Confirmed: Klein's Victim was the Mother of His Child

July 9, 2012 at 4:20p    by Jason Priestas    
61 Comments
61 Comments

Comments

Nick's picture

"mother of his child" too common today 

J.Mo's picture

Glad he was kicked off. Unacceptable.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Been pretty mum on this situation thus far as these kinds of cases are my everyday work, but having said that, can we all just let the facts play out?
We are talking about young people. Young people who are parents. It is fairly safe to say, young immature people = young immature parents. Sometimes our emotions get the best of us -- particulary when there is a baby involved. I dont know what brought mom to dad's house. I dont know what precipitated dad putting his hands on her forearms and her hitting her head on the door. I can speculate, you can speculate, but only mom and dad know for sure. My (educated and experienced) guess is that mom wanted to talk about baby/relationship/money/future and dad wanted her to leave. What happened next is probably a situation where blame can be assessed in percentages and not absolutes.
I understand and support Meyer's decision to release him until the facts are out and I also completely agree with the re-evaluation if the charges change. I also feel strongly that absent tat-gate, the coaching staff may not have made this exact decision. For these reasons I say give the kid the benefit of the doubt. Certainly you would want the same.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

TheHostileDwarf's picture

I agree with Angel.
First, nothing new is really learned here. Klein has been charged with DOMESTIC violence. That typically means either that the participants live together or that they have a child in common, so, option B here.
Second, she is not the "victim" unless and until he is convicted. For now, she is the alleged victim. Perhaps Klein assaulted her. Perhaps not. The orginial story got this correct.
Third, in this case, a suspension or "dismissal" from the team is entirely warranted pending the outcome. These are tricky situations, but this is obviously more (potenially) serious than the Stoneburner/Mewhort situation, even if the charges are misdemeanors.
Some people simply need to put their Jump to Conclusions maps away.

mastermiind's picture

you mean "jump to conclusions mats."
moreover, i think you have a bit of a backward perspective of the justice system. yes, sometimes unfounded charges are brought against an individual; however, those stories of reckless prosecution are featured on cnn because of their rarity.
i'm assuming the victim (yes, she was a victim. i'm afraid naivete and idealism have dissuaded you from the "map" jump.) had bruising indicative of assault, which will make this an open-and-shut case. moreover, the fact that meyer has already dismissed the kid from the team tells you all you need to know- outside of the authorities, storm, and his impregnated punching bag, nobody else knows as much as urban. as the state's de facto governor, i'm sure he has had access to evidence to which we "civilians" are never privy.
today, thankfully, the locker room has one fewer thug. goodbye, so long, farewell; may your child be so lucky as to have you go away for awhile.

hgvyt54trtfvt56

TheHostileDwarf's picture

Yep. Other than pointing out my typo, thanks for that btw, that whole response pretty much embodies the ignorance I was referring to and makes my point. Here's a hint: Urban wasn't there. He doesn't know shit. He's heard what he's heard, but he doesn't know anything. He's just reacting to charges being lodged. While I hope you don't actually believe any of that, too many do, and that's a sad indictment of our collective intelligence/judgment. Here's another hint: someone doesn't need to be involved in a reckless prosecution in order to be not guilty. Particularly in domestic situations, sometimes the police arrest someone just to defuse an acrimonious situation and then they let the legal system sort it out. This is how it should work, but some people simply aren't interested in doing things the right way, apparently.
Bruising != assault. Have you seen the bruises? Have you seen pictures of the bruises? Did you see the complainant before the incident to determine whether the bruises were already there? Do you know where the bruises are? Do they look like defensive bruises where she was hit or merely that she was grabbed by the wrists/arms, you know, such as would be consistent with being grabbed in order to be removed from a location, such as someone's apartment? Do you know how she was acting during this altercation? Do you know whether her actions contributed in any way her bruises? Do you know any of the physical characteristics of the complainant? Do you know whether she bruises easily? Do you know whether she has ever been assaultive towards Klein? Do you know whether she's ever been assaultive towards anyone else? Did you see the altercation? Do you know whether anyone else saw the altercation? Do you anyone who saw the altercation? Do you know who was the aggressor? Do you know whether Klein had any bruises as a result of the incident? Do you know whether there is any history of violence between these two individuals?
The answer to all of the above is most certainly: No. So get off your high horse, put your Jump to Conclusions Mat/Map away, and see what plays out.
P.S. None of the stories I've seen claim that she's currently pregnant. So she is not "impregnated." She's the mother of his child, not the "future mother of his child." To be clear, I'm from the school of thought that a man should never place his hands on a woman, but there are exceptions to every rule, such as when a woman is acting hysterically and assaultive herself. It's okay to defend one's self. In this sense, without an understanding of the specific circumstances, it is irresponsible to assume what may have happened, which your post was full of. It's likely that Klein acted inappropriately in this case just because he should have called the police himself if he wanted her to leave instead of forcibly removing her, but sometimes, in the heat of the moment, shit happens. That doesn't mean he acted illegally.

