Is there something I should do when I hear domestic violence occurring across the street, rather than call 911?

Question

There are people who live across the street from my place of work who I have called the cops on a few times. Each time it was out of concern for their safety. After a while of yelling, if it begins to sound more physical (loud crashes, shit breaking, a body thrown against the window, yelling and a woman sobbing) I called 911! As an anarchist, calling the cops rubs me the wrong way, but I don't know if there is anything else I could do without putting myself in danger. I cannot put myself in danger, or even leave the group home I work at, without endangering my clients.

Answer 1

first, i know this situation sucks. i have been in it myself.
there is no perfect answer.
the best ideas i have come up with include things like
a) putting up information on violent relationships, available services, self-defense classes, etc on flyers around the area, or in pamphlets in local cafes, laundromats, etc. obviously this is so that the people involved can find it and use it to help themselves.
b) trying to speak to the person who you think is the most receptive when (if) you see them on the street (speaking to them as non-judgmentally as possible, about friends they might have who might help them -- assuming they want help -- or what they think about their relationship). this is extremely unlikely to be helpful, unless the timing is really lucky, or unless you have the opportunity to actually get to know them. hardly ever happens, i expect.

obviously none of these things are options to interrupt an actual violent event. interrupting something is a lot more difficult than trying to keep it from happening again. and without knowing the people and their situation, interruptions are extremely unlikely to be helpful in the long run.

good luck. i know it's a hard position to be in.

Comments

this answer is for the specific situation that you're talking about, one in which you don't know the person and can't intervene directly. there are a lot more options (although none of them necessarily work, since relationships are usually quite complicated) when the violence or potential violence is in one's scene.

---

Perhaps something should also be said about the fact that these relationships exist within a capitalist and statinst context (e.g. clients, cops, homes, and work). Being an anarchist does not magically remove you from a complex social context and empower you with supernatural abilities to somehow save the day, although that would certainly be cool to see! I mean the answer to this question could be significantly different given the eventual defeat or decline of state and capital, no? Until then we are left dreaming that we can be like V for vendetta or some other such superhero.  Good luck.

---

hey skitter.
if the main point of your post is that we can't fix everything, then sure, of course.
but if the main point is that ATR there won't be screwed up relationships that friends and relations want to intervene in, then i disagree.
or if your point is that the institutions of state power keep us from having a good impact on each others' lives, or that having that kind of impact requires superhero activity, then i disagree with that too.

perhaps you will find this again and clarify.

---

Yes dot, of course there would probably be messed up relationships ATR too. Perhaps the point of theorizing about the later is to recognize a need for improving upon present conditions for those that may intervene as well as for those engaged in conflict. Yes even now it is possible for "us" to have "a good impact". But, again, an anarchist can strategically evaluate and acknowledge one's own present limitations in situations that seem so impossible, with an eye towards developing future conditions that would make intervention possible (or even effective some day). Like you said a lot of this won't work, but the ideas in your answer are probably the best things to try out anyway (I like that they tend toward preparation. Also sometimes results are so gradual that one does not perceive the social impact such endeavors may have locally).

Perhaps ATG becomes too much of a fixed ideal, and is seen too much as a spectacular, world-changing event. But sometime it may work as a smaller scale, temporary, theoretical device to remind "us" that the conditions that limit people then, need not continue into the future. Perhaps there are situationist theories that better articulate this somewhat archaic concept, and I can certainly see the value in rendering ATG into something more immediate to the present everyday experience. I also can appreciate the anarcho-surrealist demanding the impossible seeking to abolish the false separation between dreams and reality. The latter tendency may regard ATG as another realm of possibilities, like a blank theoretical canvas to throw paint on. Maybe somewhere between these two schools of thought there is something of use to those of us encountering domestic violence in our midst.

So to answer your last objection dot, I did not mean to imply that "the institutions of state power keep us from having a good impact". I was instead agreeing that, quite often,  "....none of these things are options to interrupt an actual violent event" (I wish I knew more about game theory, but is it not true that the best defense is a good offense and that those stuck in a defensive posture usually lose?). Rather state and capital exist as a (sometimes overwhelming) condition and context of obstacles and limitations. Even though one can sometimes get around, or over, these obstacles, they can still severely limit the scope and scale of the impact of such a one choosing that path (as apposed to perhaps first freeing up a TAZ from which to launch such endeavors by first breaking down or disabling them).

The surrealist approach is partly relevant mostly because these obstacles are often not physical things. They are statist and capitalist relationships based on ideas, and as such are vulnerable to the subversion of dreams and desire. If those involved desire an end to the domestic violence then perhaps one way would be to subvert the obstacles that limit the scope and scale of an effective anarchistic intervention.

Edited to clarify.

---

i really like this response (anything ending with surrealism has a headstart with me :) ).

while not a fan of game theory in any way, i really appreciate what i read as the sentiment here...
I wish I knew more about game theory, but is it not true that the best defense is a good offense and that those stuck in a defensive posture usually lose?

how would anarchists go on the offense for this topic/set of relationship dynamics... ?

---

Thank you dot, I was trying really hard there, LOL! My thoughts are fragmented a bit, only got anecdotal observations now, so hear goes nothing.... First off, I realize now that game theory is not what I meant. Not sure if there is a word that describes social dynamics as related to strategy, but 'strategy' is closest to what I meant (always an intriguing topic for me).

