Hacker News Reader

Comment by OrangeMango | Hacker News Reader

Where I am, the second paragraph of the executive order establishing the "lockdown" explicitly states that victims of domestic violence are exempt and are urged to leave for a safer location. It makes clear further in the order that services provided are considered essential and should remain open and that transportation is also essential and should remain available.

The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean.

People that had a daily respite because their spouse left for work, or (as the article mentions) the stress of the situation is causing alcoholism and relapses into violence are people that need help and that the system in place most likely doesn't have the capacity to handle. This is where additional resources need to be made available.

View on HN

Which do you think matters more to a person in an abusive situation?

A. Paragraph two of some legal document somewhere

B. "If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out."

I don't disagree with your last paragraph: There are other related issues and maybe some of them are worse. But how this actually plays out in an abusive situation is a fair bit removed from what the executive order says.

"If you leave the house, I'll call the cops and tell them you're breaking quarantine, and then you'll go to jail and I'll be the only person who can get you out."

Funny how those are almost the exact words that parents of my girlfriend used in an attempt to make her stay. She was terrified of spending an extended period of time at home with her father who normally works abroad and visits only for holidays.

An accusation of domestic abuse would be taken far more seriously than an accusation of "being outside without a reason", I would think. Especially if you're a police officer, trained to respond to domestic violence calls, but never really trained about the seriousness of epidemic management.

> An accusation of domestic abuse would be taken far more seriously than an accusation of "being outside without a reason", I would think. Especially if you're a police officer, trained to respond to domestic violence calls, but never really trained about the seriousness of epidemic management.

Police not taking it seriously (in part, because it's viewed as wasted time because the accuser will so often recant even when the accusation is true) is an enduring problem with domestic violence, and police are very well trained to enforce well-defined public orders like curfews (which shelter in place orders are just a variety of) even if they aren't specifically trained for pandemics.

There is a difference between taking seriously in the sense of "I am reporting a crime, please actually investigate it" (which, yes, often doesn't cause a crime to be investigated) and "I am afraid for my well-being and/or am being held hostage in my own home; please send a police escort to rescue me from my house; and then, optionally, please take me into protective custody, so that I may be safe for a few days while filing a motion of a restraining order."

The police are very well-trained to respond to the latter request. They might not have the capacity for protective custody (some do, some don't), but they'll at least do the "ensure you are escorted safely away from your home" part 100% of the time. They'll usually be willing to take you to a relative's home, if they live nearby; or, if not, to an emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence, if your city has one. You'll usually be asked to file a police report; you'll be given a case number, and the contact information of someone in the police department you can reach out to if your abuser is stalking you. It's sort of a "pre-restraining order"—the police can't legally stop the other person from being where you are, but they'll usually be willing to come and intercede if your abuser just shows up near you in public and tries to intimidate you. (This helps the police as well on what is now your open case, because they'll be witness to whatever happens between you and your abuser.)

> "I am afraid for my well-being and/or am being held hostage in my own home; please send a police escort to rescue me from my house; and then, optionally, please take me into protective custody, so that I may be safe for a few days while filing a motion of a restraining order."

These magic words likely will elicit the correct response from law enforcement. But being able to formulate this phrase implies awareness on the part of the victim that they are being abused, that something can be done about it, and that they have the courage to do what it takes to escape. The truth is that many victims are manipulated into believing there's no way out. Even the ones who do pull the trigger experience a lot of pain upfront that only becomes worth it later - they are still emotionally attached to their abusers.

We should absolutely educate people as to the usefulness of police in abusive scenarios (an abuser would have the victim think they are helpless), but getting victims to recognize and say the magic words is more than half the battle.

They are nit taken that seriously absent visible injuries. And statistically cops are more likely to be domestic abusers then general population.

Yep, 40% vs 25%:

https://kutv.com/news/local/40-of-police-officer-families-ex...

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-viole...

Police officer training to be "dominant" and "be in control of all aspects of the situation" can easily intimidate family members too...

Source: Friend of mine is a cop. Since he went through the ~2 year training program, he's become unpleasant to anyone he's in a private space with. Let him have his way, or he'll be very aggressive till he gets it.

How the heck do cops get along with each-other in a stressful situation, if their training leads them to all feel the need to individually be in control of the same situation?

> Let him have his way, or he'll be very aggressive till he gets it.

Good grief. That doesn't exactly sound like friendship.

Nope. There are many kinds of domestic abuse, most of them leave no proof whatsoever. I'm a very large guy, and if I had tried to say that nobody would have possibly believed me. No matter how true and horrible it was.

Domestic abuse can be psychological, too.

Domestic abuse is always psychological, though it often is also physical.

Sure. The point being that if it is not physical, it is often not taken seriously.

is this a realistic hypothetical? most people in abusive situations either don't have another place to go in the first place, or the abuser has leverage (eg, a child) to keep them in that home. wouldn't the threat of calling the cops be only a marginal source of leverage?