Irricoir's picture

Nicely put although it went down like caster oil. I've been saying something similar this entire time.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

J.Mo's picture

It is pretty easy to go through life without getting arrested for anything - let alone DV and assult ehich are probably the easier charges to avoid. We're not the court of law, we're the court of public opinion. In our court, people aren't innocent until proven guilty - it is the opposite. Right now Storm doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt after and all this is the second time he's being charged. 
Even if the charges are dropped... two identical incidents aren't just a coincidence, it is a pattern.

Pam's picture

"Do you know whether Klein had any bruises as a result of the incident?" If  he had, she would have been arrested too.

TheHostileDwarf's picture

Not necessarily. This is just another assumption/speculation. Police have wide discretion on whom to charge in domestic cases. Even if Klein had no visible injuries, just as bruising != assault, no visible injuries != no assault. We simply don't know what happened yet. Snippets of police reports that are by their very nature written after the fact by persons who did not see what occurred do not necessarily tell the full story. What is so wrong with not rushing to judgment?

And I haven't seen anyone say she is some crazy bitch. This is a straw man. Again, we simply don't know what happened yet and it is irresponsible to assume or fill in gaps with pure speculation.

Pam's picture

It's not an assumption and the police do not have wide discretion on whom to charge in a domestic case. If one or both parties have visible injuries, there will be an arrest. Laws have changed dramatically. It used to be considered a private matter and the woman (typically) would have to agree to file charges in order to have the person arrested. Not anymore. Too many women ended up dead because their abuser came back after he got out of jail and killed them or beat them up worse. As a result, women would not press charges at all. All a cop needs is "probable cause" Injured party/parties=arrest.
danavh4 on 8 July 2012 - 12:26am # "Why are so many of you playing the role of the judge, jury and executioner?  Come on guys...haven't you ever had a crazy chic trying to beat the crap out of you?  "

TheHostileDwarf's picture

Seriously? You're referring to a comment on another thread entirely made by someone not even involve in this conversation? C'mon.
Of course police have discretion to not arrest someone in cases such as this. I hate to assume, but this conversation is beginning to require it for illustrative purposes. So, again assuming he had no bruises, that doesn't mean she wasn't assaultive herself. I'm not saying that she was. My point is: we don't know. But assuming he did have bruises, the police did not have to arrest him. What do you think would happen to an officer who did not arrest this woman even if Klein had some bruising? Prosecution? HA! Some type of internal police department sanction? Perhaps, but unlikely. Let me give a different example. I live in a VERY LARGE, VERY POPULATED county. We do not have as many instances of the police shooting suspects as in many much smaller counties, but there have been dozens piled on top of dozens, perhaps hundreds, over the years and many of them have been questionable, including several instances where unarmed suspects have been shot and/or killed. It has been over 40 years since any police officer has ever been prosecuted for unlawfully shooting a suspect. 40 YEARS! And you think an officer who fails to arrest this woman is going to face some kind of actual punsihment or sanction for not arresting her? C'mon.
I'm well versed on the standard that a police officer needs to meet before effectuating an arrest. I'm also well versed on the fact that police do not always arrest both participants in a fight/assault and that oftentimes the one who wasn't arrested is just as guilty or more so than the one who was arrested. In these cases, police almost always arrive on the scene after the fact and do their best with the information available to them, but sometimes they get it wrong.
Lastly, assuming he had no visible injuries or bruising, you picked out ONE of the questions I posed and are harping on that one question. I'll be charitable and take that one out. That still leaves a string of unanswered questions, and I'm sure there are more that I didn't think of. To rush to judgment with so many unknowns is simply irresponsible.

