|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to the actual bill:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2002/ht ml/SB/2400-2499/SB2460IN.htm
Here is a link to the Senators in Missippi:
http://www.ls.state.ms.us/s_roster.htm
CALL THEM!
Here is a list of problems with the bill:
1) In a substance abuse situation where the female becomes violent, she is able to lie with impunity and there is no mandatory evaluation of the female for substance abuse. The effect is that the police will suppress evidence to justify the arrest of the male. If a male alleges that the woman was violent because of an abuse of drugs his pleas will most likely be ignored. By contrast, if the woman alleges that the male has abused a substance there will be an arrest and blood test.
2) Domestic Abuse is not adequately defined despite a reference to another paragraph. It can mean anything from calling the wife a bitch to severe battery.
3) Means of identifying the primary aggressor and defining who is the primary aggressor is not adequately defined.
4) There is no provision for the training of the population’s males and females to explain how the laws have DRAMATICALLY changed. The public has a right to be educated on what constitutes domestic abuse. Especially, when such broad powers of arrest are being summarily granted to the police; the effect is that Mississippi will become another Police State. Note that the police will no longer require a warrant and that probable cause can be virtually anything that upsets the female.
5) The law has language that specifically removes the right of a male to defend them from attack. It does this by specifically inferring that they become a primary aggressor when using self-defense, if an injury should occur to the first aggressor. With this bill it no longer matters who was the first aggressor. I shall explain why with a real life example that has resulted from a similar law in CA.
To illustrate, a male may have a wife who is abusing drugs attack him. He may then try every reasonable means to remove himself from the attack without the use of force. Then the drug abusing female can use force to prevent the male from escaping from the attack. If the male uses a minimal push or shove in a hallway, the substance abusing female may trip over a simple object like the edge of a throw rug becaue they are unsteady on their feet. Then the female can easily sustain an injury as she falls against a wall, a door stop, or some other object. Next the female can call 911 and falsely claim domestic abuse. Because of the injury, the male is defined as the primary aggressor and is now facing felony charges that might be reduced to a misdemeanor if they are lucky.
Clearly, the super-fems intentionally seek to criminalize the male population. They are fully aware that this language is having this effect.
It is clearly their intent to use this bill to marginalize and criminalize innocent men that simply try to remove themselves from abusive wives. With this bill, the male must stand there and sustain serious injury before using a simple shove to defend himself. And then if the wife sustains an injury it had better be less serious than the male's injury.
In effect all males will loose the right of self-defense where a female is involved. Why? Because our civilization falsely assumes that a female cannot be a primary aggressor when shoving, slapping, hitting, or emotionally abusing a male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 30, @02:08PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Its just another "feel-good" piece of legislation that will:
A. Increase police presence and powers ( Did I hear a cheer? Thought not)
B. Marginalize men farther by making more of them criminals
C. Give the Gov't more power by disenfranchising, disarming, and shaming potential voters
D. Add more money to our omnipresent legal vultures
E. Be passed in virtual secrecy ( a few newspaper articles here and there that don't make explicit what the bills actually do is hardly fair notification), and made retroactive
F. Give even more ammunition to bitter and/or deceitful spouses to use in custody cases, thus making marriage more expensive to get into , and more expensive to be pushed out of from the NCP's point of view
And finally, it won't even solve the problem it sets out to solve, namely domestic violence.
Just another example of how right the remarksman is: The Toxic King and the Empowered witch really do rule this society. And they do so, very incompetently.
More fun, boys and girls
Revolted but not surprised,
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"3) Means of identifying the primary aggressor and defining who is the primary aggressor is not adequately defined. "
Actually there is no such thing as a primary agressor. It would have come up in boxing or full contact sports if there was.
Primary means, among other things, highest ranking value, first in a sequence, and it also means most direct cause.
This is just an irrational (incompetent/illiterate) duplication of the concept of coersion.
What would this law do that the laws covering coersion do not do?
There has to be some way of making the public see these people as the complete morons that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
