Ariz. Domestic Abuse Case: Legislative Immunity

[Tennesseer]

PHOENIX — Scott Bundgaard, the Arizona state Senate majority leader, was involved in a domestic violence dispute with his girlfriend, but was not arrested because he has legislative immunity, police said on Saturday.

Republican Bundgaard's girlfriend, Aubry Ballard, 34, was booked for domestic violence assault, police said.

Phoenix police responded to a report on Friday night that Bundgaard was pulling Ballard out of a car stopped next to the median on State Route 51.

When officers arrived, they encountered Bundgaard and Ballard, and saw both had marks on their bodies showing they had been in a physical altercation, said Police Department spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson.

Bundgaard and Ballard were both detained, but Bundgaard told officers that under Arizona law he is immune from arrest while the legislature is in session, police said.

Police found Bundgaard could correctly claim immunity, but the case was submitted to prosecutors for review.

Bundgaard released a statement on Saturday saying he was innocent of wrongdoing. He said the physical altercation began when he had stopped the car, and his girlfriend moved into the driver's seat and refused to get out.

I had no choice but to pull her from the driver's seat, which resulted in marks on her knees," Bundgaard said.

"I had also had no choice but to stop her from punching me and risking highway safety, all of which resulted in a black eye for me and a busted lip," he said.

He added, "I waive any and all 'legislative immunity.' If I did something wrong, charge me. I did not."

Bundgaard is the co-sponsor of controversial Arizona state legislation seeking to challenge the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the state whose parents are illegal immigrants or other non-citizens.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41803019/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

So while the Arizona legislature is in session, he cannot be arrested nor charged for domestic violence. The girlfriend gets arrested but not him. Nice gig!

[pappyjohn99]

Welcome to the world of the aristocracy. You didn't know about rules like that Tenn?

[Deleted]

There are such things as violent women. I correspond with a man that is an activist for fathers and battered men. Who knows. Girl is.. what?? Drunk? Crazy? The guy SAID to haul him in if he is in the wrong, correct??

Oh, yeah, time to tear to shreds the people responsible for the new laws going through right now. Why we bother I do not know-- Feds will just keep suing us and suing us and suing us.

[Tennesseer]

Bundgaard and Ballard were both detained, but Bundgaard told officers that under Arizona law he is immune from arrest while the legislature is in session, police said.

Bundgaard released a statement on Saturday (the morning after the incident) saying he was innocent of wrongdoing. He said the physical altercation began when he had stopped the car, and his girlfriend moved into the driver's seat and refused to get out.

I had no choice but to pull her from the driver's seat, which resulted in marks on her knees," Bundgaard said.

"I had also had no choice but to stop her from punching me and risking highway safety, all of which resulted in a black eye for me and a busted lip," he said.

He added, "I waive any and all 'legislative immunity.' If I did something wrong, charge me. I did not."

Damage control the following morning.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Hunh?! Can anyone report what the truth is anymore?

[steff]

not surprising when you think about all the bills the Republicans keep trying to get pushed thru to dimish the rights and safety of women..... this guy just didn't wait until it was law before he gave her a good talking to like in the good old days....

rule of thumb....can't beat your woman with a stick any thicker than your thumb.....

[Deleted]

The guy with the crazy GF said Bring it on. End of story. Don'y worry, Tenn. We have rabid libs in our state. If there is more to this you will hear it.

[Deleted]

not surprising when you think about all the bills the Republicans keep trying to get pushed thru to dimish the rights and safety of women.....

I heard that the Democrats are pushing a law that allows them to steal your babies & they don't have to give them back unless you can guess their name. You will only get 3 guesses. (If you can spin straw & make it turn into gold -for social programs- they will also give them back.

I TOTALLY believe the above because the Republican party says it's true & we know that political parties wouldn't make something up, now don't we.

[vonnie6200]

Feb 27, 2011 1:22:24 GMT -5 steff said:

not surprising when you think about all the bills the Republicans keep trying to get pushed thru to dimish the rights and safety of women..... this guy just didn't wait until it was law before he gave her a good talking to like in the good old days....

rule of thumb....can't beat your woman with a stick any thicker than your thumb.....

bummer - but if you are a democrat you can drown a woman with virtually no consequences

[vonnie6200]

So while the Arizona legislature is in session, he cannot be arrested nor charged for domestic violence.



Maybe not a party issue - but a law that needs to be changed

[burnsattornincan]

When officers arrived, they encountered Bundgaard and Ballard, and saw both had marks on their bodies showing they had been in a physical altercation

You have a mutual fight and both of you are arrested? So you have a little physicalness among yourselves, not endangering anyone else and you get thrown in jail? You wonder why your country is so screwed up. Go figure.