Pam's picture

"Of course police have discretion to not arrest someone in cases such as this"
Not if the state has mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2935.032 (A)(1)(A); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2935.03
(B)(3)(B) (provides for a preferred arrest policy when there is “reasonable
grounds” to arrest; however, when there is probable cause to arrest, arrest is
mandatory)

TheHostileDwarf's picture

Okay, I'll walk back the "wide discretion" portion of my comment, but not the underlying point. Mandatory arrest laws are, at best, directives. Orders are ignored all the time, including by police officers. Unless an officer chose not to arrest someone where there were visible signs of injury on a complainant and that someone subsequently inflicted additional and/or greater damage to that same complainant, the officer's decision would likely never be subject to any kind of scrutiny, so the directive doesn't necessarily have any teeth. "Shall" doesn't always mean "shall," at least not in a practical sense. Mandatory arrest may be a "requirement," but it's not an absolute.
Otherwise, the last paragraph of my preceding response explains how this isn't really all that compelling of a point to be harping on.
[Edit after your Edit:] Now you're position has pivoted. First you said, "If he had [any bruises], she would have been arrested too."
Now you're referencing the code which contains malleable legal standards. Do bruises consitute "probable cause" to arrest or merely "reasonable grounds" to arrest? This language can be played with all day. This clearly leaves open the possibility that a police officer could believe that even a bruised person only provides reasonable grounds to arrest and such an officer could exercise his lawful discretion not to arrest.
Furthemore, your statute parsing leaves something to be desired. Nowhere in the relevant authority to arrest portions of the ORC § 2935 et seq. does the phrase "probable cause" or the word "mandatory" appear. In Chapter 2935, the word mandatory does not appear at all. (Linkified: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935). And the words "probable cause" don't appear until § 2935.041 which is after the authority to arrest without a warrant section and after the domestic violence section. There may exist a portion of the ORC that contains a directive to arrest in domestic cases (or it could exist somewhere in the case law although this is highly unlikely), but I haven't seen it yet and you haven't cited to it. The only standard used is "reasonable grounds" or "reasonable cause."
In fact, here is the relevant portion that I believe covers standard domestic violence cases: ORC § 2935.03 (B)(1) "When there is reasonable ground to believe that ... the offense of domestic violence as defined in section 2919.25 of the Revised Code ... has been committed ... within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the peace officer, a peace officer described in division (A) of this section may arrest and detain until a warrant can be obtained any person who the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe is guilty of the violation." [Emphasis added].
Lastly: You mentioned ORC § 2935.032 (A)(1)(A). This only applies to felonious assault, which is not at all what we're talking about. "If the officer determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person knowingly caused serious physical harm to another or to another’s unborn or knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm to another or to another’s unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, then, regardless of whether the victim of the offense was a family or household member of the offender, the officer shall treat the incident as felonious assault, shall consider the offender to have committed and the victim to have been the victim of felonious assault, shall consider the offense that was committed to have been felonious assault in determining the manner in which the offender should be treated, and shall comply with whichever of the following is applicable..." [Emphasis added].

mastermiind's picture

i have to admit i didn't read what you wrote. you may have written something coherent, but i'll just save myself the waste of time and say you didn't.
 the truth is that urban meyer can walk into the franklin county prosecutor's office anytime he wants and find somebody that will cooperate with him. i have no problem with this fact; i'm simply making an objective statement about the nature of things.
moreover, please keep living in your "innocent until proven guilty" world of fairytales, lollipops, and unicorns- jerry sandusky thanks you for withholding judgement.

hgvyt54trtfvt56

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

So because that is the way it is, that's the way it should be?
It's your thinking that has the Jerry Sanduskys of the world saying thanks. The fact the Joe-Pa could walk into anywhere and do whatever he wanted is EXACTLY what you are talking about.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

mastermiind's picture

poor argument. meyer gets legal information on his players. joe pa ran the happy valley 5-0. do i need to explain to you the difference?
don't understand your sandusky argument at all....you're just saying words.

