WA-Judge throws woman & 2 kids in jail for refusing to testify against husband

[Anti Federalist]

Outside, it's AmeriKa.

Tell me, mom, who called the cops in the first place?



Judge throws woman & 2 kids in jail for refusing to testify against husband

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/judge-throws-woman-2-kids-in-jail-for-refusing-to-testify-against-husband/

CASTLE ROCK, WA — In a domestic violence case, a judge made an unexpected decision to jail the victims, while the accused abuser was released. The innocent family was shackled and chained until they agreed to testify against their family member.

In an incident back in April, Joel Darvell, 36, allegedly choked his wife while drunk, causing his son to tackle him and stop the assault. Darvell allegedly pistol-whipped his son and then fired a .45 caliber round into the wall of their home. No injuries were sustained. Darvell was charged with assault and assault with a firearm.

Prosecutors moved forward with a trial, but Darvell’s wife and children — a 17-year-old son and a 13-year-old daughter — all refused to testify.

Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Michael Evans did not respect their decision to remain silent. All 3 alleged victims were dragged away by deputies after the judge held them in contempt of court.

In some kind of irony, while Joel Darvell was released on bail, his family was arrested and put in jail.

Both minors were taken to a juvenile detention center, where they were held in cuffs and shackles. They were separated from their mother and treated like criminals.

Their reason for refusing was unclear at first, but John Hays, who is representing Darvell’s wife, offered some insight.

“This has been extraordinarily hard on the mother and the two children,” Hays said to TDN.com. “The prosecutor wants to put the defendant in prison for over 20 years, and (his family members) really do not want that.”

Typically spouses are usually protected from having to testify against each other, but Hays said that an exception is made when one of their children is a crime victim.

After 48 hours of imprisonment, the 13-year-old girl was brought into court wearing shackles around her ankles, handcuffs, and sweats issued at the detention center. The judge had broken her will and she agreed to testify against her father.

The son and mother were treated in the same humiliating manner and were made to agree — under duress — to testify as well. The judge warned them that if they changed their minds he would jail them again.

“To have two minors put into custody is a pretty drastic way to try and resolve the situation,” said attorney Kevin Blondin, who is representing Darvell’s son, adding that he’s never seen a judge throw victims jail for refusing to testify.

Darvell could face 20 years in prison for the drunken incident. His trial is scheduled for this week.

The bullying of family members into testifying is really shameful behavior coming from a judge. Witnesses should always have a right to remain silent. Testimony should never be coerced under threat of imprisonment.

[tod evans]

“This has been extraordinarily hard on the mother and the two children,” Hays said to TDN.com. “The prosecutor wants to put the defendant in prison for over 20 years, and (his family members) really do not want that.”

Motherfucking, cocksucking piece of shit prosecutors!

http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/hang.gif Get a rope! :mad:

I hope that prosecutor dies of a painful brain aneurysm before this matter gets heard!

[Anti Federalist]

Motherfucking, cocksucking piece of shit prosecutors!

http://www.twowheelforum.com/images/smilies/hang.gif Get a rope! :mad:

I hope that prosecutor dies of a painful brain aneurysm before this matter gets heard!

There ain't enough rope to go around.

Get some wire leader...

[Christian Liberty]

Once again, crimes are apparently not about the victims, only the State.

The victims should be the ones setting the punishment.

[donnay]

Another day in paradise. SMH

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, and anyone involved with shackling a 13 year old girl, or anyone else, to force her to testify deserves to die. Although I suspect the victims would likely have more mercy than I would in that case.

[phill4paul]

Surprised they didn't water board them. I sure would have loved to have heard the conversation between the social workers and the 13 yr old and what they threatened would happen if she didn't break.

20 years for the, possible, breadwinner and another family on welfare. All over an incident that caused no lasting injury and that the family chose not testify against.

The win of wins for the state.

[kcchiefs6465]

In before 69360's twisted justifications of saving people from themselves and "protecting victims."

[Christian Liberty]

In before 69360's twisted justifications of saving people from themselves and "protecting victims."

I prefer to call him "666".

