Accused murderess Jodi Arias has been engaging in some victim-blaming in court today. Actually, I’m not sure whether victim blaming is the right term. She’s claiming that she is the victim, accusing Travis Alexander of rape, pedophilia, domestic violence and perversion. He was so deranged, she is arguing, that he had to be knifed and shot while he was taking a shower. Arias’ accusations are typical for divorcing wives, only she’s justifying murder rather than theft and betrayal — it’s a script that plays out in courthouses across the United States every working day.
If a man who had killed his wife made those kinds of charges it would only earn him a faster trip to the execution chamber.
But there’s another important issue here for us to consider. What if Jodi Arias had tried to kill Mr. Alexander, but failed? What if Travis Alexander managed to overpower Arias and knock her to the ground with a right cross? What if, instead of first seeing Mr. Alexander as a butchered corpse, the first contact had been with an agitated, blood-spattered man with a gun standing over a beaten, crying woman?
Even if Alexander accused her of attempted murder, would he have escaped arrest under VAWA? “Primary aggressor” laws are designed to guarantee that the physically stronger party (almost always the man) is usually the one arrested. There is a contrived logic in the factors used in primary arrest policies that will typically implicate the man.
Here are some examples (from Dept. of Justice):
-Comparable size, strength of the parties
-Who has access to or control of resources
-The person least likely to be afraid
-The person most likely to inflict injury
-Who has the history of help-seeking behaviors
-Who has access to or threatened use of weapons
In the last case, an exception is made for women who use weapons:
“A discrepancy in size or strength might help explain why a woman might grab an object to throw at her batterer while her batterer uses his bare hands.”
In other words, if a man uses a weapon he’s the primary aggressor; if a woman uses a weapon, the man is also the primary aggressor. It’s a very convenient policy.
Here’s another catch-22:
“Sometimes batterers call the police, especially if they have sustained visible injuries. They may do this ruin their partner’s credibility with law enforcement or to deter her from calling law enforcement in the future.”
So, if the man sustains injuries and calls the police, he’s just trying to fool the police into thinking he’s the victim. Got a problem with that? You must be part of the “abuse lobby.”
If children are present, then the female may be more aggressive to “protect them,” but you should be skeptical of their statements if they defend their father:
“If children are present, the victim might act with force to protect them.
Children may also make statements that minimize the violence and protect the batterer parent out of fear. Children may also wish to protect their batterer parent if he has systematically undermined the abused parent’s ability to parent or has repeatedly belittled the abused parent.”
All of the above will typically implicate the man. Feminists are so brazen that they will use the slanted standards as “proof” that men should be automatically arrested in any domestic dispute, and in most cases they get their way.
However, imagine if we had a “primary aggressor” law in regards to interactions between police and citizens. In 90% or more of the violent encounters, we’d have to assume that the police are the guilty party. By feminist logic, anyone who wins in a violent encounter because they are stronger and more physically capable should be assumed – all else being equal – to be a violent criminal. It has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with feminist equalism — enforced with violence, naturally.
Because of primary aggressor laws, if Travis Alexander had successfully defended himself from Jodi Arias, feminists would have lined up with Arias and demanded he go to prison, and there’s a chance that’s where he would be today. It’s a sobering thought for any man in a relationship with a woman, but that’s the world we live in.