hgvyt54trtfvt56

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Okay, I'll slow it down for you.
Your arguement = priviledge. Meyer can walk into any prosecutor's office and get anything he wants. Why? Because he is Urban freaking Meyer.
My Arguement = priviledge. JoPa could do whatever he wanted because he was Joe freaking Pa. Anything he wanted included hiding the Sandusky situation.
Get it?
Btw the way, your initial statement did not read as though UFM was getting 'info' on his players, but rather wheeling and dealing to get matters swept under the rug (which I wholeheartedly think is false, but hey that was your argument, not mine). That is the Sandusky comparison.
Oh, and yes, generally, when I speak I am saying words. Grunting like a caveman is soooo 47000 BC.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

You know what's even better than priviledge? Privilege. Because im not sure what priviledge is.
Also, yes, arguement=priviledge. In that they're both mispelled.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Thank you Microsoft auto-correct. I am glad this is what you took from the post.
The grammar police should give you one of those honorary stickey-badges.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

Microsoft? I'm an Apple man. Only pointed that out because you got defensive that someone didn't agree with you and responded by being a jerk to them.
And then you make a thinly veiled jab at their intelligence (i.e. caveman), which sounds completely ludicrous when given your poor attempt at spelling, which for future reference, does not mean the same thing as grammar. 
Next time, engage in civil recourse instead of being a douche, and no one will point out your horrible spelling.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Umm you could not be further from the truth. The 'caveman' comment was directed at the statement I was just saying words -- as opposed to a time when people only grunted. In no way was that a thinly veiled anything.
I was defensive not because someone disagreed with me, but because they were a jerk while disagreeing.
I was unaware that spelling was an issue. Sometimes I type fast and things get misspelled. Um, sorry I guess?
I would like to thank you though for personifying exactly what I have been posting about -- jumping to a conclusion based on misinformed and/or incomplete information. Perhaps in the future before you come riding in on your (high) white horse to defend fellow readers against douche-baggery you will take the time to ask someone their intent instead of assuming.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

If that's what it takes to prove your point, I guess you can be happy about that, but remember that you're also proving to yourself the point that without basic communication skills, no one takes you seriously. Spelling and grammar wouldn't matter anywhere if that wasn't a social fact, and it's been shown time and time again on this board.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Real quick, I didn't say you 'proved' my point, I said you personified it. There is a difference. I really hate you compelled me to be this myopic, but you are simply begging for it.
Also, I find your assertion that no one is going to take the content of my posts seriously because misspelled words = a lack of communication skills. You have provided me with some comic relief today, but that one really got me lol'ing.
 

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

No one gives warrant to grammar and mispelled words? Say hey to bizarro Seinfeld for me over there, big guy.

Irricoir's picture

You know, an argument about spelling on the internet is kind of petty. It is just my opinion. Most of angel's comments are thought out and coherent. It isn't like I couldn't understand what she/he was trying to say. Is the debate absolutely necessary? Just asking a question. I won't continue to lengthen this thread on that topic.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Most?
;)

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

yeah, my apologies, as long as most stays the operative word

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

I'll take it -- it's better than 'some.'
:)
And apology accepted my Buckeye brother!
(p.s. I am a girl -- only pointing that out b/c Irricor said he/she and because you referenced me as 'douche' -- no worries!)

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

buck-I.8's picture

It is my firm belief that a female can be as much of a douche as a male, but I don't think you're a douche inherently, no worries. No hard feelings, and go bucks

rkylet83's picture

I agree with what others have said about getting the entire story/facts before any hard conclusions are made.  
That said just going by my gut and based on whats available (http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/stories/2012/07/10/police-klein-slamm...)...I'd be surprised if he isn't guilty.

Jugdish's picture

He is guilty, for now, of just not walking away. He should have let the police handle the situation for him. You only have the right to protect yourself and not to let your testosterone and emotions get the better of you. I am only expressing my opinion and I don't know any facts just like everyone else. Even if it was his apartment, Storm should have left.

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

Pam's picture

The whole idea that Storm had to "defend" himself against this woman is laughable.
The fact that he was arrested and she wasn't means she had visible signs of injury and he did not. If he had, she would have been arrested along with him. I am really really tired of the "crazy bitch" excuse. I don't care how crazy or irrational she way have been at the time, he is 6'2' and 240 pds. As has been said before, walk away and/or call the cops.

yrro's picture

And I'm sick and tired of the idea that men have this exceptional requirement to be a woman's punching bag. Yes, proportionality is in order. Grabbing a woman's arms to protect yourself isn't an unreasonable response. Throwing her against a door is probably unreasonable, but always something that *could* happen accidentally in a struggle. As for bruises, I've been punched hard enough to have my ears ring with no bruise to show for it.
Look, I don't know that he wasn't just an asshole who lost his temper and beat her, which should not be tolerated. But I do know that domestic violence cases are almost never clear-cut. Cops *hate* domestic violence calls for exactly that reason. We should wait until this settles out to crucify either of the people involved.
I agree that crazy bitch is inappropriate. But so is woman-beater, until the case is settled.

