GPD Officer Found Guilty

The News and Record reports officer A.J. Blake was found guilty today in district court.  He was the officer involved in the assault incident at the Police Club.

Ken Free was his attorney.

The News and Record did not indicate in its report that Blake is one of the 39 (or 40) GPD officers suing various parties for racial discrimination. 

Comments

[Brenda Bowers]

Bubba I agree with you about the sociology classes as taught at our universities. However the subject is usually racism and homophobia not battered women. This topic is glanced over and seen as relatively unimportant by males who run the departments or teach the courses. And, unfortunately it is also passed over by some women who have never been in a situation where she could not protect herself. The men in her life have treated her well and these women are the ones you hear saying, "Why did she take it? I wouldn't have for a minute!"

I could have been one of these women because my life was sheltered by the men in my life. I just happened at an early age to have a dear friend beaten almost to death. This situation got me involved with the Battered Women and Children's Centers where I have seen women races and socio-economic classes battered by men from all classes. cm has seen much of this also I am sure.

How many times have you seen a battered man pictured in the news? How many men are killed by their wives or ex-wives? You guys should give your opinion on this subject a bit more thought. BB

[Bubba]

"The law simply gave the woman AN equalizer!"

Are you really trying to say that women need an "equalizer" against men in a court of law over domestic matters?

The record show just the opposite.

[Bubba]

"How many men are killed by their wives or ex-wives?"

That's not the point of this discussion.

You didn't read the link I posted at 11:30, did you?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here are some more excerpts:

"Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. (A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed and assessed with the CTS.

****Agreement concerning intimate partner violence was about 40%, with no differences reported across ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner violence than men in all three ethnic groups.)***"

" Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O'Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (1999). Factor Structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11, 546-555. (A sample of 2320 high school students from seven high schools in Long Island, New York were assessed with a modified CTS.

****A significantly greater number of women compared to men reported perpetrating physical aggression toward their dating partners. Of specific note 18.1% of women compared to 4.3% of men reported slapping their partners and 16.9% of women compared to 5.5% of men reported "kicking, biting or hitting" their partners.)"

"Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Observer, Self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169-1181. (Examined a sample of 236 young people who completed questionnaires regarding their hostility toward their partners. Findings reveal that couples living together have higher levels of hostility than dating couples

**** and that women in both conditions demonstrate higher levels of hostility towards their partners than men.****"

The list goes on, but it's petty clear: there's no evidence that supports any basis for laws that single men out for domestic violence.

All there is is hysterical over-reaction based on false perceptions.

Here's more, from Instawife:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/reciprocal-violence-can-lead-to-more.html

Noteworthy:

"If reciprocal violence results in more injuries, it would seem important for domestic violence prevention to focus on both women and men in these cases.

By focusing only on men, women never get the help they need to reduce violence.

The false notion that men perpetrate the majority of domestic violence and women are on the receiving end just doesn't seem to be holding up in study after study."

[brandonB]

I gotta interject. I am taking an intro to sociology course right now. I am a middle class white man. First off, sociology is more than Karl Marx's conflict theory. Second, facts are facts, and sociology tries to understand why certain "facts" exist. Men are paid more than women. More whites are arrested, but more minorities serve time for the same crimes. Why is this? Just thought I had to say something in Sociology's defense. Bubba, I'm guessing, based on your hostile attitude towards facts that make white men look bad, that you, like me are a white man. Look, I don't buy into white guilt, and I am proud of the inventors and explorers of the white race, but the fact is, in America, white men always have the upperhand. That's the way it is, and we shouldn't get mad when that status quo is challenged by a woman or another race. Investigate and question the motives? Of course, but you can't outright dismiss it just because.

[brandonB]

Also, if we are to look at domestic violence on a "case by case" basis, we do not need statistics. I know a few guys who have assaulted women, and the times they got caught, it was most definitely not the first time. Especially when the parties are intoxicated. Personal experience has shown me that these patterns of abuse started in teen years. These men aren't evil, but they have a problem. Saying, "aww baby, ill never hit you again", to me is much like saying "Greensboro, I'll never go behind your back and run your city into the ground again." Women aren't the weaker sex, but they are smaller, and it makes a big difference.

[Bubba]

"Also, if we are to look at domestic violence on a "case by case" basis, we do not need statistics. I know a few guys who have assaulted women,....."

That's all we need to know. No further comment by me is necessary on that particular sentence.

It's a certain worldview agenda that makes men look bad, not the facts, as I've amply demonstrated several times here today. The situation is further aggravated by the hysterical over-reaction that's been exhibited by certain people on this topic.

For your edification, Brandon, the only thing I'm "hostile" about is the situational ethics promoted by those who sanction treating the genders differently for commission of the exact same crimes.

