WHY OFFICERS GET IT WRONG

This is not about blaming individual officers. It’s about identifying the structural factors that produce bad outcomes — so they can be corrected.

Size and strength bias. Officers arriving on scene often default to the assumption that the larger, stronger person is the aggressor. This assumption has no basis in DV research. Abuse is defined by patterns of power and control, not physical size. A woman who controls the finances, makes false accusations, weaponizes custody, and throws objects at her partner is the primary aggressor — regardless of the size differential. Female perpetrators frequently use weapons or household objects to compensate for physical differences; one study found weapon use was higher in incidents targeting men (12%) than women (4%) (Mahony, 2010 cited in Roebuck, Pathe, & Frkovic, 2020).

Visible injury bias. Officers are trained to assess for visible injuries, which often drives the determination of who is the victim and who is the aggressor. But visible injury is a poor proxy for who initiated the violence. A man who has been punched, scratched, or hit with an object may show minimal bruising due to body composition, while a woman who injured herself during an attack — or who was restrained by the man defending himself — may present with more visible marks. Systems that rely on visible injury to classify severity systematically undercount violence by female perpetrators.

The “tears” dynamic. Multiple studies document that female perpetrators deliberately manipulate the emotional presentation on scene — crying, appearing frightened, or claiming to be the victim — knowing that officers are more likely to believe a distressed woman than a calm or frustrated man (Dim & Lysova, 2021). Men who have been abused for months or years may present as flat, angry, or shut down — not because they are the aggressor, but because they are exhausted and have learned that showing emotion makes things worse.

Training rooted in the Duluth Model. Most law enforcement DV training is based on the Duluth Model, which frames domestic violence as a pattern of male power and control over women. This framework was not designed to account for female-perpetrated violence and creates a cognitive bias in which male = perpetrator and female = victim before the officer has assessed the facts. When training teaches officers to look for a male aggressor, that is what they find — even when the evidence points elsewhere.

Mandatory arrest policies. In jurisdictions with mandatory or pro-arrest policies, officers must make an arrest when there is probable cause of DV. When the framework and training default to “male aggressor,” mandatory arrest becomes a mechanism that punishes male victims for calling the police. This is the single most cited reason men give for not reporting: they know that calling for help may result in their own arrest (Dim & Lysova, 2021).

FALSE ACCUSATIONS

False Accusations and Weaponized Systems

One of the most significant barriers to effective law enforcement response is the deliberate manipulation of legal systems by abusive partners. This is not a fringe scenario — it is a documented pattern.

• Among men experiencing female-perpetrated violence, 56% reported their partners made false accusations of physical or sexual abuse against them (George Mason University, 2022).
• In help-seeking samples, 91.4% of men reported experiencing some form of “legal and administrative aggression” — including false reports to police, false accusations of child abuse, and manipulation of protective order processes (Hines, Douglas, & Berger, 2015).
• Male victims report that their abusive partners threaten to call the police as a control tactic — knowing that officers are more likely to arrest the man regardless of the circumstances (Dim & Lysova, 2021).
• Judges were found to be almost 13 times more likely to grant a restraining order requested by a female plaintiff against a male partner than one requested by a male plaintiff against a female partner (Muller et al., 2009 cited in Hobbs, 2023).

When officers respond to a call and find a woman claiming to be the victim, the possibility that she is the aggressor who called the police as a tactic should be part of the assessment — not dismissed as implausible.

SYSTEMIC CHANGE

What Officers Can Do Differently

1. Apply primary aggressor criteria based on evidence, not appearance.

Use the assessment framework above. Size, gender, emotional presentation, and visible injury are unreliable indicators. History, fear, coercive control, and who called are far more accurate.

2. Take male callers seriously.

If a man called 911, he overcame enormous barriers to do so — including the knowledge that he might be arrested for making the call. That call is itself an indicator. Respond accordingly.

3. Know the law in your jurisdiction.

Understand how your state’s primary aggressor statute works, what criteria it requires, and how to document your determination. A well-documented primary aggressor finding protects you, protects the victim, and holds up in court.

4. Separate the “scene” from the “relationship.”

What you see in the first five minutes on scene is a snapshot. The abuse is a movie. Ask questions that reveal the longer pattern — who controls the money, who threatens custody, who monitors the phone, who has been isolated from support. That context changes everything.

5. Connect male victims to resources.

Carry or know the number for the National DV Hotline (1-800-799-7233) and local mental health crisis services. If your jurisdiction has no male-specific DV resources — and most don’t — a mental health referral is the single most effective connection you can make. 70.6% of male victims found mental health professionals helpful, compared to 33% for DV agencies (Douglas & Hines, 2011).

6. Advocate for better training in your department.

If your department’s DV training does not address male victimization, female perpetration, or gender-neutral primary aggressor assessment, raise it with your training division. The data supports the need. One wrongful arrest of a male victim is both a civil liability and a moral failure.

THE MISSION

Protect and Serve. All of Them.

You took an oath to protect people — not categories of people. The man standing in front of you on a domestic call, who is quiet, who isn’t crying, who maybe has a scratch on his arm and a partner sobbing behind him — he may be the one who needs your protection.

The data says you’ll get it wrong about a quarter of the time. This page exists to help you get it right.

All statistics on this page are sourced from federal government surveys or peer-reviewed, published research. Full citations are available on our References page. We encourage independent verification of every number presented here.