Pam's picture

Again, that a man his size had to "defend himself" is laughable. There never should have been a struggle of any kind let alone one where she gets thrown against a door and hits her head "accidentally" or not.
Cops hate DV cases because those are the ones they are most likely to be killed or injured. Most of the time, drugs and alcohol are a factor as are weapons. My BF had a beer bottle smashed on his head while trying to break up a fight between two women. A few years ago on NYE they went on a call and saw the man trying to escape from them by jumping out the window. They gave chase and he fired at them injuring two cops who are now on permanent disability.  One bullet was so close to John he heard the "whush" as it passed by his ear. He continued to chase the guy and shot him dead. Even in a city as dangerous as Trenton, he had never fired his weapon before or after that and he deals with gangs and gun violence every day.
 

rdubs's picture

I am not going to try to crucify or defend him, but I will play devil's advocate for a second.  To start, let's assume that his version of events is true.  She came over and started yelling, screaming, threatening, and maybe even swinging at him.  He essentially picked her up and physically removed her from his apartment.  
I don't bruise particularly easily and I am 1/3 of his size so I would find it likely that this woman, if she did hit him, did not cause any visible marks on him.  Also if she was placed outside and had the door shut in front of her, it wouldn't surprise me if she banged on the door with hands, fists, head, feet, and anything else available.  It's his word against hers, but that could just have easily caused those bruises.  Who's to say that he "defended" himself beyond moving her off of his property so that she wouldn't start breaking his stuff.
At the end of the day the "facts" in these cases are almost always circumstantial without video footage.  I agree that he seems to have put himself in some bad situations that he maybe could have handled better, but to say that he is definitely guilty at this point is a bit rash.
Not a good situation for anyone, especially their child...

sir rickithda3rd's picture

pam its very possible she was wielding a weapon causing him to "defend himself"... Its a new age nowadays, my friend plays bball professionally overseas he stands  6'5 215lbs and he suffers from domestic violence. Ive personally witnessed on multiple occasions times when it is absolutely needed for him to defend himself. In some situations it may not be quite so "laughable".... Is it laughable to you when a woman gets smacked across the face? Of course not and it shouldnt be laughable when a man suffers from the same violence

mark may wins douchebag of the year... again

Pam's picture

Give me a break. If she had had a weapon, it would have been mentioned in the police report and she would have been arrested.
Your friend needs to call the cops. No one should suffer from DV, man or woman

TheHostileDwarf's picture

Have you seen the police report? If something is not in the police report, does that mean it absolutely didn't happen?

Pam's picture

If there is a weapon involved, it will be in the police report.  Pretty big deal

TheHostileDwarf's picture

If a weapon was used to inflict some type of injury, yeah, that's probably true. Otherwise, important details are left out of police reports all the time. To my knowledge, no one here has seen the relevant police report(s).

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

Okay guys, quick Domestic Violence lesson (I happen to be a certified Subject Matter Expert on the on the issue).
Domestic Violence is about Power, Control and Coersion. A man and woman -- even a married man and woman -- can be involved in a domestic battery and it is NOT domestic violence if those elements (power/control/coersion) are not present. Law Enforcement may charge it that way, but that does not make it so.
Also, the idea of a man having to defend himself against a woman as 'laughable' is short-sighted. If I touch you with my index finger and you didnt want me too, I just battered you and you have the right to call the police and make a report for which I may or may not be charged. Men are routinely put in a position to have to defend themselves against women -- and the very ideas that some are you are posturing about right now. It's anything but laughable. I have seen COUNTLESS Injunctions and police reports made by women as manipulation. It happens so much more than most of you think it does.
Pam, you are correct that if there is some kind of visible injury than an arrest must be made. However, an arrest is just that -- probable cause. It does not mean (or at least is shouldnt) that the person arrested is guilty. That is the purpose of due process. Also, you have a right to defend your home -- cant lose sight of that very important element.
Honestly, there are more things in Klein's favor than against him in this situation (based on whats been reported). Her reported injuries are consistent with her being put out of the home -- she is not reported to have a busted lip, black eye or any kind of body bruising. The fact that he does not have defensive injuries leans toward there not being a prolonged physical confrontation. It really does look like she came over and he wanted her to leave, she didnt want too, he didnt want it to escalate and he put her out of his home. Again, this is based on what's been reported.
It is never okay to put your hands on a woman. It is also never okay to put your hands on a man. It goes both ways. Let the facts play out.

