In our opinion, the reversal of the burden of proof would protect the victims. It is almost equivalent to what we were asking for in the beginning, which was preventive arrest, which would calm down the aggressors.
If you reverse the burden of proof, all of the attention is focused not on the victim but on the aggressor. It's up to him to prove that he is not dangerous. In that way we provide more protection for the victims, and that is very important to us. It's major. This is almost equivalent to preventive arrest. That is what we wanted, but it would never have been deemed constitutional.