Disagreement is good, mn. It's the ad hominem attacks we need less of and more focus on specific statements. People have opinions and shout out what they know rather than address the point of disagreement. I'm not accusing you of that, by the way. Any time a thread begins, there are shout outs. Now, I admit my first statement was tongue in cheek and I thought I've explained that upstream in post #42. But from there on, I got to be thinking about how terrible families suffer from domestic violence, particularly after the perp is arrested (i.e. financially). So I start advocating for an investigation of the financial cost to the families and all of a sudden I'm shouted down big time. What's not to wonder about that?
The 'perp' should be the one to think about that before he raises a fist. It is not the police officer's job to 'weight the financial cost' when arresting the perp. It is his job to stop the assault and make sure the violence doesn't continue until the matter is resolved- ie, arrest the person who committed the assault and remove them from the situation to stop the violence. A district attorney and/or grand jury are the ones who first 'weigh that cost', as they should. A police officer is not a judge or jury. I am also certain that the person who is being assaulted doesn't care about potential financial costs while being struck.