In an earlier topic I mentioned domestic violence with regard to charges of excessive or inappropriate use of force by Tacoma PD at the Port and I think I have not been clear about how I think these things connect, herewith, the connection imho:

Norm wrote: I'm not sure what you are getting at with the DV. Do you assume that only people who are willing to commit DV are the people that say "They got what they deserve." ? What does DV really have to do with this conversation, it seems like you are pointing at EG as a present or future "wife-beater".

Question:  Do you assume that only people who are willing to commit DV are the people that say "They got what they deserve." ?

Answer:  No, I think that people who are willing to commit DV run the gamut, but I also believe that whether abusers say it or not, it is a commonly held idea among abusers that the victim "asked for it,"  "got what they deserved,"  "made me hit him/her."  

Context:  The community who works to reduce domestic violence and sexual assault in this country (I number myself in that community) have generally agreed to confront these common justifications for abuse and to create an environment where an abuser would feel less comfortable ever saying anything like these justifications.  Ideally, without these dodges, the perpetrator of physical assault would have to own their behavior, realize that no matter how provoked they got, when they took it across the line to physicality, they committed a crime, they have done the wrong.  The responsibility and duty is to turn and walk away and not escalate any kind of domestic disagreement or couple's issue into an incident where an assault occurs. 

The same kind of thing applies in the area of sexual assault:  No victim has "asked for it"  or "got what they deserved."  Even if they wore provocative clothing or climbed on a bar and did a strip show.  None of that is license for sexual contact by another party who gets excited.  Even if a "party girl" get drunk and does five guys, and then when number six tries to climb on, she says, nope, had enough.  That's enough.  Sexual relations by number six at that point should be considered rape.  There is a line that gets crossed when talk, behavior, etc gets disregarded and something physical occurs, whether that physical thing is an assault or a rape, it is a crime.  As an avenue of education and prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault, I speak out and object whenever anyone launches the "they got what the deserved" or "they asked for it" arguments. 

Norm also asked:  What does DV really have to do with this conversation, it seems like you are pointing at EG as a present or future "wife-beater".

To the extent that my post was poorly worded as to give the impression that I was pointing at Ehver Green as a present or future "wife-beater," my apologies to EG.  That was not my point and I own any misunderstanding about that because I have re-read the post and wish I had been clearer.  It failed to occur to me that others here might not understand the connection between the David Brame case and scrutiny of the Tacoma PD.  

What does DV really have to do with this conversation? 

There were accusations of DV by former Police Chief Brame of the Tacoma PD.  They were handled poorly, perhaps because city officials and police officers are very reluctant to go after their own.  The cover story for not dealing with the DV accusations against Brame was that his wife was a nutcase. 

Then, Brame ends up shooting and killing his wife, then taking his own life.  And their children were present when he murdered their mother. He used a .45 glock if I am not mistaken.  For those of you who know weapons, please confirm, this is a big bullet, it makes a mess of a victim shot in the head at point blank range.

The murder of an abused spouse is a well recognized risk when the abused spouse leaves the abusive relationship.  That's the reason why the DV shelter that I volunteer to support maintains "safe houses," has cell phones we give to the fleeing spouse, get protection and no-contact orders.  Once both the Brame spouses are lying dead in Tacoma, it becomes more apparent that Ms. Brame was more of a classic victim of DV than a nutcase.  And Police Chief Brame looks more like he may have been - an abusive spouse. 

So, that is the recent history of the Tacoma Police Department in terms of its ability to understand violence within its own ranks.  That is significant and relevant in any discussion about whether the Tacoma Police Department has used excessive force because they were led by a man who may have been an abuser and certainly committed homicide when he shot his wife. 

Brame hung an albatross around the neck of the TPD when he killed his wife and committed suicide. It's unfortunate for all of the good officers who work at TPD, but that's the baggage that they carry because the PD and the City blew the chances they had to confront Brame or not to hire him.  The TNT reports that the psych eval at time of hire for Brame came back with a "don't hire" recommendation.  The TNT reports an allegation of date rape and that Brame was pursuing a subordinate for a sexual threesome.  Here is the website with the TNT stories.

Because of the missteps that are so apparent in the Brame case there are legitimate questions about any person who is wearing the TPD uniform.  And in any allegation of excessive force by a TPD, the TPD starts in the hole because they have to prove the officer accused of excessive force is not another David Brame - a person who should never have been hired, or a person with a willingness to use force, even up to lethal force, when it is not necessary.  This is why badge numbers or identification are so important.  They allow the public to track back to a single officer's record when these kind of charges are made.  So, I hope that answers your question about why DV comes up in the context of Tacoma PD.

The point I was trying to make was that EG was expressing a sentiment that is very common with abusers - "they asked for it," "they got what they deserved."   That the other person provoked/caused the violent episode.  The courts have almost universally rejected this argument.  The law is that no matter how much you may be provoked, generally speaking, if you respond to provocation by threatening or striking another person, you have committed a crime: usually assault.

Part of the education and prevention work in domestic violence and sexual assault is to confront this persistent rationalization regarding violence.  The rationalization is irresponsible.  When you cross the line and smack someone, you are in the wrong.  Even in the case of Olycop saying here earlier that if I offered to buy him a beer, he would have the impulse to hit me in the nose - if I feel threatened by that statement, that may be assault, a threat of violence that frightens me. 

In fact, of course, it does frighten me.  It's the risk that peace activists take every time that we stand on the line and witness for peace.  We know that we are standing across the line from someone who wants to punch us in the nose, or shoot us, or tase us, they are just waiting for the excuse.  Or maybe they get tired of waiting and they initiate the violence.  This is not random.  Domestic violence, excessive use of force, the theory that "they are getting what they deserve," these things are intimately connected. 

I reject them all.  I think there is a bright line that you cross when you deliberately use coercion, physical contact, intimidation and when you cross the line, you probably should spend a day or two in lockup no matter what kind of uniform you are wearing - riot gear or tie dye.