NYPD now running criminal background checks on the victims of domestic abuse
Imaginary Police Chief when reached for comment by this blog said, "We are trying to find every way possible to make it harder for women who are beaten by their scumball husbands to seek justice. We think arresting them for parking tickets before they can tell us how he broke their jaw with a telephone is a good start."
NYPD Now Running Criminal Checks On Domestic Abuse Victims — gothamist.com — Readability
It's already very difficult prosecuting domestic abuse cases, because 75 percent of the time the women who were victimized stop helping prosecutors—thankfully, wifebeaters like to brag about their misdeeds, and they are really, really dumb about it. But things are going to get even harder now that the NYPD has enacted a new directive: according to the Post, officers must run criminal checks on domestic abuse victims when they come forward. And if they have any warrants, even for minor offenses like unpaid tickets, a police source says "you have no choice but to lock them up."
"This is going to deter victims of domestic violence," the police source said. "They're going to be scared to come forward." The new directive, sent out in a memo on March 5th, has been set forth by Chief of Detectives Phil Pulaski, and already seems to be controversial among the rank and file. Their source said that the memo puts undo pressure on officers to make an arrest, even if someone was clearly battered by a spouse: “We have every right to arrest that person at that moment,” the source told the tabloid.
“The majority of domestic-violence cases go unreported,” said defense attorney Joseph Tacopina. “This is just going to increase this percentage.” Matrimonial lawyer Marilyn Chinitz agreed: “That is very, very frightening. It would absolutely dissuade people. They would not report a crime because they would fear getting locked up. It would empower the perpetrator, and there’s going to be more domestic violence as a consequence, and you’re endangering children.”