A core part of many abusive relationships is the message "No one else cares about you, no one loves you, I'm the only one who will help you". The abuser will socially isolate the victim, cutting off friendships & family. What friends & family remain, the abuser will work to discredit or estrange, all the while telling the victim the abuser is the only person they can rely on.

I think you are imagining abuse victims as fully rational actors straining to break free, if only they had somewhere to go or full custody of their child. But a long time victim of this kind of abuse has been taught they are helpless, worthless, and alone. The only thing more frightening than staying, is leaving.

In an abusive relationship.

If I try and leave she threatens to call the cops.

Uses every emotional trick to make it clear I have no wear to go.

Lots of other emotional abuse.

Next day she’s bright as can be. Confused as to why any of it bothers me.

Kids are very much only reason staying.

Took many years to break free of mental chains.

Kids almost old enough to see through BS.

Stay strong. I stayed for the same reasons but she wanted to end it. I'm in a better place, but I'm terrified for my children and nobody that can do anything about it believes any of it.

Don't expect your kids to see through it - it's normal for them. Sorry, but that's my experience.

Thanks!

I gave up on that awhile ago.

Was shocking to see her start crap with everyone plain as day. Then all kids against me because she is mom.

Never mind we we all happy and having fun until she arrived.

I spent a year pushing back hard on it. She’s reluctant to start crap these days.

I still don’t like her. But it’s better.

is this a realistic hypothetical?

Extremely reasonable.

Abused people get into a mindset where the abuser is an authority. The authority knows things you do not, and will be believed by others. And the cost of testing this authority will be..horrendous.

The more confidence that the abuser displays that the rest of the world will be on his side, the more that this message is strengthened. It doesn't matter whether it is true, it matters whether it is believed. "Nobody will believe that you're an abuse victim. They will just hand you back to me."

The real chain holding the victim in place is in the victim's mind. And abusers strengthen that chain early and often. :-(

The only leverage you need is the “emotional upper ground”, if you will. Just the fact that you’re on the receiving end of a threat matters more than how realistic the threat is, especially in a pre-existing abusiva relationship.

Anything can be source of leverage. Doesn’t need to make sense.

Given that lifting quarantines seems infeasible, what do you suppose should be done instead? Same message, just communicated better?

When trying to protect people (or, more accurately, trying not to hurt people) in low-information or high-stress situations (both very common for abusive situations), you can't throw something that essential into the second paragraph of a document that few outside of pundits will ever read.

The goal would be for the exception to be noticeable-enough that it ended up in most headlines. How to achieve that is an interesting thing to think about, but it's what should have been done.

Realistically, people who stay in abusive relationships were already stuck. The problem wasn’t cause by the lockdown. Only compounded.

Changing the presentation of a document won’t change this.

What would, is a society that doesn’t tolerate the problem, and provides material support for the abused.

We are a long way from that.

Someone who cannot leave a relationship in which abuse did not just take place once, but repeated (hence "abusive"); when what should society do that it should not already be doing to everyone?

* ensure you have food and shelter

* ensure reasonably safe

* ensure that children are admitted to some school

* ensure you dont sink into deep poverty

When a society cannot help on these points, what use is requesting these for the small sub category of marginalized that are so because of an abusive relationship, that they themselves are usually to some extend are continued to be pulled back into?

Free stuff for everyone enables a level of governmental abuse that makes domestic violence seem tame in comparison. The sad state of affairs is many abused people are gaslighted and brainwashed so they stay with the abuser. These forms of coercive mental conditioning can last a lifetime.

It happened to a close friend of mine’s sister. She ended up joining a bizarre religious cult where the leader would find young people and brainwash them into staying with the cult. I attended one of these gatherings and they attempted to recruit me as well. They’d send multiple young women over wearing very revealing clothing, extolling how great the cult was, how great the leader was, etc. But these types of mind control schemes don’t work me.

> Free stuff for everyone enables a level of governmental abuse that makes domestic violence seem tame in comparison. The sad

Please enlighten me. Given for instance the enormeous amount, 6.4 trillion, is spend by the US on wars the last 20 year. That's about 888 million per day, everyday over the last 20 year. And who benefitted? You tell me.

Now lets divide that by the number of americans, it comes down to 80,000 dollars per month per american. That could have been awarded as a social program to increase the happiness of peolpe, or that needs to be paid by those same people in either taxes or inflation (or printing money, aka quantative easing, as bankers refer to it).

Now you compare that --in my view rather utopian view-- to domestica violence, and conclude that DV is worse! Dude, you may have some hatred to anything socialist, but this is next level.

I know a good one. I take the 80k/month, you the abuse. Pfff...

> Please enlighten me. Given for instance the enormeous amount, 6.4 trillion, is spend by the US on wars the last 20 year. That's about 888 million per day, everyday over the last 20 year. And who benefitted? You tell me.

