exactly one goes about forcing a person to stop speaking without assaulting the person, she said I should have asked dude to stop talking. When I asked how she would like me to go about that without talking and breaking the rule myself, she relented and let us go. I thought it was stupid when I was 16 and I still think that approach is dumb. When it comes down to it how is a person expected to stop another person from being disorderly LEGALLY without calling the police? Disorderly people aren't known for their ability to see logic.

Sent from my Event using Tapatalk 4
 
flourish at #20 posted
"...A woman in the process of leaving an abusive partner is likely to have some trouble making a clean break,
whether it's because of low self-esteem, poverty, or because there are joint children, it's not like every woman can just say,
"Okay, see ya wouldn't wanna be ya" and never see their ex again because that might not be an option.
So an abusive ex may be at an apartment complex to pick up children for visitation,
but not because she's "letting her loser boyfriend move in" again." BBM

I've read from many sources (sorry, no links) over many years, even when the divorce is "amicable" it's a good idea
to transfer or exchange the children at a place other than the home of either parent.
And even more important, when one of the parents is abusive, mentally ill.

Aside from whether the exBF moved in w. her in this case,
people do have choices
about where to make such an exchange.
There are plenty of places to make those transfers, other than the home.

Arguing against this law, on the basis that it impedes the exhange or transfer of children is a pretty lame argument
(not that you, flourish, are saying that), but that others may.

JM:twocents:
 
To notmykids & post 21
"I've been a victim of domestic violence, I've done the classes, taught the classes (literally), and written many a research paper on the subject...."

Hooray to you for getting out.
Congratulations.
And thank you for helping others to do the same.

(from someone who cannot imagine the horror)

flourish
Sorry, I did not intend to overlook what you said about your DV history above.
Hooray to you for getting out.
Congratulations.
 
flourish at #20 posted
"...A woman in the process of leaving an abusive partner is likely to have some trouble making a clean break,
whether it's because of low self-esteem, poverty, or because there are joint children, it's not like every woman can just say,
"Okay, see ya wouldn't wanna be ya" and never see their ex again because that might not be an option.
So an abusive ex may be at an apartment complex to pick up children for visitation,
but not because she's "letting her loser boyfriend move in" again." BBM

I've read from many sources (sorry, no links) over many years, even when the divorce is "amicable" it's a good idea
to transfer or exchange the children at a place other than the home of either parent.
And even more important, when one of the parents is abusive, mentally ill.

Aside from whether the exBF moved in w. her in this case,
people do have choices
about where to make such an exchange.
There are plenty of places to make those transfers, other than the home.

Arguing against this law, on the basis that it impedes the exhange or transfer of children is a pretty lame argument
(not that you, flourish, are saying that), but that others may.

JM:twocents:

Okay...that was one of a few scenarios I brought up, yes...clearly not the entirety of my point, and possibly a non-issue in reality.
I do agree it's a more wise choice to do the custody exchange in a neutral public place.

What does the city gain from this law?

What do landlords gain? Tenants?

Was this problem of too many superfluous 911 calls so rampant and time/$ consuming that it's truly necessary to then spend the time and money and manpower to enact and enforce (albeit somewhat arbitrarily) this law?

Does this law actually help anyone in reality?

Moving is expensive! As I mentioned previously, I moved recently. If for some reason I was forced to move again any time soon, without the help of a credit card/line or a sibling, that move would be into a crevice under a bridge. I am not the only person in that situation. Thank goodness I don't have domestic violence issues piled on top of that stress.

I just can't imagine that this was such a prevalent problem that the possible benefits outweigh the likely unfair detriment to an already vulnerable population.

Sent from my Event using Tapatalk 4
 
The local ordinance 245-3 lists 911 calls relating to drugs and other calls
"...characterized as disorderly in nature, including, but not limited to, the following types of activity:
[1] Disorderly conduct;
[2] Public nuisance;
[3] Unlawful use, discharge or possession of a firearm or weapon;
[4] Obstructing the administration of justice;
[5] Domestic disturbances that do not require that a mandatory arrest be made;
[6] Prostitution; and
[7] Intimidation. ..."

BBM
Can anyone here interpret #5 - "domestic disturbances that do not require a mandatory arrest be made"?
FWIW, I think that means a "plain-old DomVio call" not a DV call where there's a DomVio Restraining Order in place.

IIRC, the linked articles said Norristown LE encouraged Ms Briggs to get a DV-R/O against the exBF.
But she refused.

If I understand correctly, if she had a DV-R/O against exBF and she (or anyone) called 911 for when he was violating it,
the DV-R/O would have mandated that LE arrest exBF.

So, if I understand correctly, then those 911 calls to enforce a DV-R/O against someone who is violating it would not "count" against the landlord.

JM :twocents:
 
In reading another thread on this forum tonight, I can see why abused women are marginalized. In that thread, the victim was called a liar and scoffed at because she had earlier perjured herself on her (abuser) husband's behalf. See, she is not credible now. Doesn't matter how bad he hurts or even if he kills her. There are people who won't believe she is a victim even after her bullet-riddled body is buried. Some people are just that thick. No wonder shizz like this keeps happening. :(
 
...What does the city gain from this law? ...

Was this problem of too many superfluous 911 calls so rampant and time/$ consuming that it's truly necessary to then spend the time and money and manpower to enact and enforce (albeit somewhat arbitrarily) this law?
Does this law actually help anyone in reality? ...

S...BM

flourish

Theoretically, the drugs, prostitution, etc. get run out of the city. The linked articles way upthread discuss the rationale.

In reality and in a practical sense on a long term basis, I don't know what if anything the city gains. Maybe this.

City councilman or alderman Soundbite: I helped pass a law that forces landlords to evict tenants running dope dens from their apts. Soundbite: (same but) prostitution rings, etc.
Insert soundbites into ads for reelection campaign.

Code Enforcement: press release re taking action to force landlords (ditto).
Insert soundbites into Mayor's ads for reelection campaign.

City prosecutors presser re prosecuting to force the landlords (ditto)
Insert soundbite into ads for reelection campaign.

So it may not be the city gaining anything, it may be a handful of people who can garner good publicity and take credit.

flourish
The more I think about this law, I kinda think you and I are on the same page or at least the same chapter. :seeya:
 
S...BM

flourish

Theoretically, the drugs, prostitution, etc. get run out of the city. The linked articles way upthread discuss the rationale.

In reality and in a practical sense on a long term basis, I don't know what if anything the city gains. Maybe this.

City councilman or alderman Soundbite: I helped pass a law that forces landlords to evict tenants running dope dens from their apts. Soundbite: (same but) prostitution rings, etc.
Insert soundbites into ads for reelection campaign.

Code Enforcement: press release re taking action to force landlords (ditto).
Insert soundbites into Mayor's ads for reelection campaign.

City prosectors presser re prosecuting to force the landlords (ditto)
Insert soundbite into ads for reelection campaign.

So it may not be the city gaining anything, it may be a handful of people who can garner good publicity and take credit.

flourish
The more I think about this law, I kinda think you and I are on the same page or at least the same chapter. :seeya:

True that. Sound bites and politics...isn't that what it all boils down to anyway?

Yay, ain't it grand?

Thought provoking subject in any case. And as always discussion comparable to none.
And that's why we all love WS :)

Sent from my Event using Tapatalk 4
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,218
Total visitors
2,387

Forum statistics

Threads
589,981
Messages
17,928,625
Members
228,029
Latest member
Truthseeker158
Back
Top