Almost everyone on the other forum I post defended the State last time something like this happened:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95629

my opinions on a few people changed in that thread.

[tod evans]

I'm still spittin' nails over this! :mad:

[aGameOfThrones]

Appeal? It should.

[Elias Graves]

I thought it was "settled law" (lol) that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

[phill4paul]

I thought it was "settled law" (lol) that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

Depends on the state.


Typically spouses are usually protected from having to testify against each other, but Hays said that an exception is made when one of their children is a crime victim.

[Occam's Banana]

I thought it was "settled law" (lol) that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.

The "law" is "settled" as being whatever the monopolist law "makers" & "enforcers" say it is at any given moment ...

[youngbuck]

Damn, the just-us system never ceases to appall me. The prosecutor and judge should be locked up. Speaking of contempt, the judge is in contempt of the constitution and common decency. F**k that dude. Pigs, vermin, scum, all of them.

[69360]

Sorry to disappoint, but I think this one was wrong. The case here in Maine was an extreme example of a dangerous 10 time felon who dug a grave. He was going to kill that woman if he walked. This is just a guy who had one too many and fought with his family. What they did to the wife and kids is wrong.

[Smart3]

Just a general question: Should he no longer be able to purchase and possess firearms after using them so irresponsibly?

[tod evans]

Just a general question: Should he no longer be able to purchase and possess firearms after using them so irresponsibly?

Everybody, man, woman and responsible children should have access to firearms.

Nothing, no laws or edicts should infringe on that access.

[Smart3]

Everybody, man, woman and responsible children should have access to firearms.

Nothing, no laws or edicts should infringe on that access.
Why don't you include responsible in front of man and woman as well? Why only children?

[kcchiefs6465]

Just a general question: Should he no longer be able to purchase and possess firearms after using them so irresponsibly?
Was he convicted?

Yes, even with your leading question, he should be able to purchase and possess a gun.

[tod evans]

Why don't you include responsible in front of man and woman as well? Why only children?

A parent is responsible for their children, that's why.

[tod evans]

Was he convicted?

Yes, even with your leading question, he should be able to purchase and possess a gun.

Even convicts should have free access to any and all firearms LEO's do once they're no longer incarcerated.

Parolees should absolutely have access to firearms.

[Occam's Banana]

Why don't you include responsible in front of man and woman as well? Why only children?

Because in a free society, adult men & women should be assumed to be "responsible" unless and until they have demonstrated otherwise.

[Smart3]

Because in a free society, adult men & women should be assumed to be "responsible" unless and until they have demonstrated otherwise.
I don't know, getting drunk and abusive with the wife, causing your son to tackle you, and then you hit him with the pistol, and then fire the pistol at the wall doesn't sound like a upstanding member of Gun Owners of America to me. Sounds like the kind of asshole that fuels the Brady brigade.

[surf]

at least we kind of decriminalized pot here....

this has been an embarrassing few days her, Huskies, Sounders, and now this

[kcchiefs6465]

Even convicts should have free access to any and all firearms LEO's do once they're no longer incarcerated.

Parolees should absolutely have access to firearms.
Smart3's question was worded in a way as if it was ever determined that the father had used a gun irresponsibly. Maybe he did, maybe he did not. I am not aware of the facts of the case but evidently the family (victims of the alleged crime) does not wish to see him behind bars. Frankly that is good enough for me.

Drunken incidents happen from time to time. The family is who is best able to determine whether or not they consider him to be a threat.

I agree with what you said though. Once a person has completed their sentence all rights should be restored.

[tod evans]

I don't know, getting drunk and abusive with the wife, causing your son to tackle you, and then you hit him with the pistol, and then fire the pistol at the wall doesn't sound like a upstanding member of Gun Owners of America to me. Sounds like the kind of asshole that fuels the Brady brigade.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless Smart3 doesn't like your behavior while drunk....

[Smart3]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless Smart3 doesn't like your behavior while drunk....
The gun should not have been accessible while he was intoxicated. If he becomes intoxicated to the point of doing something like this, that indicates that he is not a responsible citizen, and therefore is a danger to himself and others.

