Buffalo Grove, Illinois, village spokesperson Molly Gillespie announced at a news conference that there was no threat to the public from the domestic terrorist attack at a suburban home earlier this month. I beg to differ. It is precisely when we treat domestic violence as contained to the particular family in which it is occurring that we play a part in perpetuating it rather than doing what we can as friends, family, neighbors or law enforcement to stop it from escalating.

We need to treat domestic terrorism as the insidious threat that it is. We should not accept it as an inevitable or acceptable aspect of everyday life.

I call it domestic terrorism because if we call it domestic violence, we immediately think of it as contained within the walls of the family home. The village’s remarks reinforce that notion. But if we call it an active terrorist threat, we would expect law enforcement to use its full power to prevent that threat from materializing. Language matters. A terrorist threat is no less a threat when made by a man to his family members; it is actually more of a threat because of the power he wields over them and the access to them that he has.

Andrei Kisliak had threatened his wife, Vera, that if she left him, he would “kill and disfigure” her to a way that no one will recognize her, according to court filings. He had threatened to kill her family as well — in gruesome ways, filings show. Yet, after police had seen him at the house in violation of the order of protection, he came back to the house again the very next day. Imagine the terror Vera Kisliak was living under during this time, knowing that with inconsistent protection, she had to fend for herself and her children.

A few days before Andrei Kisliak killed his family and then himself, I had sent a letter to the Baltimore police commissioner on behalf of a woman whose estranged husband is threatening to kill her on what would have been their upcoming wedding anniversary. Instead of describing the situation as domestic violence or violations of her order of protection, I wrote in capital letters: “ACTIVE TERRORIST THREAT.” It appears they are now paying attention, promising to serve the warrant for his arrest and take appropriate action to protect the threatened woman, whose life is completely and unfairly disrupted.

Over two decades ago, I wrote that domestic violence homicide is so predictable as to be preventable. It is the most preventable type of homicide because the perpetrator almost always tells his victim that he’s going to kill her. Not only do we have notice of the premeditated murder, but also we know who the intended victim is. If we took seriously these threats and held the criminal making the threat responsible, we would save many women and children.

All domestic violence cases should be assessed for potential lethality. The cases that have red flags must be handled differently by a specially trained high-risk team. These teams are trained on preventing escalation and monitoring the situation to make sure that the offender is abiding by the terms of a protection order. A violation of the order can itself signal danger; it shows that the offender is disregarding authority, pushing the limits of the legal system.

Leaving is the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship. This means that divorce, which signals that she is leaving, is an inherently dangerous time because she is seeking independence from the control of a person who believes that he owns her. We need to be on high alert whenever threats to kill are made in the context of a divorce or separation.

What can we do?

First, change your thinking about domestic violence being a private family issue. The isolation imposed intentionally by an abuser increases the victim’s vulnerability. Thus, we need to counter this isolation by surrounding a victim with support, resources and attention. Think of it as a neighborhood watch program, something that you might initiate to fight other types of crime in your area.

Second, find a self-defense course that is offered either by your local police department or privately and take a victim to a class. This action is likely easier than convincing her that she is in an abusive situation and needs help exiting. Learning self-defense will give her essential tools psychologically and physically to help her stand her ground and protect herself.

Third, create a group of people to support the victim when she goes to court or to the police. The system clearly isn’t working, yet the enforcement of laws on the books could work if actually used.

For example, if a danger assessment was performed in this case, Andrei Kisliak would have been in jail or on GPS monitoring. If he were on GPS monitoring, perhaps police would have known of his violations and taken them seriously. But he violated the order of protection and posted bail. Police knew, and still no measures were taken to contain him. This sent the message to Vera Kisliak that the system was not going to help in any consistent or effective way to protect her, that she was on her own to combat a monster.

Groups of citizens accompanying a victim to the police station sends the message that we have eyes on the system. It doesn’t work without this pressure. We have the right and responsibility to demand law enforcement of orders of protection.

Standing with Vera Kisliak might have made the difference between life and death for her, her children and her mother-in-law. Let’s change our noninterventionist attitudes on domestic violence into knowledge that we can make a difference, just by showing up.

Diane Rosenfeld is the author of “The Bonobo Sisterhood: Revolution Through Female Alliance” and teaches at Harvard Law School.
___
©2022 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.