[handyman2]

I love it, a big wig legislator who got the crap knocked out of him by a female. I for one am old school, a man does not hit a women or child but if a female smacks the crap out of a male go for it. Yep I am a male chauvinist.

[safeharbor37]

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

From: US Constitution, Article I, Section 6
Remember that Some of the prosecutions of Bill Clinton were delayed until he had left office. The purpose of such provisions is to prevent political opponents from arresting elected representatives on trumped up charges for political purposes.
I assume that Arizona has some similar provision. Making an issue of this is pointless.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 27, 2011 19:00:23 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

When officers arrived, they encountered Bundgaard and Ballard, and saw both had marks on their bodies showing they had been in a physical altercation

You have a mutual fight and both of you are arrested? So you have a little physicalness among yourselves, not endangering anyone else and you get thrown in jail? You wonder why your country is so screwed up. Go figure.

(Canadian) Department of Justice
Family Violence Initiative

Laws
In Canada, the Government of Canada has the constitutional authority to make laws in relation to criminal law and procedure. As a result, the Criminal Code applies to all Canadians. The provinces, however, prosecute most Criminal Code offences, but Justice Canada carries out prosecutions under all other federal laws, including drug offences. In the territories, Justice Canada conducts all criminal prosecutions, including those under the Criminal Code.

•Federal Legislation
•Provincial and Territorial Legislation
What Federal Legislation Addresses Family Violence in Canada?
Most forms of family violence are crimes in Canada. Although the Criminal Code does not refer to any specific "family violence offence," an abuser can be charged with an applicable offence. Criminal charges could include:

•sexual offences against children and youth (ss. 151, 152, 153, 155 and 170-172)
•trespassing at night (s. 177)
•child pornography (s. 163.1)
•failure to provide necessaries of life and abandoning child (ss. 215 and 218)
•criminal negligence (including negligence causing bodily harm and death) (ss. 219-221)
•homicide - murder, attempted murder, infanticide and manslaughter (ss. 229-231 and 235)
•criminal harassment (sometimes called "stalking") (s. 264)
•uttering threats (s. 264.1)
•assault (causing bodily harm, with a weapon and aggravated assault) (ss. 265-268)
•sexual assault (causing bodily harm, with a weapon & aggravated sexual assault) (ss. 271-273)
•kidnapping & forcible confinement (ss. 279 and 279.1)
•abduction of a young person (ss. 280-283)
•making indecent & harassing phone calls (s. 372)
•mischief (s. 430)
•intimidation (s. 423)
•breach of a court order, recognizance (peace bond), & probation order (ss.145(3), 127, 811, and 733.1)
The sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code provide that where an offender, in committing the offence, abuses his spouse or child or any position of trust or authority, this shall be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes (s.718.2).

Recent substantive and procedural changes to the Criminal Code have increased the safety of victims of family violence, including:

•strengthening the peace bond provisions concerning those previously convicted of sexual offences against children (May 2008);
•ending the use of "house arrest" for offences involving serious personal injury (December 2007);
•increasing mandatory minimum penalties for serious offences where a firearm is used (May 2008); and
•improving availability of testimonial aids for vulnerable adult victims/witnesses, including victims of family violence (January 2006).

Provincial and Territorial Legislation
Provincial and territorial governments make laws in areas of their own jurisdiction, including providing victims' services. To date, six provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan) and three territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut) have proclaimed specific legislation on family violence:

Alberta: Protection Against Family Violence Act (in force since 1999)

Note: information about the Protection Against Family Violence Act
Manitoba: Domestic Violence and Stalking Act (in force since 2009)
Nova Scotia: Domestic Violence Intervention Act (in force since 2003 )
Prince Edward Island's: Victims of Family Violence Act (PDF 112 KB, PDF Help) (in force since 1996)
Newfoundland and Labrador's: Family Violence Protection Act (in force since 2006)
Saskatchewan: Victims of Domestic Violence Act (in force since 1995)
Northwest Territories: Protection Against Family Violence Act (in force since, 2005)
Yukon Territory's: Family Violence Prevention Act (PDF 399 KB, PDF Help) (in force since , 1999)
Nunavut: Family Abuse Intervention Act (in force since 2008)
These civil statutes are designed to complement protections in the Criminal Code. They offer further protection to victims of family violence. Civil measures provided include emergency intervention orders, which may grant exclusive victim occupation of the home and family vehicle. They may also restrain the abuser from communicating with or contacting the victim or members of the victim's family. Some statutes also provide for victims' assistance orders, which may include monetary compensation from the abuser.