There's no excuse for that,and there's no rationale, anecdote, generalization, or mindless agenda drum-beating that will provide one.

None whatsoever.

[scharrison]

"...there's no evidence that supports any basis for laws that single men out for domestic violence."

Unless I'm missing something, domestic violence laws don't "single men out" or specify gender in their wording. While "assault on a female" does, that's not (necessarily) related to domestic violence.

I understand the point you're trying to make about aggression/hostility being exhibited by both male and female alike, but that's not really what I was talking about. That falls into the (more common) category of Situational Couple Violence. It's nasty, but it's also easier to detect and (maybe) correct, before somebody gets hurt or killed.

Intimate Terrorism is a subset of domestic violence that very often has sociopathic roots. That's why it often has all the other traits like constant control and intimidation. Those who engage in this are much more likely to seriously injure or kill their victims, especially when the victims try to escape from the situation.

It's also a self-perpetuating problem, because male children who witness this are ten times more likely to repeat this behavior later in life than those who aren't exposed to it.

[brandonB]

"That's all we need to know. No further comment by me is necessary on that particular sentence."

I'm simply basing my view on real life experiences rather than the "bs" sociological statistics you and sometimes even I show disdain for.

""treating the genders differently for commission of the exact same crimes.""

To me, the systematic mental and physical abuse towards women by men is nothing like when a woman simply slaps a man. Like I stated, men who habitually abuse women are bullies, have emotional issues that put society at risk, and more often than not, have substance abuse issues. I don't not know, personally, of a woman systematically abusing and torturing her male lover. Not to say it doesn't happen, it does, but you must remember, these domestic violence laws are the result of an era when it was nobodies business if or why a man beats his wife and children. My great grandfather use to bring loose women home, after drinking, and he would be his wife and kids until they left to sleep outside. This happened for years until my grandfather stood up to him. I've never heard of a woman doing a man like this, I'm sure it's happened, but it is not common, and a woman hitting a man or even beating him up is not the same as a man who takes care of her, imprisoning her with violence.

[Bubba]

"To me, the systematic mental and physical abuse towards women by men....."

(sigh)

Why do I even bother?

[brandonB]

Bubba, I'm bothering because I want to understand where your coming from. What am I missing? Would Tyson fair fight against De La Hoya? Hell no. Same thing for men and women. If a person uses martial arts against an aggressor in the street, without first trying to flee, it's a felony. If a large man strikes a smaller woman...It's not even a matter of "if he strikes her." You are ignoring the fact that physical abuse in the home is not a once in a while thing, it is an institution which mentally and physically imprisons and traumatizes the women and children. Partly because of women's historically lower status in society, they feel bound to these men, ie: "where else can I go?" Housewives generally don't have the workforce skills or higher education neccesary to "make it" on their own. To me, it seems like the whole idea of "keeping the family together" rests with the woman to. I don't see many woman abandoning their children and being taken to child support court. You need to at least be flexible bubba, be open.

""no rationale, anecdote, generalization, or mindless agenda drum-beating that will provide one.
None whatsoever."" <--this mentality is what is wrong with the world.

[Bubba]

You haven't comprehended a word I've said, have you?

[brandonB]

Also, back to the original story. AJ Blake:bodybuilder, police officer, drunk at a party. Hits 2 women (or 1, chokes the other). Punishment does not fit the crime. Oh he can't be a cop, I'm sure Hinson will get him a nice cushy security job. I'm sure when he gets caught with a gun in the future, he will get off. Joe Turner: piece of crap who loves to hear himself talk. Even the cops hate him. Who wants to bet money that this isn't this first girlfriend he abused. I'm sure it was just the stress of the job. Wonder how many "gangsters" he's assaulted over the last year? Doesn't matter, I'm sure the stated pattern of abuse is just some male-bashing political slant. Damn Libs.

[Spag]

I wish some of you could spend a few days in the courtroom before making these judgments.

Brenda, I am telling you that a man show pushes a woman's arm aside as he is trying to LEAVE the confrontation while she tries to stop him WILL BE CONVICTED of assault on a female.

Conversely, if she balls up her fist and socks him in the eye, he will be punished more severely for pushing her arm out of the way than she will for giving him a black eye.

I am not making this stuff up.

The law should be based on specific acts and facts not generalizations about strength and weaknesses. Read the U.S. vs. Virginia case. If we are going to base things on such generalizations, then we will have to stop women from being cops, getting into military school, etc. because they are "generally" weaker than men.

The Court has said that is unconstitutional. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to the criminal law as well.

[Spag]

"man show"? man who...

