Quick explanation of DV laws in Texas and Fairy Tale Land

Disclaimer: Domestic violence is a big deal, and I don’t mean to make light of it. But laws, the Constitution, and criminal defense are big deals too. It’s important to write laws well so the right people are charged with the right crimes.

Ok, quickly, when we think DV, we might think spousal abuse or child abuse. Something like when Cora tortured her daughter Regina with magic.

cora and regina

Yep, that’s it. But it’s the tip of the iceberg. Without getting into abandonment and gaslighting (which also occurs on this show where everyone is related and everyone treats everyone like crap), lets dig into the statute and the show. We’re using Texas because that’s where I practice. Let’s think about some of the people Rumpelstiltskin attacked. Can he be charged with domestic violence if he beat someone other than Milah, Bae, or Belle? Was it domestic violence when Rumple beat Hook?

hook and rumple

Outside of fanfic, Rumple and Hook aren’t getting it on. But could a zealous prosecutor charge Rumple with domestic violence for this act? What about when he beat Mr. French?

moe and rumple

Or the Sheriff of Nottingham?


Texas calls it “family violence,” and it is, in short, intended violence or threats by a member of a family or household against a member of a family or household. (See Texas Family Code, sec. 71.004.) Easy, right? Cora on Regina, yes. Rumple on anyone pictured above, no.

But wait! There’s more.

Family violence is also “dating violence,” which refers us back to section 71.0021 and is intended violence or threats committed against your date or a victim because of that person’s marriage or dating relationship with an individual that the actor has also married or dated. So when Rumple beat Hook over Milah, that’s dating violence.

What about the Sheriff of Nottingham? Rumple beat him because because he was kissing Lacy. Yes, but a dating relationship considers the length and frequency of the relationship. It probably doesn’t count hooking up with someone in the back of Granny’s diner. So probably no dating violence there.

And what about Moe? Even though the show is incestuous, Belle didn’t kiss her dad. And even though the family violence statute considers it to be family violence if you are or previously were in a household together, regardless of your relationship, and Belle was part of both their households, still no family violence there because no dating relationship between Belle and her dad and no shared household between Rumple and Moe. Once he moves into the father-in-law suite in the Dark Castle’s basement, however, it becomes family violence. Odd that beating the one person he is actually family to presents the clearest case of no family violence.



For some reason, wordpress isn’t letting me comment. So I’ll just post my thoughts about this post here:

Thank you for this! It pretty much sums up everything I feel about tort reform. Sadly, when I try talking to people about the temperature of the coffee (for example), I hear “coffee is supposed to be hot!” Because coffee is supposed to melt your tongue to your teeth or something. I don’t know, I’m a tea drinker. I also like to remind people that even though the jury gave (what some consider to be) an outrageous award, the judge decreased it, and the parties settled while appeal was pending. It could be held as an example of exactly how the legal system is supposed to work, but people seem to prefer to be misinformed about it and take away our 7th Amendment rights to a trial by jury.


Oct. 23, 2014  By Jack Jodell.

This is the third and final segment of excellent articles written by Larry Beinhart (author of Wag the Dog) which originally appeared in the Huffington Post nearly 4 years ago, vut still fits the bill today. I thank the Thom Hartmann Program on Free Speech TV for having turned me on to this excellent author. Below is “Class Warfare III – Losing Your Right to Fight Back” by Larry Beinhart which first appeared on 3/09/2011.  

“Everyone has heard of the woman who spilled coffee on herself and won $3 million from McDonald’s. Perhaps you recall an editorial similar to this one, which ran in theSan Diego Union Tribune: ‘A winning lottery ticket… absurd… a stunning illustration of what’s wrong with America’s civil justice system.’

