Originally Posted by Halien

River,

With respect, what works in the court of public opinion rarely coincides with the interpretation of the law.

I'll refer to the California penal code as an example.

California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" .

A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1.that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,

2.the threat is specific and unequivocal and

3.you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.

-------------

Without specific and unequivocal ramifications being tied to the offense, the OP's comments could not legally imply violence as his preferred option, but the assumption would be his voluntary removal of himself from the marriage if she continued in the affair. Indirect threats perceived by her carry no weight if they are not substantiated by a threat of bodily harm.

An officer is allowed to mediate and follow procedures to the full extent needed before getting legal counself, so this explains her call. But the situational response is in no way interpreted as validation of a legal claim of his action being a threat.

Laws in this country don't require a person to tolerate infidelity in their home. A person has the personal liberty to say that they will not tolerate infidelity in their home without this being legally construed as a threat. It just means that you will not put up with it. Suggesting that this is indirect threatening is pretty extreme, considering that the officer was merely following protocol as she understood it.

Originally Posted by River1977

8 pages is way too many to read but based on the first couple ones, you are being misinformed on some of the issues. Such as........



........is misinformation. You threatened your wife when you stated........



That is an indirect threat. Indirect only because you didn't express what exactly you would do (except tell her father) if she continued. But, she took it as a threat, and the police took it as a threat because it is a threat. Although you left it open and up to interpretation as to what would happen if she continued, it is obvious you are saying something will happen.

The police were right in the way they handled the situation because they could not leave you in the house intimidating and threatening your wife like that. The law in a situation like this is based on *reasonable man* in that a reasonable person would and should leave in refusal of being treated badly. If a person is not going to put up with something, their only option is to leave and not put up with it because you cannot MAKE someone do as you say. You cannot MAKE someone stop doing what they choose to do. Any attempt to MAKE them do it, or TELL them they cannot, or TELL them what they better do, or threaten consequences is impeding their freedom because everyone has a right to do as they please. Yes, you have a right to refuse to put up with it......by walking away.

You also cannot tell her "too bad" when she said she doesn't want to talk about it because you cannot MAKE her talk about it if she doesn't want to. She asked you to leave her room, but you refused and continued to make her talk about it. Then, you slammed the door behind her. That was aggressive behavior.

I recall your advice here on the forum was to go back home and play it cool and not let her anger you. But, you became aggressive, intimidating, and threatening. The suggestions for the VAR was to catch her in her lies and so forth, it wasn't intended to incriminate yourself because you were advised not to do or say things like this to her. No one has to live under these conditions, but you were trying to force her to do what you wanted. You weren't supposed to tell her to do anything at all. You cannot tell a grown woman what to do.

Therefore, the police saw what was going on and did what they were supposed to do even though you didn't like it and even though there are some here who do not know the law and disagree with the police. You have no claim against either of the police officers. The female officer can look however she pleases however you interpret the look on her face as hating men. It doesn't matter as long as she makes the right decisions, which she did and was well within the scope of her duties. She not only could have arrested you for assaulting your wife (verbal assault is still assault), trying to impede your wife's freedom to doing whatever she wants to do, and for aggressing toward, intimidating, and threatening your wife, she could also have arrested you for not doing as she told you to do with her being an officer of the law duly sworn to protect the safety of the public - the public being your wife who called the police for protection.

Sorry, Jason. You made a sundry of mistakes. Whether or not you intended to aggress toward her, and whether or not you intended to be intimidating and threatening, you did all of those things. There are areas of the law that are based on intended actions (intentions), and there are areas of law based on the result/effect of your actions despite your intentions.

Originally Posted by jasonh

So basically my point about the womens rights in america being seriously out of control is validated. She gets to cheat on me and have other men in our home but when I tell her I'm not going to put up w it anymore I end up almost arrested and kicked out of my home where I pay the bills. I NEVER threatened anyone w violence. I just told her I won't put up with her cheating and now I'm made out to be a monster??????? Its like no matter what I do I'm always wrong. If I try to be passive that makes me a beta male and too weak. If I try to be assertive then I almost get arrested. I don't get it. This guy threatens me but my lawyer says wait till I can prove it before going to the cops, but this woman makes one phone call and she's given all the credibility in the world. Total bull5hit. I'm so done with the laws in this god forsaken place. Seriously.
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by the guy

So are you giving up on your kids?
You will need the law!

Dude I know it all sucks but come on and stop letting your chick get the better of you. I mean it sound like your giving up?

We told you to call the cops before you went home, it was even mentioed to have a witness with you. The good thing is you listened and got the VAR...just think of were you would have been if you hadn't listen.

Your so focus on how crappy things are. You made some moves and they didn't go your way does that mean you don't have any rights at all? NO you do have rights and sooner or later things will start to go your way. For now you have some set backs... just don't give up!

Originally Posted by jasonh

I'm not giving up on my kids. I'm just sick of the double standard.
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by River1977

Halien, I want to laugh so badly but will simply ask if telling you your post makes no sense can be construed by you as attacking?

1. If the officer was following protocol and that protocol procedure is based on the law and executed within the scope of her duties, then why did you think it necessary to correct what I stated since what I stated was correct?

2. This is not a court of law. Jason is not in court defending himself against a charge of being threatening. This is a domestic situation, where the officers saw that his actions - by his own admitting and by what they heard on the recorder - were aggressive, intimidating, and threatening. Every bit of it was left to interpretation because he didn't actually tear the house down, yell and scream at her, or hit her. My point, and the way the officers saw it, was that she had every reason to feel threatened and intimidated by him based on his words and actions. That is the reason he was told to leave and not the wife. Had she been the one doing and saying the things that he did, then they would have told HER to leave. He was not told to leave for having done nothing.

3. Please read to understand tort law.

4. Please read to understand tort law and how it applies to civil situations and domestic situations (such as domestic abuse, domestic violence, etc). This is not a situation of criminal law. Therefore, your comments, as they are based on criminal law, do not apply.

Originally Posted by morituri

Jason should have called the police before entering his house to inform them of the situation and to request that they send an officer as a precautionary measure to help defuse a potentially violent situation. Oh well, I hope it doesn't turn ugly and that he doesn't get the short end of the stick, again.