The Washington Times - February 9, 2010, 03:49PM

The National Organization’s for Women’s (NOW) attack on the Tebow Super Bowl ad as glorifying violence appears odd at first, but it is not unexpected coming from an organization like theirs. It is common, in fact, for liberal feminists groups to help institute mandatory arrest laws and primary aggressor doctrines in the area of domestic violence.

Take for example how the Department of Public Safety’s Maine Criminal Justice Academy instructs their police officers on who to arrest in different domestic disputes. It is important to keep in mind the examples are written in a bias fashion in favor of the woman’s innocence. All of the other scenarios at the source link show only the man being arrested except for one scenario where neither man nor woman is arrested. Here is an example of one scenario:

SEE RELATED:


4. Predominant Aggressor #1 (Man Coming Over to Visit Kids)

 Man said:

“She grabbed me by the neck” (marks on side of neck).

Admitted she grabbed him.

“She tried to push me out the door.”

“He came over to see the kids.”

“It was all behind closed doors.”

Woman said:

“He was really really violent.”

“Asked him to leave.”

She was frightened.

Who would you arrest?  Man or Woman – MAN:  Possible Crimes:  Assault, Criminal Threatening.  Remember who is predominant  aggressor.  

Woman – NO because she was defending the home and her children.

Glenn Sacks, National Executive Director at Fathers & Families, explains why Maine’s primary aggressor doctrine and mandatory arrest laws will always play against men regardless of who is the attacker: 

“The stakes here are high. Because Maine also has a mandatory arrest law in domestic violence cases, instituting the predominant aggressor doctrine will lead to the arrests of many innocent men. Since Maine family courts must consider evidence of domestic violence in determining child custody, an officer’s decision on who to arrest can often determine who will get custody of the couple’s children after the couple divorces or separates.

Under the predominant aggressor doctrine, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries, but instead consider different factors which will almost always weigh against men. These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others. Given these factors, it is very difficult for officers to arrest female offenders.”

Gael B. Strack, who served as a San Diego Assistant City Attorney, wrote an essay titled She hit me too-Identifying the Primary Aggressor: A Prosecutor’s Perspective. The piece is also written with a bias against males in domestic violence cases. If she writes about female defendants accused of violence, she adds a clever caveat that says violent females are likely to have been abused previously implying women are only violent with a reason:

“Domestic violence laws apply equally to men and women. When an individual uses violence, which is not in self-defense, it is a crime. Police officers and prosecutors must evaluate each case on the facts of the instant offense. Both the police officer and the prosecutor are guided by established standards, which cannot be ignored. With the increase of females being arrested, it is inevitable that more females will be prosecuted and that some of these female defendants will also have a history of being battered victims. When this happens, prosecutors should consider the prior abuse as a factor in “mitigation” at sentencing. Of concern is the lack of advocacy services for female defendants who may also be victims ofdomestic violence. In Minneapolis, MN, the Domestic Abuse Project has developed a program for battered victims who find themselves as defendants.”

 NOW’s complaint that the Tebow pro-life ad promotes domestic violence may seem like an unusual after thought that causes many to simply roll our eyes, but NOW’s messages are understood very well in our state and federal legislatures. Legislation like the liberal feminist created Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) continue to perpetuate the myth that all men, by the their nature, are likely to become violent aggressors. In the meantime, American men are paying the price.