Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is wrong with this story?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is wrong with this story?

    You read the story, then post what you think is wrong here.

    https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/in...7-1a441af1399e
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    They could use a better proof-writer.

    But sounds like any one of a dozen cases I've personally worked.

    Words on paper simply do not constrain some people's actions. That is a fact.

    And in the Untied States, you cannot deprive a citizen of any of his or her personal freedoms without due process.

    In the old days, we would have advised the wife to get better locks and purchase a firearm. These days, you list only the PC options because you can't say stuff like that.

    They did go the extra step and warn her that a protective order could be a triggering event. Myself, I think POs/ROs are a liability in cases involving abusers.

    Every day thousands of ex-wives and GFs accuse men of being insane, violent, abusive, predatory, and/or a risk. The jails would explode if we took 10% of the cases seriously.

    But as in everything, 0.5% are true.

    The first line of protection, and the surest one, is that which you provide for yourself.

    For the 100th time, UH: you cannot incarcerate someone for being crazy. That's why Mountain Man has roamed free his entire life.

    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Even though he held a gun to her head at one time?
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #4
        Really a great link.

        "Access denied"
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          Even though he held a gun to her head at one time?


          Maybe I missed it, but the comment was “he held a gun to her in the past”. It seems that comment was made by another person, not the victim prior to the crime. So, it is questionable whether she ever complained of that to the police or what happened if she did.
          Regardless, AJR is right.
          While everyone knew this guy was crazy and might do something, you can’t put people in jail for what they “might” do in the future.
          If that were the standard, we would all be in jail.

          As for holding a gun to her, the article says the police weren’t able to substantiate a crime on some of her past complaints. If there was evidence he threatened her with a gun and she agreed to press charges, he should have been arrested. The fact that he was not, tells me there is more to that part of the story.

          Orders of protection have some value, but they cannot control the behavior of deranged people.
          And until he commits an actual crime, unfortunately there is little that can be done.

          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            Even though he held a gun to her head at one time?
            What Cambronne said.

            As always, there's that pesky Bill of Rights getting involved.

            In police work there's what you've been told, what you know, and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Only the third one really matters.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, the woman probably should have made her plight known to more than a few persons.
              ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
              IN MARE IN COELO

              Comment


              • #8
                How does this work with prospective "red flag" laws? Basically, you're restricting someone's rights because of what they "might" do.
                https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...103-story.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                  How does this work with prospective "red flag" laws? Basically, you're restricting someone's rights because of what they "might" do.
                  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...103-story.html
                  It won't work.

                  If a man will ignore the stature against murder and a court order against contact, he'll ignore an order to hand over his weapons.

                  I've gotten these sorts of orders in the past, but the huge problem is, you have no idea if the subject has any guns, or how many he has.

                  All the 'red flag' laws do, before they get struck down by higher courts, is make politicians look like they are doing something when in effect they are doing nothing.

                  No one knows how many guns are in the USA, or who has them.

                  Even if you get lucky and get all the subject's guns, the order does nothing to stop him from making a private purchase of another, an illegal purchase, borrowing one, or stealing one.

                  Or going old-school and going after her with a edged weapon, which happened in a case I was part of.

                  When a man sets his mind to murder, you are not going to stop him with a court order, no matter what the order says.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    They could use a better proof-writer.

                    But sounds like any one of a dozen cases I've personally worked.

                    Words on paper simply do not constrain some people's actions. That is a fact.

                    And in the Untied States, you cannot deprive a citizen of any of his or her personal freedoms without due process.

                    In the old days, we would have advised the wife to get better locks and purchase a firearm. These days, you list only the PC options because you can't say stuff like that.

                    They did go the extra step and warn her that a protective order could be a triggering event. Myself, I think POs/ROs are a liability in cases involving abusers.

                    Every day thousands of ex-wives and GFs accuse men of being insane, violent, abusive, predatory, and/or a risk. The jails would explode if we took 10% of the cases seriously.

                    But as in everything, 0.5% are true.

                    The first line of protection, and the surest one, is that which you provide for yourself.

                    For the 100th time, UH: you cannot incarcerate someone for being crazy. That's why Mountain Man has roamed free his entire life.
                    If you are accusing me of being an insane murderer, you had better come up immediately with concrete proof.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IMO , both the victims (new husband and wife) should have been armed to the teeth. At least they would have a fighting chance.
                      Obviously theo lything that stopped this POS was a bullet
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                        How does this work with prospective "red flag" laws? Basically, you're restricting someone's rights because of what they "might" do.
                        https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...103-story.html
                        Domestic cases are a real challenge. As witnessed by this and so many cases, the only legal option is to do what this woman did, get a restraining order which triggered her and her new husbands demise.
                        There isn’t a cop alive who hasn’t seen this rodeo. As AJR mentioned, the ever increasing PC movement has restricted what police can do.
                        Now they cannot even advise the victim to arm themselves.
                        Pre Miranda cops could have offered some incentives for the perpetrator to stop his harassment. But those days, for better or worse are long gone.
                        Last edited by Urban hermit; 14 Jan 19, 10:13.
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No wonder zombie movies are a thing.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                            It won't work.

                            If a man will ignore the stature against murder and a court order against contact, he'll ignore an order to hand over his weapons.

                            I've gotten these sorts of orders in the past, but the huge problem is, you have no idea if the subject has any guns, or how many he has.

                            All the 'red flag' laws do, before they get struck down by higher courts, is make politicians look like they are doing something when in effect they are doing nothing.

                            No one knows how many guns are in the USA, or who has them.

                            Even if you get lucky and get all the subject's guns, the order does nothing to stop him from making a private purchase of another, an illegal purchase, borrowing one, or stealing one.

                            Or going old-school and going after her with a edged weapon, which happened in a case I was part of.

                            When a man sets his mind to murder, you are not going to stop him with a court order, no matter what the order says.


                            Absolutely right.
                            It provides the appearance of doing something, rather than any real benefit.

                            Red flag laws are all the rage right now, but they aren't likely to accomplish anything.

                            Deranged people already don't comply with the orders of protection, why would they cooperate with one that says turn in your guns?

                            I conduct hearings for orders of protection.
                            The order explicitly provides that the defendant is not to contact the other person in any way, shape or form after he receives the order.
                            In the vast majority of cases, the first thing the defendant will do after getting the order is to contact the person asking why she did that.
                            If they won't cooperate with that aspect, I doubt any will turn their guns in.

                            But it makes good political theater .
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                              Absolutely right.
                              It provides the appearance of doing something, rather than any real benefit.

                              Red flag laws are all the rage right now, but they aren't likely to accomplish anything.

                              Deranged people already don't comply with the orders of protection, why would they cooperate with one that says turn in your guns?

                              I conduct hearings for orders of protection.
                              The order explicitly provides that the defendant is not to contact the other person in any way, shape or form after he receives the order.
                              In the vast majority of cases, the first thing the defendant will do after getting the order is to contact the person asking why she did that.
                              If they won't cooperate with that aspect, I doubt any will turn their guns in.

                              But it makes good political theater .
                              But addressing this particular case, not political theater, but a situation that continued to escalate over several years, with many occasions for police intervention, which ended with a four hour hostage situation that placed police and citizens at risk, what if anything could have been handled better?
                              If the victim is unwilling to press charges the police can do little under current law.
                              This is why I am a proponent of a well armed citizenry, capable of defending oneself.
                              Police can not guarantee anyone’s safety.
                              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X