The Great Leap Forward killed millions of people. Same in Cambodia. It was based on an ideology that the government will provide everything for you. But your loyalty will determine if you live or die. Even in the case when one was loyal, death could still happen in these brutal regimes.

I agree with you in spirit that we shouldn’t be spending anything on war. Non-interventionism was when America prospered the most. If you just let the free market work and don’t get involved in costly wars, people become productive and there are plenty of jobs.

Your narrow view that those in authority will reward you for loyalty will change one day. Trust me. I just hope on that day, you are willing to do what is necessary when nobody in power will defend you.

You are right.

There is no use requesting these things for a small group of marginalized people.

Until society provides them for everyone, it cannot tackle the problem of abuse.

Which (developed Western) society tolerates the problem?

The core crux of the problem is literally that the society can't really do anything - the victim has to leave, out of their own volition, and that rarely happens (people who leave quickly aren't the problem, they don't get stuck in abusive situations in the first place).

I mean maybe this was a problem 30 years ago, but I've been bombarded with images, ads, information about abuse and victim shelters etc. my whole life, so it seems to me that society is pretty much doing the most it can.

Edit: seems to have hit a sore spot... look, I'm just annoyed everytime someone says "society tolerates slavery/trafficking/homelessness/poverty/rape/cancer/child abuse/organised crime/violence/..." - just because we haven't come up with a perfect solution to the problem (usually because the problem isn't as simple as some people imagine) doesn't mean that the society tolerates the problem...

Sure the victim has to leave.

But do you know what happens when they do?

Obviously, shelters have to be advertised because otherwise people wouldn’t know about them.

But it’s pretty obvious that the presence of ads for shelters says nothing about whether society is actually providing a way out for the abused.

But by that logic, all laws by their existence and enforcement enables abusers. Even laws against abuse. Enforce the law against an abuser and send them to jail? Another abuser will use that to scare a victim of the same gender as the abuser jailed.

If an abuser says B and the abused knows about A why wouldn’t they just throw that in their face and then leave? If you know your rights you’ll have the confidence to act.

Victims of abuse have typically been trapped financially, emotionally, and physically long before the lockdown occurred. Abusers have many ways of keeping their victims from “asserting their rights”.

If you're in an abusive relationship, there's likely complex factors preventing the abused from throwing that paragraph in their abuser's face and leaving.

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean.

The news media have no incentive to rationally analyse facts and put them in perspective. They need panic and confusion so we continue to click on their substance-less articles and videos.

In times of confusion like this, go directly to the official sources (WHO, ministry of health, NHS etc) and skip the "journalists" altogether, this will have a significant positive impact on your mental health.

Stay safe everyone

I believe the WHO also presenting in ways to promote panic.

For instance the quote "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." [1]

These two number are are total false comparison. Now they may do this for good purposes: a little fear helps people take it serious and thus follow suit. But this I believe it is VERY intellectually dishonest and has me even question their narrative at this point. (No COVID19 denier here, just want to know what the chances of survival and inconveniences are for me + loved ones + world population at large)

3.4% = corona deaths / total cases tested positive

>1% = flu deaths / estimated total infected

Now these terms contain a lot of grey area but this is true, I did the peer review and made calcs to support what I say here: WHO presents apple-orange data. That's either by accident (I hope not, cuz statistics should be their game), or more likely to make it look more severe (again this could be with good intentions).

Another thing to consider is that the "total cases tested positive" likely have a serious selection bias. Sick folk is tested at the moment. Where a population research should test a random sample.

I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing like all of us, but the WHO has put me off as a reputable source of info. Less shitty than the MSM journalists, sure, but not good either.

1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

My wife works with domestic violence victims. It's extraordinarily difficult to get victims of domestic violence to leave their abusers even in the best of times. There's also not a lot of shelters available for women to stay in for long periods of time.

You are absolutely right. It's a very difficult problem to solve, and the current situation makes it far more challenging.

But knowing that you are not legally required to stay has to be an improvement.

It is good to have that exception. Here in Portland, Oregon they are saying that the main issue is that finding long term housing, normally in short supply here, is now almost impossible.

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean.

If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about. The stories generally go into further detail and provide links to further information if you want to dig into the details.

People keep talking about how bad the "news media" is doing, and yet, if you actually read the stories instead of just reading the headlines and pull quotes, they are doing a fairly good job.

If you do a simple search, you will see that far from doing bad job, this is getting a lot of attention by "news media" around the world.

People whine about the "media" and yet, I can't help but think that they are only looking at headlines and that's it. Here you have an article from the "news media" and it's not even their first article on this specific topic!

> If you only read the headlines or listen to tweets that butcher what exactly is being talked about.

I'm amazed at how many people do that, even when the headline ends in a question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com