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Thanks for sharing your well reasoned comments. You and TheHostileDwarf, respectively, provided the most helpful commentary on this subject, in part because you both bring to it relevant experience.
Is it really that much to ask for people to withold judgment in the absence of knowing the key facts?
Btw, everyone who has raised the hypothetical "crazy bitch" scenario was very explicit that they had no idea what happened in this case and only mentioned that possibility to refute, on general principle, the idea that Klein must be guilty - that there is no other explanation. It might be likely that Klein is guilty, but it's also quite plausible that he's not. 
Would someone please explain to me why it's necessary and/or useful to pre-judge this case in the "court of public opinion"? What's the value in us doing that?

Pam's picture

I understand fully the difference between probable cause and guilt.
If Storm did not want the situation to escalate due to her not wanting to leave his home, he should have called the cops and they would have made her leave.

DEEZnutz25's picture

The first reaction I have when in an arguement with someone, especially a woman who is the mother of my child, isn't to call the cops on them.  If he was to call the cops and she was to get arrested/charged with something, you can almost guarantee that will be the end of the relationship.  I'm not saying that the way that this situation was handled was correct, I am saying that there are many ways to solve the issue before getting the police involved.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

There are about 5 other things Storm could have done which would have yeilded a better outcome, however that does not automatically mean the choice he made was criminal. Intent still matters.
In the state of Florida you have the right to defend your home WITH DEADLY FORCE if necessary. It has been awhile since I lived in Ohio, so I am not sure if this is applicable to that degree, but it is certainly an arguement. Also self defense laws are pretty standard across most states -- you can meet equal force with equal force (if someone threatens you with a coat hanger, you can't blow them away with a shotgun).
Basically, there are numerous arguements which can be made in Storm's favor. Sorry, but the young lady involved does not get a pass from me on this one. The nature of her injuries are the biggest clue as to what happened. If he were the monster some of you are making him out to be, she would have some cracked/bruised ribs, some facial injuries, maybe a broken bone or two (since he was so much bigger). Heck, he could have killed her with one punch to the head. The system is in place for those who are in situations where an intervention is needed. I am all about ferreting out those which taint the system for those who are really in need.
Everyone is talking about what he should have done. What about what he could  have done if he were this of control woman batterer? Does he have a history? Have the police ever been called for verbal disputes to his/her home in the past? I could ask about 25 more questions and all of you would have the same answer "I dont know." Thats the point.
Was there a better way to handle it? Of course there was -- as with most things in life a do-over with hindsight is always preferable. This is a young man's future we are talking about -- and I dont mean his football future. We will see in the days to come, particularly as facts come to light. Did we learn nothing from Tat-gate?

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

Pam's picture

"Basically, there are numerous arguements which can be made in Storm's favor. Sorry, but the young lady involved does not get a pass from me on this one. The nature of her injuries are the biggest clue as to what happened."
I guess she wasn't hurt enough for you. I'm glad the cops didn't see it that way. That comment is disappointing and disturbing for someone who is certified to handle domestic cases.

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

No, she does not get a pass from me. She gets treated the SAME as he does which means with objectivity until the FACTS prove otherwise.
I am certified to handle LEGITIMATE domestic violence cases. NOT simple assault cases. I thought I explained the difference already?
Its not about 'how hurt' she was, their relationship, whether or not they reside with each other or anything else. What you are calling domestic violence is in fact not domestic violence UNLESS THERE IS AN ELEMEMT OF POWER/CONTROL/COERSION. This is a BATTERY case.
When people, including Law Enforcement, name these cases 'domestic violence' it minimizes the true nature and scope of what that label really means and what it means for the person charged. I beat you up at a bar, I get arrested, pay a fine, take a class maybe spend a day or two in jail. I DONT HAVE PART OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS REMOVED as would be the case if you were my girlfriend who showed up at my house and I wanted you to leave.
Sorry if I am am more 'pro-justice' than I am 'pro-woman.'