I admit I'm biased against abusive men and drunkards. That doesn't diminish my right to voice an opinion on this issue.

____

As we can read in the Founder's writings, the right expressed in the second amendment refers to able-bodied men (of sound mind as well). It does not include criminals.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know, getting drunk and abusive with the wife, causing your son to tackle you, and then you hit him with the pistol, and then fire the pistol at the wall doesn't sound like a upstanding member of Gun Owners of America to me. Sounds like the kind of asshole that fuels the Brady brigade.

What part of "unless and until they have demonstrated otherwise" did you not understand?

[Smart3]

What part of "unless and until they have demonstrated otherwise" did you not understand?
What part of my reply did you not understand? I agreed with you.

[kcchiefs6465]

The gun should not have been accessible while he was intoxicated. If he becomes intoxicated to the point of doing something like this, that indicates that he is not a responsible citizen, and therefore is a danger to himself and others.

[SNIPPED- KC]

As we can read in the Founder's writings, the right expressed in the second amendment refers to able-bodied men (of sound mind as well). It does not include criminals.
Well uh, a Right shall not be deprived without Due Process. Where is it? Or are you assuming the words of the news to be true for argument's sake?

As far as guns not being accessible while intoxicated... what does that even mean? Your kitchen knives are accessible when intoxicated. Your car is accessible when intoxicated. I'm a little confused about how exactly you would suggest a person to make their guns inaccessible for times when they are drinking or otherwise intoxicated.

For the sake of argument maybe he was drunk and did all of the things alleged against him. Even so, the victims in this case have resolved the dispute with the perpetrator of the crime. Is it the State's job to exact what they consider to be Justice? Consider this, doing that (exacting "Justice" for crimes "against the State") would serve an injustice to the victims. Case closed.

[Smart3]

Well uh, a Right shall not be deprived without Due Process. Where is it? Or are you assuming the words of the news to be true for argument's sake?

As far as guns not being accessible while intoxicated... what does that even mean? Your kitchen knives are accessible when intoxicated. Your car is accessible when intoxicated. I'm a little confused about how exactly you would suggest a person to make their guns inaccessible for times when they are drinking or otherwise intoxicated.

For the sake of argument maybe he was drunk and did all of the things alleged against him. Even so, the victims in this case have resolved the dispute with the perpetrator of the crime. Is it the State's job to exact what they consider to be Justice? Consider this, doing that (exacting "Justice" for crimes "against the State") would serve an injustice to the victims. Case closed.
In this instance, I would agree on case closed.

However, had he been convicted (as he should have, men don't do things like this only once, he clearly is a serial abuser), that'd be a different story.


Separate question: If someone is under house arrest, should they still have a firearm?

[Occam's Banana]

What part of my reply did you not understand? I agreed with you.

In that case, why did you need a (rather obvious) explanation for why the word "responsible" might be used to qualify tod's reference to children, but not to (adult) men & women?

[Smart3]

In that case, why did you need a (rather obvious) explanation for why the word "responsible" might be used to qualify tod's reference to children, but not to (adult) men & women?
It just seemed weird to specify responsible children. I don't think anyone would give a firearm to an irresponsible child.

I thought it should have been "responsible men, women and children". Responsible seemed in the wrong place.

[tod evans]

As we can read in the Founder's writings, the right expressed in the second amendment refers to able-bodied men (of sound mind as well). It does not include criminals.

Neither do they exclude "criminals", or drunks or even wife beaters.

Twisting and manipulating to suit agendas is a politicians game.

[Smart3]

Neither do they exclude "criminals", or drunks or even wife beaters.

Twisting and manipulating to suit agendas is a politicians game.
The Founders were politicians. :eek:

[tod evans]

The Founders were politicians. :eek:

Yet they somehow managed to get their complete thoughts down on paper only to be second guessed by new and improved logic...

