No Room in L.A. For Domestic Violence

Nowhere else in the city are the banners displayed but there they are, impressive in their bold, dark color and lettering. Surrounding City Hall are dark purple square banners emblazoned with a slogan: There's no room in L.A. for domestic violence. In other words, there's zero tolerance for domestic violence. The City, its officials, its employees and agents are keenly motivated to enforce the law on behalf of target victims and protect them from the horrors that accompany domestic violence in all its forms. That is definitely impressive.

It's a hot, Indian Summer day on October 13 and the normal entrance to City Hall is blocked because of filming that's taking place. However, there are safety officers from the Police Department who are standing watch over the area and more than willing to converse about anything related to the police. While setting the stage to create amity, we discuss the rigors of being a police officer and the training that all candidates must endure until graduation. The conversation segues from the romantic history of the department in the '60s, the training regimen and rigors, and shifting attitudes to a new topic more related to the banners.

The officers agree that domestic violence is a scourge and one that all of us can do without. But when pressed for why it takes so long for a call for help from the target victim takes so long for a response (as much as two to five hours), excuses begin to flow.

One of them is predicated on the number of officers compared with the population of the constituency. The force is understaffed in spite of the fact that it is the largest police force in the country (according to one officer). These officers must read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page regarding the Department for their public relations training. There are approximately 9,000 officers who are supported by nearly 300 civilian staff who in turn serve a population of 4,000,000 people. In other words, every officer has a responsibility to serve over 440 individuals who live in the City. "For decades, the department has suffered from chronic underfunding. . . it has one of the lowest ratios of police personnel to population served," which is 0.02475.

The next part of the explanation for its taking so long for police protection to arrive at the scene is because the persons responsible for deploying the officers from the precinct basically triage the calls. In other words, the call gets prioritized. The person who has just been shot, according to two or three officers questioned about this, will get higher priority because the suspect is probably still in the area and is more likely to be apprehended.

Unfortunately, this manner of reasoning overlooks the fact that the domestic violence target victim is probably also lying in a heap on the floor, nearly immobile and close to being unable to rise from the beating they've suffered (if the violence was physical). That two to five hour window of wait time means the batterer is still at the scene, probably still enraged, and still capable of returning to the disabled target victim in order to launch yet another assault for whatever minor sin they feel their target victim committed.

It is sad that according to this triage protocol, no one considers that when a call on behalf of the target victim is made by the target victim herself (once she is able to rise and get to a safe place to make a call) that she is still open and exposed to even more harm in the interim. If a call is made on her behalf, it is because her children have run to a neighbor to plead for assistance or else a Samaritan neighbor has heard the commotion and placed a call for officers to investigate.

According to Chief Bratton, the slow response time can be cured by increasing the size of the force. "You give me 4000 more officers and I'll give you the safest city in the world."

It seems during October, Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the City of Los Angeles is proactive in regard to the cause (the issue) as a public relations stance and nothing more. The police department simply throws up its hands and says there's nothing we can do because we simply don't have enough staff to deal with it.

Further, the officers who responded to questions about police response to domestic violence and abuse appear to have little comprehension of the gravity of the situation. The training's deficiencies reside behind a gauzy veil. While attempting to discuss the more pressing issues, the (often older and white male) officers begin to speak in dreamy voices about the Cycle of Violence. In regard to that Cycle, they wistfully speak of the Honeymoon Period as though it truly is a time of safety and romance without cognition of the danger that is brewing a few days away from its onset. There appears to be little to no comprehension of the dynamics that are occurring. They also express little awareness of the other tools in the abuser's arsenal (in addition to isolation) such as credibility destruction and infliction of genuine fear in order to gain more control over their target victim.

Furthermore, few think about the fact that the target victim may be enduring absolutely all of the phases and cycles of abuse but the only thing lacking is an "intimate relationship" between partners - there is no sex. If a coital relationship exists, then somehow the abuse and assaults become "domestic violence" and are entitled to a higher status than the same situation sans conjugal involvement. According to the Los Angeles Police Department's pamphlet, "There is no excuse for . . . Domestic Violence," domestic violence is defined as "abuse committed against a spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or a person with whom the victim has had a child, or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship." Additionally, the Draft Cohabitants Bill of 2006 defines the term "cohabitant" (a rather murky term that suggests inclusiveness) as

For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "cohabitants" means two adults (whether they are of the same sex or the opposite sex) who live together as a couple in an intimate relationship, and who are not married to each other or related to each other within a prohibited degree of relationship; (Emphasis supplied)

The Cohabitants Bill also makes plain for us how people living in the same residence should be treated for purposes of defining who is protected under domestic violence laws. Again, the mere status of being a tenant in the same house or building does not qualify the target victim for protection as it tells us "Section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is amended by the substitution of "was a cohabitant with the tenant within the meaning of section 3 of the Cohabitants Act 2006 . . ."

Although the target victim's age may entitle them to several levels of protection, in addition to domestic violence, this too is overlooked when considering what crime is being committed and how it should be triaged. (To this extent, the target victim could also be considered suffering from elder abuse.) But it takes reminding the officers of this perspective. It is sad that most officers who were interviewed took a very defensive stance when questioned about this oversight and the meeting was terminated.

It is very sad that this interpretation is perpetuated by all the current literature and trainings related to the issue. It means if there is no intimate relationship, there essentially is no punishment for the one inflicting the harm. That then means the abuser's acts are validated and approved. Thus, they feel genuine empowerment to batter and assault as often and as viciously as they desire.

So it looks like it is very true. There definitely is no room in Los Angeles for domestic violence save to give it lip service for the month and then move on to the more important issues weighing on the City. For those who are not involved in an intimate relationship with their abuser, we'll just have to come up with a new name for the crime so that there will be a higher likelihood of response and protection.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Yvonne LaRose is a former active member of the Los Angeles County Commission on Women and served on both the Domestic Violence Committee and the Education Committee.