I'm not an expert in any of this but again I am challenged and fascinated by your question and wish to hazard a response anyway. While there may be ways of critiquing topics, ideologies, and the relationships based on them, I think these come closest to an anarchistic response (yet even those critiques are not purely influenced by anarchists). Culture and society at large influenced these and could potentially shed light on any possible offense inspired or colored by them. I assume most anarchists hear are probably not keen on playing the role of social worker, and thus, that's a critique to consider as well. In some ways an offensive against domestic violence may be beyond the scope of anarchists, but there may be something there.

When I was a lot younger I temporarily resided amidst a living arrangement in which domestic violence was apparently, unbeknownst to me, the norm, (or at least was previously just a threat, yet to materialize). I don't recall having heard of any anarchist ideas/culture then, and I didn't even have a drivers license or independent means of transportation. After a couple of previous altercations, I physically intervened and at least temporarily ended one violent episode. It was easy for me in those particular circumstances because I was an in-house resident and already knew what I was up against. I only lasted a year in that household and would have left sooner had I the necessary means. It went on for years after I left and eventually the couple parted ways. In the mean time the neighbors threatened to call the police and I think the aggressor did go to jail at least once.

So that brings me to the crux of the matter. Context. Where are the neighbors in these circumstances, and what can they do if anything? Eventually folks are going to grow weary of listening to this and may want to com together some how to do whatever may help, which again, depends on context. They would do well to try out the ideas you mentioned in your answer above first, and discourage calling the police.

Critiquing the nuclear family arrangements that are literally structured into our everyday residential lives is also vital as physical boundaries literally obscure the particulars involved from those that would otherwise be willing to intervene. Again I temporarily had an advantage that the neighbors didn't have because I could quickly asses the risks involved. A change in these living arrangements are most likely or eventually going to be necessary, with maybe some transitional couch-surfing before a more permanent solution can be found.

One advantage folks in the neighborhood have over such aggressors is that the aggressor, in making a spectacle of himself, ends up becoming notorious. Knowing an opponent may help a lot, and most violent crime take place between people that know each other. Even support for such violent individuals can cower away in the face of the social stigma associated with battery and abuse once exposed.  

Anyways I know there are psychological conditions associated with 'victim' 'co-dependance' (blah blah blah) and other such jargony limitations, but also I know from experience that hope for the hopeless is a bit intoxicating and maybe it can be made contagious. Also because Ron Sakolsky "Mutual Acquiescence or Mutual Aid?" means all that bullshit can change over night, right? LOL! Just had to end with surrealism again! Cheers!

---

Also Bob Black provides some interesting anecdotal ideas about "anarchist self help" in his “Wild Justice” essay. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-wild-justice

Of course "Crime as an Anarchist Source of Social Order" is a much more general topic than domestic violence (which is often complicated by a various types of dependance e.g. financial, legal, domestic arrangements). Yet the fixed sedentary domestic arrangements of every day people make for certain vulnerabilities and only those aware of the specifics within a given terrain and context will know what those vulnerabilities are. This does not necessarily mean that the best plan of action would be to target an aggressor's person or property. "....Certain people may have to be beaten into polite behavior, but for others, persuading, mocking, shaming or shunning suffices. There’s no reason why an anarchist society can’t reduce overall social control as it eliminates legal social control entirely..."


It may be best to try to build a base of localized anarchist culture via outreach (see dot's answer above). I know folks hear have more experience with that sort of activity than I do and that there are usually problems of effectiveness and/or a fetish for mediation processes. Yet perhaps the point hear may be to gather intel on the aggressor's life and living arrangements so as to better decide on how to act upon the problem the violence poses for all involved. It may also be decided that no action is feasible or desirable since every circumstance is different. It just depends on the specifics.

---

What can you tell an anarcho-communist who gives lectures about the oppressive capitalist system and all its coercive institutions yet he beats his girlfriend, fractures her nose, sends her to er, and then coerces, convinces her to trust him again, and again, and again?  Of course, she is in such awe of his politics that she will not call the cops on him.  What to do?  The girl is my daughter!!!!!! help!!!!!

---

i don't think that the politics of your daughter's boyfriend make any difference in this scenario. abusive relationships exist throughout society. the issues are a) does your daughter understand she has options, b) does your daughter believe she deserves to not be hurt in relationships, c) does your daughter have other kinds of relationships with people who will be there for her when/if she wants to leave him.

i myself would work on giving your daughter information about intimate violence and abuse. sometimes seeing how other abusive relationships have worked helps to clarify things for people.

i would also try to live with the reality that if she gets something out of the relationship that she values so highly that she wants to stay in it, then that is her choice. all others can do is make sure that she has the resources to leave if/when she wants to.

but that's just me.

also, counseling for you and others who care about her could be helpful. it can be traumatizing to be near people who are being hurt, and that doesn't help you help them.

---

Thank you --

---

one other thing. it might be possible to talk to her about caring about him and his ability to be in intimate relationships without hurting people. ie, it is possible that if he agrees he doesn't want to be treating people this way, then perhaps he could be in therapy (not with her, probably, but on his own), and that would make his life significantly better as well as hers. so she would be expressing her concern for him through working on this with him.

if your daughter sees that as a reality, then that might resolve some issues. 

but it is also possible that she doesn't see their fights as a problem. she might -- for example -- appreciate the clarity of physical fights.

very hard to understand these things from the outside sometimes.