I saw theinjuries. One look was all it took. An 82-year-old woman with such severe burns on…

View original 1,253 more words

You make me right

When I was a kid, the place where I live was named one of the most dangerous places to live in the US. I joked (badly) that we should get together and beat up the pollsters. I know humor’s not funny when you explain it, but since the joke wasn’t funny anyway, let me explain: see, they said we’re violent, so let’s beat them up because they called us something mean.

It reminds me of Senator Kelly’s remarks in the X-Men movie after he was kidnapped by Magneto. Magneto’s actions and violence Kelly proved that mutants were dangerous.

Recently Emma Watson spoke to the UN about feminism and how men need to advocate for women too. And, of course, the dark side of the internet got their tighty whities in a twist about it and proceeded to say/do/threaten all sorts of stupid crap. You know what stupid crap I mean. I don’t need to repeat it here.

So explain this reasoning to me: someone hear’s Watson’s speech and disagrees with her. And is offended because he takes it as a personal affront to his masculinity. Of course, he is entitled to feel that way. I think he’s a little cry baby with no sense of reality, but that’s neither here nor there. So instead of engaging in discourse, he makes violent threats. Impotent threats or no.

Why would he do that? Why would he prove her right? Why would he seek to demean her (which is what feminists are fighting against) rather than even pull a “not all men”?

Unless he never believed it was about equality but his right to oppress women.

If you looked at pictures of JLaw naked, you’re working against your own self-interest

A friend of mine told me a disturbing story the other day. She told me she was working topless in her apartment (as she is wont to do), and she heard people snickering outside. Normally, she ignores it because she just doesn’t care. But she heard someone say “facebook,” and she turned to see they were recording her.

We can guess where the story went from there.

I don’t understand.

Working with the premise that seeing breasts=good, why would one seek to make it harder to see breasts? I’ve heard a lot of “oh, JLaw et al. shouldn’t have taken pictures of themselves naked if they didn’t want the world to see them” (which I guess also means we shouldn’t have been changing in the locker room if we didn’t want people to watch us through the hole in the wall), which means that JLaw and others shouldn’t be sexting.

Is that the world you want to live in? You don’t want your girlfriend to send you a picture of herself masturbating? You don’t think people should do things behind closed doors that they don’t want the world to know about?

Condemning the person in the picture for being victimized (let’s not forget, hacking is a crime) might mean that people will heed your lesson. It might mean that, when you’re sending suggestive text messages to your girlfriend when you guys are apart, she’s not going to send you pictures of her tits in response. Because information wants to be free and she shouldn’t take that picture if she doesn’t want the world to see them.

So when you look at the pictures of JLaw, when you condemn her or any victim for being the subject of the pictures, you are making it harder to look at porn.

Unless we realize that this isn’t about porn but about power and that the viewer’s interest isn’t in seeing breasts (they’re a dime a dozen) but in shaming women.

I hate you, Tommee Tippee!

New baby is growing fast, and everything is great. But I have to rant about how much I hate Tommee Tippee bottles.

Picture from Amazon.co.uk.

Yes, you. I hate you.

I hate your shape. On your website, you boast about being an easy to hold shape. How fucking hard is it to hold a bottle? Not hard. Drunk people can do it. But because of your wannabe ergonomic design, pools of milk get stuck in your curves when the bottle is in feeding position. So I can’t empty a bottle unless I’m holding the baby in an unnatural position during feeding.

I hate your nipple. Manhole covers are round so that the cover can never be inserted as to fall into the manhole. The same physics would apply with a nipple and a bottle collar, but the nipple is made of flexible silicone. There is a lip to the nipple so it won’t flex through the bottle collar easily. But the lip on your nipples is too small. So every time I go to assemble a bottle, I accidentally pull the nipple through the collar, making you a pain in the ass to assemble.

I hate your lids. As you can see from the picture above, the lid is designed to sit completely over the bottle collar. So I can’t unscrew the bottle to add powdered formula without removing the lid. And if I do unscrew the bottle with the lid on, like say when I’m cleaning you, I’m not then able to get the lid off to clean the nipple without reassembling the bottle.