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

Jugdish's picture

One thing that can happen in a relationship is verbal abuse which scars but the abuse cannot be seen. This is probably where the "crazy bitch" situation has arisen in the other comments here. Let's just say for now that we don't know the whole story and we will wait for the court to settle this. Nothing is "laughable" at this time.

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

sir rickithda3rd's picture

im not tryin to pile on ive just seen it numerous times.... SOOOOO much can happen in the 15-45 min it takes cops to get there

mark may wins douchebag of the year... again

Irricoir's picture

Pam - I normally agree with you on things. One thing you keep reiterating is that Storm should have called the cops if he wanted her to leave. Let me tell you that the last thing a man wants to do is involve the cops in his domestic situation because of points you have already made. Storm is a large man and should not have to defend himself. Not your exact words but regardless of how much damage his ex can actually do, for anyone to expect a man to have to take some type of punishment is just wrong. As it is for a woman. I'll give you some first hand experience about a crazy b!tch.
I was on duty in my profession and in an office at this time. My ex of a month, had been drinking and showed up at my place of employment. She started showing her tale and acting up about a new girl I was dating. I was calm and calculating in my response to her questions and nothing I said was an attempt to further upset her. I was trying to get her to leave when I answered one of her questions incorrectly. She asked me if my new girl was fat, for the 4th time, and I responded no, she's actually smaller than you. (Neither were fat) Well, she hauls off and hits me with a handful of keys. I informed her that that was the last time she was going to lay hands on me. Much like Storm, she knew that I wouldn't dull out the same type of actions she was taking out on me due to my job. I asked her to leave once more or I would call the police. She told me to call them. I did, she got mad and spit on me. They were actually 1 block away on something else. They arrived before she left. They investigated everything to its fullest. My only concern was that I had no idea what she was going to say. Often times and officer can only take action on the visible injuries and statements that each person involved makes. I guess I could have summarized this and said that when a man calls the police he is often times rolling the dice because of the common expectation that you share. A man should just take it because he is larger than the woman. A man is more often than not presumed guilty of DV because of the frequency that he actually is. So I think in this situation it would have been best for Storm to call the police but I can certainly understand his hesitancy in doing so.
I have seen women and men alike, lie to officers, use calling the police as a form of control and even damage themselves in an attempt to cause the other person to go to jail. DV is one of the few charges in Alabama that an officer doesn't have to be present for to make an arrest and in stating that there does not have to be a dual arrest if the officer can determine who the primary aggressor is. I don't know exactly how that correlates to Ohio law.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

Pam's picture

Full disclosure: I grew up inn Cols. I left in '76 to move to NYC. I did this for one reason: My abusive BF. I could not get relief from the police or the legal system so my only choice was to move away from my family my friends and the city I still call home. To this day I worry he will find me.  He hit me, choked me, stalked me and my family. I lost track of the times I called the cops only to have them tell him "to go cool off" instead of arresting him. In order for him to be arrested I would have to agree to press charges, which I did, only to have him come back and threaten to kill me for having done so. I had Orders of Protections that he violated constantly, get locked up and be out in a few hours or less after his mom bailed him out. She would tell me to stop making her "baby" mad so he wouldn't have a reason to hit me (her husband hit her, big shock). He was 5 inches taller than me and over 100 pds. heavier (sound familiar?). I stood no chance if I tried to defend myself.  He would lie to the cops when they came and tell them I hit him first and they would believe him although he didn't have a mark on him. I had my eyes blacked, teeth knocked out and broken ribs and that piece of shit didn't serve a day in jail for any of it.  
Storm hurt that girl not because he was defending his home or because he was afraid of her.  He hurt her because he is a bully with a hair trigger temper and no self control. He hurt her because that's how he handles anger. He hurt her because he is a coward. He hurt her because he figured nothing would happen to him. I just hope his GF doesn't have to move 500 miles away to feel safe.  I am done with this. You all can talk all you want about possible scenario's or what consitutes abuse.  I know Storm Klein and I know that girl all too well. May they both find peace and decency for their child's sake. Peace

AngelHeartsBuckeyes's picture

"Storm hurt that girl not because he was defending his home or because he was afraid of her.  He hurt her because he is a bully with a hair trigger temper and no self control. He hurt her because that's how he handles anger. He hurt her because he is a coward. He hurt her because he figured nothing would happen to him."

