If he was arrested and especially if he was formally charged then there would have been substantial evidence to support same. No doubt in my mind he assaulted his wife. Now how he chooses to proceed from here on out will show what type of person he truly is.
There doesn't need to be any more evidence than she said he assaulted her. To get a conviction, you'd might need more evidence. For a charge of domestic assault, all it takes is an accusation.
There doesn't need to be any more evidence than she said he assaulted her. To get a conviction, you'd might need more evidence. For a charge of domestic assault, all it takes is an accusation.
Suspect the pictures they have showing the injuries also helps the case. And it 100% does not just take an accusation, that is just completely untrue.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
Suspect the pictures they have showing the injuries also helps the case. And it 100% does not just take an accusation, that is just completely untrue.
Im not familiar with Massachusetts law, but i tell you for a fact that in several states, the accusation is made and an arrest and charge are issued before any sort of formal investigation occurs. So it could be entirely true.
There doesn't need to be any more evidence than she said he assaulted her. To get a conviction, you'd might need more evidence. For a charge of domestic assault, all it takes is an accusation.
Incorrect. There must be evidence of an assault to provide reasonable grounds that an offence was committed and to authorize an arrest. If she recanted on scene, he denied doing anything, no evidence (marks/bruising or broken glass/holes in wall or no other witnesses) then at best you could remove him for being intox or separate the parties for the evening.
*edit*
I should preface this with the fact that I am not familiar with Massachusetts law at all but this is the case in Canada.
Last edited by Zulu29; 11-21-2023 at 07:18 PM.
Reason: *edit
Incorrect. There must be evidence of an assault to provide reasonable grounds that an offence was committed and to authorize an arrest. If she recanted on scene, he denied doing anything, no evidence (marks/bruising or broken glass/holes in wall or no other witnesses) then at best you could remove him for being intox or separate the parties for the evening.
*edit*
I should preface this with the fact that I am not familiar with Massachusetts law at all but this is the case in Canada.
Most states have "OJ laws" in place now so that the majority of domestic violence calls now result in an arrest, mostly for liability reasons. That said, Looch was charged, which would be significant here in California.
Most states have "OJ laws" in place now so that the majority of domestic violence calls now result in an arrest, mostly for liability reasons. That said, Looch was charged, which would be significant here in California.
Interesting because police arresting without reasonable grounds would open them up to liability for the arrest as well.
Interesting because police arresting without reasonable grounds would open them up to liability for the arrest as well.
Someone accusing you of committing the crime is evidence enough to bring the charge. Look at all these historical sexual abuse claims. There's no evidence other than the accuser. The police can't dismiss the claims just because there's no hard evidence to back up a crime that happened 10+ years ago.
If the accuser is lying, it's the accuser who can be sued for unlawful confinement, not the police.
It's a much bigger liability issue for the police, if they investigate a domestic incident, do nothing, and then someone ends up seriously hurt or dead later.
If the police report is accurate, Lucic already fudged on the truth. He told them nothing was going on but the physical evidence alone belies that. Marks on her, broken lamp. Makes him look bad.
Someone accusing you of committing the crime is evidence enough to bring the charge. Look at all these historical sexual abuse claims. There's no evidence other than the accuser. The police can't dismiss the claims just because there's no hard evidence to back up a crime that happened 10+ years ago.
If the accuser is lying, it's the accuser who can be sued for unlawful confinement, not the police.
It's a much bigger liability issue for the police, if they investigate a domestic incident, do nothing, and then someone ends up seriously hurt or dead later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
There still a good chance he didn't do it too, or that the situation is a lot more complex than him simply assaulting her. She could have been striking or pushing him and he pulled her hair to get her away. Sounds bad, but it's better than striking her with a closed fist.
Or he could have done exactly what his wife is accusing him of.
Saying someone probably did something isn't the same as saying they definitely did.
Except in Lucic’s case they have photographic evidence of injuries that she suffered and she says he inflicted them upon her. Now I suppose there is an outside chance she beat herself or that she has an elaborate scheme where someone else beat her, caused the injuries and then she pinned it on poor Looch. But I suspect those far fetched scenarios are not the case.
But there is the scenario where Looch skipped dad duty during the sleepover to leave the parenting to mom and came home bombed and did nothing wrong, she instigated the violence and he simply was pulling her away with her hair to prevent him from being violently assaulted. That scenario where a bombed Looch and a sober mom have that type of interaction also seems incredibly far fetched.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 11-22-2023 at 11:04 AM.
If the wife makes a claim of abuse, that's reasonable grounds for an arrest.
Is the claim alone grounds for an arrest, or it just grounds for an investigation that may or may not lead to an arrest?
Mind you... I can see how a domestic disturbance call would cuilminate in the separation of the two parties involved, evidence or not. Also, I suppose even if there is an investigative requirement prior to an arrest, a quick scan of the scene can suffice.
Actually, I'm probably confusing arrest and charge. Arrest would just require reasonable suspision... or wait, does it? Was I right the first time?
I stayed up super late last night to get some work done, and I'm only a quarter of the way into my first coffee lol.
If the police report is accurate, Lucic already fudged on the truth. He told them nothing was going on but the physical evidence alone belies that. Marks on her, broken lamp. Makes him look bad.
Fair, but if that was a thing, then every conviction in history would have also included a "they said they didn't do it, but they did" count (or two).
Is the claim alone grounds for an arrest, or it just grounds for an investigation that may or may not lead to an arrest?
Mind you... I can see how a domestic disturbance call would cuilminate in the separation of the two parties involved, evidence or not. Also, I suppose even if there is an investigative requirement prior to an arrest, a quick scan of the scene can suffice.
Actually, I'm probably confusing arrest and charge. Arrest would just require reasonable suspision... or wait, does it? Was I right the first time?
I stayed up super late last night to get some work done, and I'm only a quarter of the way into my first coffee lol.
They treat domestic abuse situations differently, in order to mitigate the risk of escalation.
If things look heated and one party accuses the other of battery and/or threats, it's standard procedure to arrest and charge one party and put a no contact order in place.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
They treat domestic abuse situations differently, in order to mitigate the risk of escalation.
If things look heated and one party accuses the other of battery and/or threats, it's standard procedure to arrest and charge one party and put a no contact order in place.
Yeah, that makes sense. I was kinda thinking in the back of my mind that the potential urgency of a domestic call would require different procedures.
Nah. What it does is affect his credibility on the stand, if it comes to that.
Except they're still innocent while they're on the stand, so the "but they did do it" wouldn't (shouldn't, at least) come into play.
Granted, if they were pretty adament about not doing anything throughout the course of the proceedings, and stuck to that even in their post-findings address to the court (having been found guilty), then that would demonstrate a lack of remorse, which would be taken into account during the decision of punishment.
But if all we're talking about is an "I didn't do it" during the actual arrest, then... I mean, I can't imagine there are a lot of times when someone says "It was me, it was all me, I confess to everything" while they're being cuffed lol.
