Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (TLC, money, channels, live)

[domergurl]

Originally Posted by cc0789

Hysterical. Someone preaching conservative spending and salary caps engaged to someone purchasing 25K sunglasses and diamond studded lollipop holders. lol.

"We still lack clear opinions and leadership in this matter, especially in media and in government. Executives are not entitled to private jets, nor are they entitled to pay for Bat Mitzvah’s where Aerosmith performs, with pay earned for running “public” companies. Generals in the United State’s Army earn a touch over $200,000 per year for service and seem to stay happily in their jobs. If you ask student’s at Harvard Business School (which is the mac Daddy of business schools, no?) if they would be happy to earn $1 million per year, it is likely that a resounding percentage (think purity level of Ivory Soap 99.44% maybe?) would say damn yes!"

people still use the term "mac daddy"?????

[Judy P.]

Originally Posted by virgode

Shes smart like a fox, she made the New York Times best sellers list.

That scares the hell out of me!!! There are people who will actually believe this story she is spreading and it will cause a lot of deaths!!! Has she no concern for people who may really take her advice and end up dead!!! She has a lot to answer for in the name of money!!!

[virgode]

Originally Posted by Judy P.

That scares the hell out of me!!! There are people who will actually believe this story she is spreading and it will cause a lot of deaths!!! Has she no concern for people who may really take her advice and end up dead!!! She has a lot to answer for in the name of money!!!

Should have said 'crazy like a fox'.

Yeah I agree, irresponsible advocating. Being on the New York Times best sellers list makes her word all important.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by virgode

The question would be, was an officer there or not?

In this thread, its been posted there was no officer, now there was.

The same holds true for a police officer, if hes convinced there no abuse involved, no charges.

This is regarding Taylor (a major cast member on THIS show) and her dead husband Russel (whom she is accusing of battering her) and a police interaction that took place with witnesses involved who may or may not have been police officers. If Taylor had MARKS from him and told the officers it came from him, they would have to at least arrest him.

In CALIFORNIA if you call the cops and have a bruise/cut/scratch that you attribute to a certain individual having given you, they arrest that person. If NO visible marks are apparent then they MAY arrest the individual depending on how believable the story is. Whether there are marks or not, it is up to the DA to prosecute if they decide the evidence is enough to get a conviction.

California Penal Code 273.5 PC: Corporal Injury on Spouse, Cohabitant

4. What if the alleged victim wants to
"drop the charges"?

Suppose, after a Penal Code 273.5 arrest, the "victim" goes to the police or prosecutors and says "I don't want to press charges anymore. I just want to drop the case." Do the charges get dropped?
The answer is: generally not.
California law treats instances of domestic violence as a crime against both the victim and the state. Even if the alleged victim no longer wants to press charges, prosecutors will still proceed with the case as long as (1) they believe the crime was committed, and (2) they have evidence to make their case in court.
It's widely believed throughout the justice system that the public interest favors prosecuting legitimate domestic violence cases, even against the will of the victim.10 This stems from the notion that a victim often seeks to drop charges because she's afraid of the accused, because she's reconciled with him, and/or because she doesn't want to lose a source of financial support.11 It's believed that if these cases don't get prosecuted, the abuse will continue, and often times grow worse.
That said, if the "victim" doesn't desire prosecution, this may affect how the district attorney deals the case. An uncooperative victim can make the prosecutor's job harder. It sometimes makes him/her more willing to reduce the charge to a lesser offense, to offer a more generous plea agreement, or even to dismiss the case if the evidence is already weak.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by hiknapster

Get a load of this...Taylor says that it is not dangerous for Chris Brown and Rhianna to collaborate on a song. "We don't know what kind of treatment these two have undergone," she said.

That's quite enough from this nut, isn't it? If she's on next season I am NOT watching. She is setting back the issues of domestic violence decades.

Real Housewives' Taylor Armstrong Says It Isn't Dangerous for Chris Brown and Rihanna to Collaborate - Video - Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

See now to me that sends a red flag that she was never a total victim of abuse but perhaps a mutual participant into many explosive and violent interactions with her husband. Because it is dangerous and just plain old bizarre for Chris and Rianna to work together. For a woman who claimed to be so scared and terrorized by her husband you think she would see the danger in R being around C perhaps having a chance for them to be alone?

[George Chong]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

See now to me that sends a red flag that she was never a total victim of abuse but perhaps a mutual participant into many explosive and violent interactions with her husband. Because it is dangerous and just plain old bizarre for Chris and Rianna to work together. For a woman who claimed to be so scared and terrorized by her husband you think she would see the danger in R being around C perhaps having a chance for them to be alone?