Provincial/Territorial Child Protection Legislation:
While general criminal offences, such as criminal neglect, assault and homicide, are applicable to violent acts against children, there are also a number of child-specific offences in the Criminal Code. These include failure to provide the necessaries of life, child abandonment and an extensive number of child-specific sexual offences. In addition to criminal sanctions, the following provincial and territorial child protection laws provide for state intervention where parents or legal guardians are unable or unwilling to meet the child’s physical, emotional and psychological needs.

Alberta: Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act
British Columbia: Child, Family and Community Service Act
Manitoba: Child and Family Services Act
New Brunswick: Family Services Act
Newfoundland and Labrador: Child, Youth and Family Services Act
Northwest Territories: Child and Family Services Act
Nova Scotia: Children and Family Services Act
Nunavut: Child and Family Services Act
Ontario: Child and Family Services Act
Prince Edward Island: Child Protection Act (PDF 194 KB, PDF Help)
Quebec: Youth Protection Act
Saskatchewan: Child and Family Services Act
Yukon: Child and Family Services Act
www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/laws-lois.html


Mr Burns-you could at least have said "You wonder why our countries are so screwed up. Go figure."

[mmhmm]

Feb 27, 2011 17:36:56 GMT -5 vonnie6200 said:

Feb 27, 2011 1:22:24 GMT -5 steff said:

not surprising when you think about all the bills the Republicans keep trying to get pushed thru to dimish the rights and safety of women..... this guy just didn't wait until it was law before he gave her a good talking to like in the good old days....

rule of thumb....can't beat your woman with a stick any thicker than your thumb.....

bummer - but if you are a democrat you can drown a woman with virtually no consequences

What? Vonnie, you're not usually one to throw out ridiculous statements like that!

[vonnie6200]

Feb 27, 2011 19:24:19 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 27, 2011 17:36:56 GMT -5 vonnie6200 said:

bummer - but if you are a democrat you can drown a woman with virtually no consequences

What? Vonnie, you're not usually one to throw out ridiculous statements like that!

You're right - that was very tacky of me and I apologize

[OldCoyote]

Jan Brewer used the same trick to get out of a DUI, The arresting officer is now part of her security detail.

[burnsattornincan]

Right Mr. Tennesseer, "your" just sounds better.

[Angel!]

Feb 27, 2011 19:00:23 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

You have a mutual fight and both of you are arrested? So you have a little physicalness among yourselves, not endangering anyone else and you get thrown in jail? You wonder why your country is so screwed up. Go figure.

(an insult that I erased)

I was trying to type up a response to your statement & realized since you clearly don't know a damn thing about domestic violence, that it isn't even worth trying to explain why the law would work this way & how this helps to protect people in these situations.

Just because a fight is "mutual" doens't mean somebody isn't going to get the shit beat out of them or end up dead, if the police just move along & let them continue their disagreement.

[Deleted]

I very well understand DV, unfortunately. I saw this guy on TV last night. He has 2 black eyes, to start with. His GF knocked the crap out of him because she was jealous of how he was dancing with someone else. He admits to pulling on her leg to try to get her out of the driver's seat of the car. Now-- why in the world would a man that just got the crap knocked out of him by a jealous woman want to get her out from behind the wheel? While I was once a long time victim of a man, I am well aware that sometimes men get attacked by women. Neither is right. If this guy deserves to go down, I am sure he will. AZ Dems will make sure of it. Really nothing to see.. as in.. well, you know......

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Women battering men is more common than one would think.

My former GF was physically violent at times, which is why she is gone.

There is nothing surprising or unusual about the events described in the initial post. Pretty common.

[Deleted]

By AZ law, someone goes to jail with every DV call. I was in a DV class for 6 months, a mix of victims and perpetrators, but all female. Among the court ordered ones--
1) broke her own chair during a disagreement
2) broke her own cellphone during a disagreement
3) took the spark plugs out of her own car to prevent her GF from leaving
4) backyard BBQ, screaming and yelling, no physical, neighbor called cops.
Sometimes BOTH go, but at least one has to be arrested on any DV call. Yes, it is stupid. Busybodies call in on others and people get thrown in jail when sometimes no one is getting abused.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Bundgaard is the co-sponsor of controversial Arizona state legislation seeking to challenge the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the state whose parents are illegal immigrants or other non-citizens.

The constitution makes no such provision.