Really!!! You get the Master of Obvious award
Posted on 06/28/2008 11:02:15 AM PDT by Coleus
A man being sought for shooting and killing his estranged wife to death while she watched one of their children swim at a Montclair YMCA had been ordered in October to have no contact with her. Kenneth A. Duckett was under a restraining order that specified no contact with Monica Paul, but allowed him to have visitation rights with their two children, said Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office. "Basically, it was like a curbside drop-off," Loriquet said.
The couple had separated in August, but it was unclear when they had married. Paul, 31, obtained a temporary restraining order in October, and it was made final later that month, Loriquet said. Paul was with the children at the "Y" last night. As she waited in a poolside where their 4-year-old son was swimming, Duckett approached and shot her several times in front of their 11-year-old daughter, authorities said.
Duckett fled in a white Jeep with another man, and the vehicle was later found in Orange, where the 37-year-old Duckett lived. Police are still looking for Duckett. Witnesses told police that the shooter approached Paul and that the two had a short conversation before he opened fire.
Authorities credited YMCA members and employees with pulling Paul’s children out of harm’s way as the shots were fired. The children were in the care of relatives last night, they said. “We’ve been advised there has been a history of violence between these individuals,” said Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow. “Obviously it tells you that with a final restraining order, it still does not prevent horrific things like this.” Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura offered a reward of $5,000 for information leading to the arrest of Duckett and his alleged accomplice.
That only works for a short time, eventually you rack up a credit record in your new residence. Anyone can find you with an online search. So make sure they find you in a gun-friendly state. :)
I don't care what you know, what you carry or how well trained you are. There are things you can do to minimize threats but when evil wants you bad enough then you are done. I certainly think she could have taken other steps to protect herself but the fault lies with her ex.
RO’s do serve one purpose - if you DO have to blow away the subject of the RO, there isn’t even any question about whether you feared for your life or not. If you hadn’t feared for your life, you wouldn’t have gotten an RO, right? That’s the logic, and even libs won’t argue with that much.
Also, wasn’t the Lautenberg Amendment supposed to stop this sort of thing? Subjects of ROs not allowed to have guns? US. v. Emerson? Looks like gun control failed again. Anyone surprised?
Really!!! You get the Master of Obvious award
I was born and raised in Montclair and swam in that pool many times.
This kind of stuff didn’t happen then, although I will point out that one of the very first Post Office multi-shootings occurred in Upper Montclair. Early 90’s I’m thinking.
If the State of New Jersey had recognized this woman's constitutionally protected individual right to "bear arms" then she might be alive today.
Montclair is one of those few towns where “the other side of the tracks” has a literal meaning.
I sent a very strongly worded letter to the Star-Ledger yesterday, discussing precisely these points -- we'll see if they print it...
The system has been set up to allow parents rights to see their children no matter what. Even if a man beats his wife in front of his kids, the court will not stop him from seeing the kids unless he has beaten the kids and it is proven (pretty much multiple witnesses and he is convicted with it.) It doesn’t matter what he does, or even pays child support, he is welcome to see his kids (I am using a generic “he” here. My brother-in-law raised his kids and his ex-wife is the loser.)
When my coworker left her abusive ex-husband in upstate New York in the 70’s, she packed her kids in the car and drove to Southern California. He didn’t see the kids again until they were teenagers (and then they found out what kind-of guy he was and cut off ties from him.) A restraining order isn’t going to save you if you have to stay in the same town and have some recognizable habits you keep with the kids. True, in the internet age, it’s harder to hide from someone, but it’s easier than staying in the same town, and taking the kids to the same places regularly.
I know I might get flamed, and I also know that there are people who would abuse it if the laws changed. I also know of many people whose exes should not have any more control of their life but unfortunately do.
Nice of you to try though.
More proof that laws have absolutely no power to constrain somebody, unless they’re behind bars.
your #21
If I had the choice, it would be either Montana or Kennesaw, GA.
PA works too. Lots of space to SSS. ;)
I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
_____________________________________________
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass kickin’.
John Steinbeck issued a warning that all should remember:
"Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
>If the State of New Jersey had recognized this woman’s constitutionally protected individual right to “bear arms” then she might be alive today.<
You know, I have been reading this nonsense for years and I have had enough. Anyone who lives in fear of another man and doesn’t have the guts and brains to arm themselves with the proper tools to remedy the situation is stupid. Yes, stupid. To think that you would let some state official hundreds of miles away from the situation determine whether you should carry a concealed firearm is ridiculous! Being alive is a much better choice than being dead. If you have to break a law to protect yourself, then for chrissakes do it!
Well I like girls with southern accents, as long as it’s not too drawn out.
It might seem like an easy decision for you, but here, where we are essentially living in a police state and are all constantly coming into contact with law enforcement, it's not quite as simple as you make it sound. If you feel otherwise when you come to our state, by all means let me know, and I'll come visit you in prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.