Agree I am glad that she is "helping" her fellow abused women with her "voice"

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

See now to me that sends a red flag that she was never a total victim of abuse but perhaps a mutual participant into many explosive and violent interactions with her husband. Because it is dangerous and just plain old bizarre for Chris and Rianna to work together. For a woman who claimed to be so scared and terrorized by her husband you think she would see the danger in R being around C perhaps having a chance for them to be alone?

Exactly. That is what I put in my previous post. I have a long history of being abused and I have such a gut-level reaction to Rhianna and Chris Brown even collaborating. And Taylor's very insensitive remark about counseling is astounding. First of all, I truly don't believe that anger management even works. But to be so callous? Infuriating.

Originally Posted by George Chong

Agree I am glad that she is "helping" her fellow abused women with her "voice"

Exactly, again. I've fought for two seasons about being very careful that we don't send the wrong message to someone being abused and reading these threads. Now Taylor claims her book is going to help someone yet she is so quick to think a woman should go back with her abuser? I know she isn't that bright but...

[Judy P.]

Originally Posted by hiknapster

Exactly, again. I've fought for two seasons about being very careful that we don't send the wrong message to someone being abused and reading these threads. Now Taylor claims her book is going to help someone yet she is so quick to think a woman should go back with her abuser? I know she isn't that bright but...

What scares me the most is she as known as a "Housewife Of Beverly Hills" and people will take her book as gospel. She has not been a good example of what a woman should be doing in an abusive situation. When you look back at the show she had Russell there at her speaking engagements about spousal abuse and seemed happy he was there. She had more more support than most women to get away from him, yet she stayed. She said it was for the money for her and her daughter, do any of us believe she could not have gotten out of this mess and it would not have been better for her and her daughter?
She is scaring women away from going to a safe place with their children for the sake of money. How many more women are going to put themselves and their children at risk because of this? It makes me sick!!!

[Taboo2]

Weird quoting my own post... BUT this totally sounds like why Trailor wouldn't help the cops. It is just not usually MILLIONS of dollars a battered woman will lose. But selling your soul and your child's sanity for $$ comfort is gross. Needing money for survival is one thing, needing money to have luxury and be pompous is quite another story.

Originally Posted by Taboo2

California Penal Code 273.5 PC: Corporal Injury on Spouse, Cohabitant

4. What if the alleged victim wants to
"drop the charges"?

Suppose, after a Penal Code 273.5 arrest, the "victim" goes to the police or prosecutors and says "I don't want to press charges anymore. I just want to drop the case." Do the charges get dropped?
The answer is: generally not.
California law treats instances of domestic violence as a crime against both the victim and the state. Even if the alleged victim no longer wants to press charges, prosecutors will still proceed with the case as long as (1) they believe the crime was committed, and (2) they have evidence to make their case in court.
It's widely believed throughout the justice system that the public interest favors prosecuting legitimate domestic violence cases, even against the will of the victim.10This stems from the notion that a victim often seeks to drop charges because she's afraid of the accused, because she's reconciled with him, and/or because she doesn't want to lose a source of financial support.11 It's believed that if these cases don't get prosecuted, the abuse will continue, and often times grow worse.
That said, if the "victim" doesn't desire prosecution, this may affect how the district attorney deals the case. An uncooperative victim can make the prosecutor's job harder. It sometimes makes him/her more willing to reduce the charge to a lesser offense, to offer a more generous plea agreement, or even to dismiss the case if the evidence is already weak.

Also Trailer could be prosecuted for allowing Kennedy to remain in the situation and putting her in potential danger with an abuser. The fact that the woman would choose money and a role on a reality tv show over saving her child from a dangerous situation is just wrong on so many levels. She had to know going into a TV SHOW that comes INTO YOUR HOUSE and FOLLOWS YOU AROUND that the situation could create even more of a dangerous situation than they were already supposedly in. Hmm...


Domestic violence involving children

Although we most often think of domestic abuse as acts that take place between adults involved in sexual or romantic relationships, it's actually much broader. California's domestic violence laws also include acts that you commit against (1) your child, or (2) a child with whom you are or were living.40
This means that if you physically abuse a minor child, you face a domestic violence charge for Penal Code 273d child abuse.41
Similarly if you place a child in a situation where he/she is likely to be injured…either physically or mentally…you face prosecution under Penal Code 273a, California's child endangerment law.42

Example: If you abuse your wife in front of your child, prosecutors could charge you with Penal Code 273.5 spousal abuse and child endangerment. Allowing your child to witness his mother being beaten is likely to cause mental suffering. In addition and, depending on the circumstances, placing him in that situation could also possibly cause a physical injury (if he were inadvertently hit or if he tried to intervene to protect his mother).

And along these same lines, allowing your child to remain in a home where domestic violence takes place…even if you are the primary victim of the domestic abuse …could subject you to child endangerment charges as well.

[raubre]

Camille & Kelsey Grammer Settle Custody Case