[kcchiefs6465]

Separate question: If someone is under house arrest, should they still have a firearm?
Is it the sentence of a person having been convicted of a violent crime? I would have to ask a few more questions to get an understanding of what you mean. If the person were convicted of a violent crime, why are they being released onto house arrest? So first and foremost I'd like to know more about these house arrest scenarios. My guess is that they are mainly related to people convicted of breaking the law though they haven't committed a crime and mainly as a means of revenue generation. In a Just world those instances would not exist. As for people who are convicted of an actual crime and sentenced to house arrest, the Right to keep arms can be restricted until the sentence is complete.

If the person has not been convicted, he is entitled to all of the Rights afforded any other Free Man under Natural Law. (the Right to defense being one of them) You cannot [ought not be able to] strip away Rights without Due Process no matter the circumstance.

[Smart3]

Is it the sentence of a person having been convicted of a violent crime? I would have to ask a few more questions to get an understanding of what you mean. If the person were convicted of a violent crime, why are they being released onto house arrest? So first and foremost I'd like to know more about these house arrest scenarios. My guess is that they are mainly related to people convicted of breaking the law though they haven't committed a crime and mainly as a means of revenue generation. In a Just world those instances would not exist. As for people who are convicted of an actual crime and sentenced to house arrest, the Right to keep arms can be restricted until the sentence is complete.

If the person has not been convicted, he is entitled to all of the Rights afforded any other Free Man under Natural Law. (the Right to defense being one of them) You cannot [ought not be able to] strip away Rights without Due Process no matter the circumstance.
Ok, then we are also in agreement.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ok, then we are also in agreement.
Perhaps.

Would you agree that gun rights ought only be an issue when the crime a person convicted of is a violent one relating specifically to a gun? That theft, fraud - those sort of things a judge is illegitimate in restricting an individual's access to firearms?

The people on house arrest are by and large petty crooks. Limiting a person's ability to defend themselves is a serious notion only to be undertaken when a [violent] criminal is completing their sentence. Practically speaking, about 10 out of 10 times violent criminals are sentenced to prison time and not house arrest.

Were you referring specifically to domestic violence situations?

[Smart3]

Perhaps.

Would you agree that gun rights ought only be an issue when the crime a person convicted of is a violent one relating specifically to a gun? That theft, fraud - those sort of things a judge is illegitimate in restricting an individual's access to firearms?

The people on house arrest are by and large petty crooks. Limiting a person's ability to defend themselves is a serious notion only to be undertaken when a [violent] criminal is completing their sentence. Practically speaking, about 10 out of 10 times violent criminals are sentenced to prison time and not house arrest.

Were you referring specifically to domestic violence situations?

Yes, No, Yes

[Mani]

So it's legal to lock up children in shackles and prison even if they have not committed a crime nor were accused of a crime?



The previous jaile the victim thread dealt with "saving the women" from some bad guy...The fake attempt to "Keep her safe" even though the guy had no chance of being released anytime soon due to multiple crimes. So they arrested her pretending to keep her safe, even though that was thinly veiled B.S.


This doesn't have that at all. In fact, the husband gets out fairly quickly. So the family is NOT in prison, to "keep them safe" against a dangerous dad. The family is being caged and children around being tormented because they refuse to be part of a BS system that is going to jail their father for 20 years.

And on top of that, they are THREATENED by a Judge, that if they don't cooperate they are going straight back to jail?


WTF!?


Am I not reading this correctly?

[Anti Federalist]

So it's legal to lock up children in shackles and prison even if they have not committed a crime nor were accused of a crime?



The previous jaile the victim thread dealt with "saving the women" from some bad guy...The fake attempt to "Keep her safe" even though the guy had no chance of being released anytime soon due to multiple crimes. So they arrested her pretending to keep her safe, even though that was thinly veiled B.S.


This doesn't have that at all. In fact, the husband gets out fairly quickly. So the family is NOT in prison, to "keep them safe" against a dangerous dad. The family is being caged and children around being tormented because they refuse to be part of a BS system that is going to jail their father for 20 years.

And on top of that, they are THREATENED by a Judge, that if they don't cooperate they are going straight back to jail?


WTF!?


Am I not reading this correctly?

You're reading it right.

[Origanalist]

You're reading it right.

And it clearly shows who the dangerous one is.