Both are supposed to protect a woman. One actually works . . . and it comes in pink.
Posted on 08/30/2010 1:25:35 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault
BAY VILLAGE, Ohio -- A 40-year-old Bay Village woman asphyxiated Saturday was the third woman slain in the past five weeks after receiving a restraining order intended to keep her spouse away from her.
The Cuyahoga County coroner's office ruled Sunday that Mary Rothgery was killed by asphyxiation and that her husband, Michael Rothgery, 42, died of a self-inflected gunshot wound to the head. A spokesman said the case is being investigated as a murder-suicide.
Homicides committed by intimate partners are the seventh leading cause of death for women, according to the U.S. Justice Department. That risk increases when a victim pursues a separation or divorce, files a criminal domestic-violence charge or simply moves out of the home, The Plain Dealer reported earlier this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.cleveland.com ...
This is the site( Bay Village) of the very famous Dr Sam Sheppard murder.
I especially hate the ones who kill all the loved ones and then do themselves in. Why not just start with themselves and see who else wants to follow that gig?
Victims and losers attacking. Sucks IMO.
Poor lady. Restraining orders are made out of paper, and I have never seen one that could stop a bullet, or a madman determined to kill. Women: GET A GUN AND KNOW HOW TO USE IT!
Restraining orders are worthless. They are really only useful for women that want to make their ex’s life a living hell and in ensuring she gets the kids (a long with the child support). Any man that wants to take out his ex will simply ignore these things and I would make the argument that putting a RO on him could push more than a few men over the edge.
By the way, it’s not just women that are getting wacked, http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/manchester_man_was_beaten_to_d.html.
It would be interesting to know how many women have been attacked after obtaining restraining orders. You have very sound advice regarding protection. Besides, no document will ever protect anyone from somebody hell bent on a mission.
You’re right, I meant to say people attacked instead of women. I’ve seen lots of cases recently where crazy women attack...and they’re ruthless.
Like all laws aimed at preventing possible improper future behavior a restraining order is largely worthless when issued against those who most need restraint (such as criminals and lunatics).
The very first things the cops will ask is "Is there a restraining order?" Without one, they'll say, "There's nothing we can do until he does something."
BTW, I'm with you on the gun.
“get a gun (and some intensive training) or a full-time body guard. They often set the guy off.”
A lot of guys don’t like women with guns, or they get jealous of the bodyguard. Oh, wait a minute...;)
Cops outghta have “loaners.” Little .38 Lady Smiths. Hand ‘em the restraining order, a pistol, and 100 rounds of ammo. Send ‘em from the court room to the range. Teach her safe handling, then set up a target 5 meters away and have her blast at it with 70 rounds.
Send her home with the target and tell her to post it on her front door...
On the flipside, lots of men choose lunatic women out of spiteful rebellion. Much like my own Dad.
These women need to go into full combat mode, buy and learn to use a weapon, and take responsibility for themselves. To depend upon cops or the courts to protect us is suicide. “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.”
I moved to Bay Village before my high-school year. By that time, the guidance counselor at the high school was living in Sheppard’s (sp?)old house. That was one of the most remarkable instances of a press (in this case, the Cleveland Press, which went out of business several years later) exerting a vendetta that I have ever seen.
In fact it was never clear what actually happened. Did an unknown invader come up from the lake (Erie) and kill his wife, or ...? By the time I was there, my high-school guidance counselor was having to put up with “tourists” showing up in front of the house and taking pictures, asking if they could come into the house and take pictures (!) and other stuff.
This event as I recall served as the “seed” for a popular TV show (The Fugitive) and I think a later movie.
The killer was a one armed guy. Everyone knows that! ;-)
I knew of a judge who put an end to this nonsense. When a woman got a restraining order, she also got a bench order requiring her to be armed. The judge even kicked in and gave her a gun and ammo if she was poor. She had to carry the gun and bench order with her in public as well.
Before, he would see women several times, beaten up more each time and some even killed. After he started ordering them to be armed, returns dropped to zero.
When the police found out what he was doing, they offered free gun training lessons to the women. They thought it was a smashing good idea.
And the zinger was that there was also no case of a women actually having to shoot her ex. Just being able to was enough.
Both are supposed to protect a woman. One actually works . . . and it comes in pink.
The very first things the cops will ask is "Is there a restraining order?" Without one, they'll say, "There's nothing we can do until he does something."
The truth of the matter is that even with a restraining order, and even after he's done something, the police can refuse to immediately enforce the order/investigate the case.
That isn't to say that the police will stand there and watch a crime being committed, but once one has been committed (the ex visits the home in violation of the order, or the ex takes the children in violation of an order) the police are not obligated to drop everything and attempt to fix things for the RO holder. Having a RO doesn't push the holder to the front of the line.
This happened right up the road from me, and ended up at the Supreme Court. A woman called the local police after her ex (she has a RO) had come to the house & taken their 3 children in violation of the order. She called the police who told them that there was nothing that they could do at the time. She called again after the ex had called to say that he was in Denver (30 minutes away) with the kids at an amusement park. Despite her pleas, the police did not try to arrest or even locate him.
That afternoon, he drove to the police station in the town and started a gun battle with the cops. The police shot and killed him. The corpses of the three little girls were found in the vehicle.
The mother sued, insisting that if the police had done their job, her kids would still be alive. It went all the way to the Supreme Court & in 2005, they found that there was no obligation created by the RO to have it take precedence over other crimes and that there is no personal right to police protection.
The case is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and as the Wikipedia article about it notes, it was the latest of a long line of decisions which held that the police are not obliged to prevent harm from occurring.
BTW, I'm with you on the gun.
I couldn't agree more. ROs assume everyone is sane and rational. Of course, if everyone is sane and rational, why do you need a RO? In my mind, the need to have one automatically means that there is a need to defend oneself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
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.