Get a 20 gauge shot gun with some buck shot and learn how to use it!
Posted on 12/02/2010 12:31:09 PM PST by FreeManDC
Consider Grace Krejci of West Allis, Wis., who took out a restraining order on her separated husband. Last week the deranged man broke into her house because their five-year-old son hadn’t been picked up at school. Minutes later Grace lay dead of a bullet wound.
Toni Brown of Washington, DC, had an order of protection, believing that would ward off the escalating threats by her former live-in girlfriend. Then a late-night attack rendered her respirator-dependent, thanks to a close-range gunshot in the back of her neck.
Abused men also have been victimized by these legal devices — like Mauricio Droguett, who was fatally stabbed by his ex-wife in an Iowa shopping mall, despite the existence of a restraining order cradled in his pocket.
Maybe it’s time for a sanity check.
By what crazy logic do persons believe that inscribing the words “Order of Protection” on a sheet of 20-pound paper is going to deter a would-be assailant who is intent on maiming his or her victim?
How can judges dole out such orders when no research shows they do any good in stopping violence?
And when persons with restraining orders keep getting assaulted, what possesses lawmakers to enact even more laws designed to make these flawed tools widely available?
Samuel Goldberg, a Boston attorney who specializes in partner abuse cases, notes that restraining orders are awarded so casually that “this is why they are not taken as seriously as they should be.” The Independent Women’s Forum likewise decries these legal tropes as “lulling women into a false sense of security.”
Restraining orders not only are ineffective, they can also escalate partner conflict. In its Family Legal Guide, the American Bar Association warns, “a court order might even add to the [alleged offender’s] rage.”
This wrath is understandable in light of the fact that some women use restraining orders as a weapon to harass and entrap unwary men.
Consider the Panama City, Fla., woman who took out a restraining order against her ex-husband. On November 17 she was ordered to appear in court for a child support hearing. Fearful she might be incarcerated, she texted her husband, pleading that he attend the proceeding so their 18-month-old daughter would be taken care of.
As soon as the father stepped into the courtroom, the conniving woman advised the court of the injunction, occasioning his immediate arrest.
It turns out that misuse of restraining orders is widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has admitted, “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply…In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”
A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic restraining orders issued in that state. The survey found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. And a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false.
So if restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, what can abuse victims who fear for their lives do to protect themselves?
In the Panama City case, the husband showed the deputy the text message on his cell phone and the wife was arrested.
FYI Toni.......it's a PIECE OF PAPER!
Does that question really even need to be asked?
Get a 20 gauge shot gun with some buck shot and learn how to use it!
With my psycho ex, I quickly figured out I’d better back up the restraining order with a shotgun.
A. Exhonerate whoever takes care of the object of restraint. and
B. indicate a crime has taken place in the event of violence by the person the order is against just being near the victim.
No, it doesn't protect you physically, but it gives you some legal leeway in the event you or another must employ force. It also makes it easier to punish the person if they hurt or kill you anyway.
It's a good suplement to a side arm.
1. Some people, not all of them female, believe that if an abusive person knows he runs the risk of arrest, he will do nothing to increase the likelihood of arrest. If we are dealing with calm, law-abiding people, this is probably true. The threat of arrest may protect a person from being mildly harassed by some innocent but harmless lovestruck soul who does not realize that persistence can equal harassment.
2. In many jurisdictions, the cops can do more to protect someone who has a restraining order on file than someone who just calls 911 out of the blue and says “this guy is bothering me, come and arrest him.” The restraining order permits them to act far more swiftly and decisively. In the area where I live, anyone who complains of harassment, stalking, or endangerment is required to seek a restraining order. This is in a sense a protection for the accused, because it means that both parties must appear in court before a judge, who can make some determination about whether (for instance) an innocent man is being accused by a vindictive wife.
3. Anybody of either sex who is really being threatened would be insane not to obtain a gun and undertake serious firearms training, spend lots of time on the range, make real security upgrades to his/her home, and let the perp know that s/he will blow his/her head off. Keep a weapon on you and be prepared to use it whether your state allows you to or not; it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
I am very glad that more and more people, especially women, are getting weapons and seeking formal firearms instruction. They realize that the best police force in the world can’t always be there for them, round the clock. You can’t depend on government to solve all your problems for you.
How long did it take you to figure out he was a psycho?
Hm. Gosh, that's a puzzler. So hard to figure out. Let me think. (think think think.) Okay, here's an idea: how about obtaining a big-ass gun and blowing the perp's head off if he tries to kill you?
Just a suggestion.
Restraining Orders = The Fiat Currency of Protection
Yup... for men, its another example of how the courts enforce women’s wishes on them. And when you consider fewer than half the cases involve allegations of domestic violence, men feel free to show their contempt for the court and police taking sides (against them) in a domestic dispute.
>>FYI Toni.......it’s a PIECE OF PAPER!<<
Goodbye Earl.
...But Earl walked right through that restraining order
And put her in intensive care...
I hate to admit it, but Chixy Dix songs often have really good lyrics.
I began to suspect it .7 seconds after he told me the only way he’d feel comfortable remarrying was if I was dead. lol
Later events only confirmed my amateur diagnosis. ;)
Panama City is still sane. I laughed harder at an interview with Joe Francis (owner of the “Girls Gone Wild” production company) than I’ve ever laughed at a news story. He was talking all this stuff about the 1st amendment and on a high horse, and said that the Panama City sheriff told him that if he came to Panama City with Girls Gone Wild he’d be arrested for pornography and underage violations. The interviewer said something like “so did you go?” and he said “yes.” And then the interviewer asked “and what happened” and he said, with this shocked look like he’d been wronged “They arrested me!”
>>“Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply…<<
Yep. For my divorce in 1997, my ex got a restraining order as a matter of course. There were no allegations of anything. No history. No nothing. It was a case of, “if you kick a guy out of his house with no prior notice he might get angry and do something”.
Actually, it was almost funny - and very, very sad.
Restraining orders prove their own irrelevance. If they work, it means they weren’t needed. If they don’t work, it means they are infective.
In either case, they are irrelevant and worthless.
>>So if restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, what can abuse victims who fear for their lives do to protect themselves?<<
I can only assume that is a rhetorical question. Either that or the author is a complete idiot.
I know that there must be other situations in which if one is going to kill barely nothing can stop them.
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.