Just one of many possible scenarios:
1. The girlfriend goes through his cell phone and finds a bimbo on there.
1a. She goes nuts, reaming him out, getting in his face, following him around the house, etc.
2. Chapman restrains himself, but
2a. Half crazy with frustration, he goes out and locks himself in his car and hits inanimate objects etc.
3. She doesn't like his reaction, calls 911, and well aware of what will happen next, lies to the police about his getting physical.
4. The police roll their eyes and leave.
........
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT is right but here's the thing. I've known people, this being Seattle, who EVEN IF THAT WERE THE CASE would still want Chapman media-lynched. It sends a message. Men need to toe the line. It's a woman's prerogative, if she feels uncomfortable, to rally the troops and put the man in his place.
And if he feels uncomfortable with her verbal abuse? Get over it.
That's the media, not the prosecutors. As with the Frank Clark incident, prosecutors tend to have a feel for when DV charges are appropriate and when they're not. I'm fairly comfortable with the law sorting out a DV charge. I'm totally uncomfortable with Bob Nightengale sorting it out.
.....
Obviously we're talking about extremists, not anybody on SSI. But a lot of people in the media are just that.
That really is what the article is about. Fairness in "He said She said" situations. I don't care that I personally am a man; I'm never going to be in a DV situation. But if all we have to go on is the word of a person and we don't know whether that person is a liar or not, we need some corroborating evidence if we want justice.
I would, however, suggest that SSI readers not encourage the hair-trigger DV sensitivity that wants to make Chapman a national pariah WHETHER OR NOT he did anything wrong.
Handing over the mike now. Gotta wallow in the 1B windfall :- )