TO COPS
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
744 points (98.1% liked)
memes
10851 readers
5388 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The original source of the oft-spread "40%" figure also counted incidents where the one reporting was the victim. If cop/civilian couple had "a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger" within the relationship, with the cop being on the receiving end of the civilian spouse's 'abuse', that relationship was tossed into the 'domestic violence' bucket, because it was actually counting relationships, not cops.
My point is that yes, you can definitely argue one might be reluctant to admit to one's own acts of DV, but I don't think anonymously reporting your spouse's acts against you would be 'stifled' the same way.
I agree with you in that it wouldn’t stifled the same way but I still think it would be an inherently flawed measure in determining the true number of cases, which is probably impossible. Going back to my original post even if you allowed anonymous reporting I’m betting a lot of partners would still not speak out due to intimidation and you would probably get some false positives (though admittedly this is probably significantly less of a concern)
Doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing as it would probably get you something closer to an accurate number but the accurate number is likely impossible to measure
At the same time, any effect like this would likely be present to an equal or very similar degree in any measurement of DV among the general population, so while it could be harder to confidently report an absolute figure, you could much more confidently compare them relative to each other (such that you can easily refute "three times more likely" claims like in the OP).