[brandonB]

Spag, no doubt that law is unjust. It is a ridiculous double standard. I've seen women tear men to shreds and I've seen men wailing on women. Most of us agree that law is unconstitutional. Are you saying then, that when a woman drops charges against a man, who abuses her and her children, because she has no where to go and no way to provide and, god forbid, she try to keep the family TOGETHER, the law has no place to interfere? The police shouldn't be going to the same house weekly because the neighbors hear the woman and children being abused. Also Spag, my experience tells me that the law really doesn't matter, it's the individual judges interpretation. Some judges would not let a man who shoots a cop have chance of bailing out, some judges will reduce the bond by $900,000. One day, a particular judge might sentence a man to jail/prison for slapping his wife, then one hour later, scold a woman for remaining with a man who brings home the bacon, but also breaks her arm, twice in a year. You of all people should know this.

[Brenda Bowers]

Spag, I never have sat in a court room, but I'll just bet you have never had any experiences with Battered women and children outside the court room either. I have. I have helped women with their children literally "run for their lives", and the women who finally do this are the vast minority. It takes a huge amount of courage to leave with nothing but the clothes on you and your childrens back and knowing your husband will be extremely violent if he catches up with you. There is also logistics problems, like when to run and where to go. Family and friends can't help because that is the first place he will look. Besides that, family is not always receptive because they have tried to help and gotten caught in the middle when the wife has gone back to an abusive husband in the past.

As for date rape. I was a Freshman dorm assistant while in college and had to help with girls who had been raped. This was back when it was the girls fault if she was raped (1958-1962) so absolutely nothing was done about it. It was common to have 3 -4 girls A WEEK in a 150 girl dorm come in in hysterics, and often bruised and battered. The ones we saw were often also bleeding vaginally and needed medical care. How many we didn't see because they just kept their mouths shut I have no idea, but am sure the number is greater.

So I don't really need to go into the court room to see how a judge rules on any given case according to this "unfair" law. I have seen the blood.

And another thing about the law as it is now written where the man is charged even if the woman later recants as was the case with Blake. The law was written this way actually to protect the woman against herself. Yes, it is in a woman's nature to be more forgiving and to want peace and love and all that charity stuff. The laws are finally at long last being written for women as well as men! Laws taking into consideration the differences in the psychological makeup of the sexes.

Joe might understand this better because medicine is now starting to recognize that women must be treated differently medically from men. Previously testing and studies was done on men and then it was assumed the same would apply to women. It isn't so. Consideration must be given to the differences in physic in both prognosis and treatment.

One more point and then I am out of here. I like all of you men and feel that I know that you personally would not harm a woman, so I truly dislike having such a strong difference of opinion with you. Actually on this or any other topic--another female trait that men do not share for your information. Men will argue with each other to the point of punching and then go out and have a beer together. Women when they disagree with someone they like have a tendency to just remain quiet on the subject or if they do speak to be rather apologetic about it. (Note: my response on the killing of bats when I personally don't give a snot how many bats are killed by wind turbines I figure there will still be plenty around that the species will not die out, but I sure would like to be able to breath and to go outside any time I like instead of the way I have to live because of filthy fossil fuels.)

Bubba the thing about women resorting to physical abuse more often than men. We have met so you know I am a large woman but Bubba if you were angry and yelling at me and standing near and "over me" since you are so much taller I would be frightened. Yes, intimidated and frightened enough to slap, kick and do any thing else I could to get away from you. This well accounts for why women like cornered animals initiate the physical. BB

[Bubba]

"This well accounts for why women like cornered animals initiate the physical."

Pure conjecture.That's not supported by facts.

The anti-male campaign conducted by radical feminists regarding domestic violence (and MANY other issues) has spread its propaganda far and wide.

It's had the same level of success that the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" nonsense and the "Hope 'n Change" lies have had.

Fortunately, the facts always come to the surface. That being said, the difficult part is the long process it always takes to reverse the effect of the brainwashing.

You don't think so?

Then answer this: Who is responsible for most of the domestic violence against children and senior citizens?

Which gender consistently receives lighter sentences for equal domestic violence crimes?

On the other hand, perhaps you think that male violence against females deserves to be considered some sort of "hate crime", thereby meriting harsher and disparate judgment for men.

[brandonB]

"Laws taking into consideration the differences in the psychological makeup of the sexes."

--Not only this, but moreso the fact that if you love someone, even someone who pushed your head through drywall, you don't want to see them go to prison.

And the whole thing about "women attacking first" is not at all able to be proven and it wouldn't matter. Up until the 1960's, it was none of society's business if or why a man tortures his family. Look at the guy in Austria. You think his neighbors never knew he had a family with his daughter living in a cellar? They knew, and like America 100 years ago, they knew it was none of their business. Now, of course, this man is "sorry for hurting my family, I have a problem, please, send me to a psych ward and not to jail with the rest of societies deviants."