Pam, I have a ton of respect for you, but this is outrageous. Please tell me how you know this to be true? My heart breaks for your experience (as I have a very similar one myself -- in fact I was almost killed by by ex-husband in the presence of my child no less) however, it is reckless and dangerous to super-impose the actions and intentions of your abuser onto every man involved in a physical dispute with a woman. It may come to pass that you are right and he does have anger issues and is a bully and a coward, but EVERYONE deserves the benefit of due process -- even in the court of public opinion.
 

Buckeye born and bred. Buckeye til I'm dead.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Thanks for saying this - your response to Pam is spot on.

hodge's picture

My heart breaks for both of your experiences.

Irricoir's picture

It has to be hard being the victim. I can somewhat sympathize being bullied in school. Being a freshman at 95 lbs. was no fun but even that pales in comparison to what you experienced. Angels response is spot on. Stand strong and stand up for yourself. The only way the police can support you is if you stand your ground. Tell yourself that you will no longer be a victim and mean it. Take steps to protect yourself but make him accountable for his actions and always prosecute. I wish the penalties for Violation of Protection Order escalated with each infraction. Maybe they do in Ohio. I don't know. Your situation isn't an easy one at all. (Or wasn't if it is not ongoing) Guard yourself from judging all men based off of that horrible encounter.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

buck-I.8's picture

I wasn't bullied in school, but as a very small high school freshman, I was intimidated by my largest classmates, and that's what makes me weary of things like this. I've seen football players (not to be named) at parties around campus throwing their weight around, levying their size to be influential, because that's human nature. So when I, like many other people, hear of a domestic dispute involving a linebacker and a diminutive person, gender not important, I tend to jump to conclusions. But I thank Irricoir and Angelheartsbuckeyes for offering different viewpoints to consider.

Pam's picture

It's not ongoing because I moved 500 miles away 36 years ago. I left  my  home, friends and family to get away from him. I don't think it is a coincdence that I have lived with a PO for 13 years in a home with no less than 3 guns and him having one on him at all times. The laws are very different know because DV is considered a crime and not a civil matter and why cops can make arrests based on PC whereas I had to agree to  press charges in order to get him arrested. I judge offenders (not all  men) because there is a pattern, just as there is with pedophiles like Sandusky (who pick victims and "groom" them) that evolves. Very few abusers hit just once. I volunteer at a women's shelter in Trenton. I know what I am talking about.

Irricoir's picture

Pam I believe you. Like you say Storm could be the monster that he is perceived to be or he could be something different. Without all of the facts then it is irresponsible for anyone including me to presume his guilt or innocence.
I didn't realize your incident occurred 36 years ago. In that day and age things were so much different than what they are today. DV has gotten a lot of publicity and departments go to extreme lengths to handle the situations including prosecuting on the victims behalf. The problem with that is that judges today, even though the agency is prosecuting, judges often times will not push the case through if there is not a witness/victim available to testify. That's why I encourage women or better said, victims everywhere to follow through with what police action is taken.
How does this encounter establish a pattern for Storm? I know about an assault he was an interest in and the charges were dropped. I also know you can't hold an arrest against somebody and remove them from a hiring process unless there is a conviction. So let me understand something and I am not trying to fan any flames here just be reasonable, since Storm was in a fight before in the past three years and he has a physical altercation with his ex that establishes a pattern? Are there details to this previous fight that I don't know about? Was the victim of that fight/assault a female? Was it the same girl? I only ask because I have been in an uncountable amount of fights in my life, yet I don't believe in nor have I ever hit a woman. So again, I think the man is being judged prematurely and unfairly. That isn't to say you aren't correct but I wouldn't want the same treatment he is receiving from you and many others on this board. I don't know how I can explain fairness and judgment upon facts any clearer. Having injuries simply doesn't cut it. It's probable cause for an arrest sure but if that was the end all, be all, there would be no need for a trial and an officer could go ahead and set his sentence.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.