I hate your price. Twelve pounds for three bottles! I just want my Gerber bottles that Target sells at six bucks for a nine pack!

Everything about you, I hate. I would just throw you all away, but then I’d feel like I’m wasting money.

No love,


Childish behavior

I’m a mom and on some online mommies groups, and the other day I got pretty upset at one commenter who called someone’s behavior “childish.” The person in question acting “childish” was an adult who had apparently broken up with her 8-month pregnant friend after ruining her baby shower, and the commenter was using “childish” as a synonym for “selfish.”

Children can be selfish, and I’ll be one of the first to admit that. My husband sometimes says all children are little dictators. I think it has to do with the development of the thought process, and how, at a young age, a child doesn’t understand that there are other people with different points of view. Literally. I remember my psychology professor explaining this to my class back when I was a psych major. He said if you’re watching tv with your kid under a certain age, and you ask him to move because you can’t see the tv, the kid might move closer to the tv or in a way so that he gets a better view. Because the kid really doesn’t understand that you are not a part of him. Children have to be taught to see things from different points of view. Even television sets.

Despite understanding how selfish children can be, seeing the other mother (or mom to be) call an adult “childish” for the selfish behavior made me pretty upset. Maybe it was a bit of my pregnancy hormones talking, but I thought, how dare this woman, who came to this board for mothers and about parenting and children, use “childish” as a pejorative? I likened it to hate speech, as it reminded me of things I’ve heard racists say about how ____ people act like this. Or the use of Gyp or Jew as a verb. As in, “you Jewed me out of $50.” But is it acceptable, on a moms’ forum or not, to use the term “childish” to describe adults who are selfish?

How do you feel about using “childish” as an adjective to describe a negative personality trait? Am I being too sensitive?

I’m so sick of racism!

Some of my Israeli in-laws are in town for a few days, which has been…interesting. And at the end of a long week, I almost lost my shit. Basically, they have spent the entire week shopping and when we propose to do something else, they go along with it at first. But then, when we’re half way towards our destination or whatever, they change their minds and say they want to go shopping instead. They also want to take a cab everywhere, insisting that it’s somehow cheaper than the bus. Apparently math works differently in Israel.

Anyway, so last night, they took a cab back to our place and apparently the cab driver got a little lost or didn’t know where we lived and then told them that his cab broke down and dropped them off at a street corner not too far from our place. My sister-in-law, in ending the story, said “He’s Arabic.”

Ok, first, no. He’s Arab. At least, that’s how I learned it, Arabic refers to the language. Arab refers to the people.

Second. How the fuck did you know? Are you really that good at telling a person’s cultural/linguistic identity just by looking at him (I know she didn’t ask)? Because I know a lot of people aren’t. A good friend of mine (Arab) told me a story of being in the subway and seeing a couple sit across the train from him. They started talking about him and making fun of him in Arabic. My friend was pretty goodnatured and smiled at them with a smile that tried to convey “yeah, I understand every word you’re saying!” But they just made fun of him more. So when he eventually reached his stop, he wished them a good day in Arabic. (I want this story to be true so bad!) But there’s actually a better chance, statistically, that the cab driver was Pakistani. I guess they all look the same.

My issue is, how do I deal with this? I just ended the conversation and walked out of the room. I don’t want to get into a discussion with someone who thinks that racist and Israeli are synonyms. And the more I would argue my point, the more it would come clear that racism is so intertwined with her politics (I know. I’ve been down that road before). It’s just so disheartening. And what I don’t get is how holding any stereotype about any group doesn’t justify another person holding a stereotype about another group. If you truly believe that all Arabs are ____, then you must also believe that there is some sort of trait inextricably linked to their faith or heritage. Which would mean there are traits inextricably linked to faith or heritage or skin color. And if you believe that, how can you be puzzled or upset when other people hate you for being Jewish?