Women are less able to support themselves because they spend their time raising children and tending to a home, rather than attending college and spending time in the workforce. They recieve less pay, especially if they are not white. Deny all you want, "bubba", but it's the truth. Also, I've always had a problem with any religious scripture or cultural "norms" that imply a woman is to "serve" her man. Lot's of women have been socialized to believe this and it certainly contributes to them "wanting to keep the family together, at all costs," and "for the children." I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and it's all liberal sociological BS. Maybe men ARE being discriminated against, but, I do not know of any cases where the gender roles are reversed in a situation such as this-->

""leave with nothing but the clothes on you and your childrens back and knowing your husband will be extremely violent if he catches up with you. There is also logistics problems, like when to run and where to go. Family and friends can't help because that is the first place he will look."" <--So go ahead, google an instance where the gender roles were reversed in this situation, so you can prove my liberal ass wrong once and for all, and prove to us that domestic violence laws are unconstitutional on the same level as "assault on a female."

[Bubba]

From Dr. Helen, here's one more example of the feminist agenda at work:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/03/double-standard-of-teen-rape.html

Excerpt:

"Using sex as a basis for charging a person with a felony is a slippery slope to go down. The truth is, currently, boys and men are being punished in our society for their gender as payback by feminists and their enablers, and no one cares except for their families, the men and boys who are harmed by this, and a few good men and women."

Indeed.

[brandonB]

"After a 17-year-old boy had sex with his 14-year-old girlfriend, he was charged with a felony for statutory rape. When a 17-year-old girl in the same town committed the same crime, she was charged with far less. Was the boy the victim of gender bias?"

Bubba, there is to much left out to determine whether this boy in fact raped her and if he was even convicted. Female teachers get convicted of rape everyday, along with male teachers, but I believe more male teachers get off the hook without even being charged. I've seen myself and I'm not going to name names, but it happens quite often.

""payback by feminists and their enablers""

-as far as I'm concerned, a feminist is a PERSON who advocates equal treatment for both genders. These "feminists" you and the good doctor write about are, in fact not feminists if this is actually occuring. I also want to say, I think it's terrible that a man of 19 can be convicted, by statute, of rape for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. That is not right. I also think it's bs for the police to have to arrest an abusive husband/boyfriend on a monthly basis, only to have his battered wife bail him out 2 days later.

[Spag]

The assault on a female law could be repealed and instead a law of "domestic assault" could replace it to punish perpetrators of domestic violence. I see no reason why such a law could not be gender neutral and accomplish the same thing.

The assault on a female law that is in place was NOT created to prevent women from being victims of domestic violence. Rather, it goes back to the late 19th century and was implemented to address sexual assaults where the sex could not be established. At the time the law was passed, only men could be convicted of rape because rape laws only applied to men. Not all rapes could be established, so assault on a female was created for such cases.

So it is an outdated law created to address another law that is no longer on the books (because women can now also be rapists under current law), and that old rape law would also be unconstitutional (if both sexes can rape and be subject to the same punishment, why shouldn't the same apply to lesser assaults?), and the Supreme Court has said that such classifications based on general attributes are unconstitutional.

Think about where arguing otherwise might logically lead you. Caucasians are "generally" taller and larger than Orientals, should there be an "assault on Oriental" law based on this generality about physical differences?

The only one that makes sense is children- and interesting enough- that law is gender neutral. So even though a man is "generally" larger than a child AND a woman, he is NOT punished more severely than a woman who assaults a child.

Go reconcile that fact with the logic behind "assault on a female".

[brandonB]

My posts are speaking with regards to "no drop" policies.

""prove to us that domestic violence laws are unconstitutional on the same level as "assault on a female.""

My impression was that bubba feels there is a feminist conspiracy to convict men who beat their wives/girlfriends, and let women run free, beating their husbands. All I'm trying to do is state the difference between "assault on female" vs. "no drop".

[Bubba]

"The only one that makes sense is children- and interesting enough- that law is gender neutral. So even though a man is "generally" larger than a child AND a woman, he is NOT punished more severely than a woman who assaults a child.

Go reconcile that fact with the logic behind 'assault on a female'."

He isn't able to do that

He doesn't (or refuses to) comprehend what other people's posts actually say.

[brandonB]

for the 3rd time:

""prove to us that domestic violence laws are unconstitutional on the same level as "assault on a female.""

[brandonB]

""no rationale, anecdote, generalization, or mindless agenda drum-beating that will provide one.""

--I understand this well. I'm through with this post. Thanks for the debate bubba, no hard feelings over here.

[brandonB]

Wannabe Chief Bellamy could learn a lesson in tact from this chief:
"we were embarrassed, disappointed,” Kunkle said. “It’s hard to find the right word and still be professional in my role as the police chief."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-player-stopped&prov=ap&type=lgns