Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is wrong with this story?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    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 anyoneís safety.
    I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
    The best protection is to protect yourself.

    An order of protection only works if the defendant cooperates.
    If he does not, then the crime of "Violation of an order of protection" will be included in his other charges.

    In the event the defendant causes great harm to the victim, then the "Violation" charge will mean nothing as it is only a class A misdemeanor. At least in Illinois.
    People who commit murders aren't concerned about misdemeanor charges.

    I tell every woman who gets an order of protection from me, that the order really won't stop someone intent on harming her.
    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


    • #17
      One of the major flaws of all of our laws is that they are specifically intended for those of us who still obey the paws. Those that don't ignore them as they always have, making them fairly useless as a preventative. That's why more laws won't change anything - they'll still be ignored as before.

      Solution? Too draconian to even consider in this day and age, and history clearly shows us that laws haven't made any difference to many people since they were first conceived. There will always be a certain percentage that just do as they please.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        I think that you have hit the nail on the head.
        The best protection is to protect yourself.

        An order of protection only works if the defendant cooperates.
        If he does not, then the crime of "Violation of an order of protection" will be included in his other charges.

        In the event the defendant causes great harm to the victim, then the "Violation" charge will mean nothing as it is only a class A misdemeanor. At least in Illinois.
        People who commit murders aren't concerned about misdemeanor charges.

        I tell every woman who gets an order of protection from me, that the order really won't stop someone intent on harming her.
        An order of protection works only if the person it is against wants to abide by it. If you are dealing with a criminal, it isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's just another, minor, crime on their record. The most likely outcome is that charge is dropped in a plea deal anyway. So, there's no threat in it whatsoever for someone who has criminal intent, or doesn't care if they're arrested.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          If you are accusing me of being an insane murderer, you had better come up immediately with concrete proof.
          Uncaught murderers are by nature clever. You're clear.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            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.
            There it is. Right after his own lawyer, if he had one, told him not to contact her, the officer serving the order told him not to, the judge in the case (if there was a hearing) told him not to, and the written court order expressly ordered him not to contact her.

            Here's the thing about abusers: in their world, they are the victims, set upon and persecuted by forces beyond their control. But at the core of their being, they can cope and maintain pride because they are in control of their home/family/relationship.

            When their partner tries to leave, that core, that last bastion of light in a world of darkness and hostility, is threatened. That makes them desperate men.

            Eventually most cut their losses and move on to other partners, but a few, like this man, fight to the bitter end. When he couldn't get his wife back, he decided to 'win' the divorce, a scorched earth policy to show the world that he was not beaten, that he mattered.

            The court order and the threat of custody interference was a trigger event: 'they' were conspiring with his ex to inflict complete defeat upon him.

            Unable to prevail, he chose to make a stand, to go down fighting rather than be crushed by unjust forces beyond his control.

            That is his reality. These are men who express most emotions as anger, whose frustration is always simmering beneath the surface, who feel unjustly put upon by the government, society, culture, and so forth. They are not insane (usually), but they are driven to desperation.

            And desperate men do desperate things.

            You cannot stop these sort of men with legal processes, because such actions simply confirms and validates their world view.

            The only hope is that the ex can physically get beyond the abuser's reach; then he can claim a victory, cool off, and see out another mate with whom to start the process over.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

              There it is. Right after his own lawyer, if he had one, told him not to contact her, the officer serving the order told him not to, the judge in the case (if there was a hearing) told him not to, and the written court order expressly ordered him not to contact her.

              Here's the thing about abusers: in their world, they are the victims, set upon and persecuted by forces beyond their control. But at the core of their being, they can cope and maintain pride because they are in control of their home/family/relationship.

              When their partner tries to leave, that core, that last bastion of light in a world of darkness and hostility, is threatened. That makes them desperate men.

              Eventually most cut their losses and move on to other partners, but a few, like this man, fight to the bitter end. When he couldn't get his wife back, he decided to 'win' the divorce, a scorched earth policy to show the world that he was not beaten, that he mattered.

              The court order and the threat of custody interference was a trigger event: 'they' were conspiring with his ex to inflict complete defeat upon him.

              Unable to prevail, he chose to make a stand, to go down fighting rather than be crushed by unjust forces beyond his control.

              That is his reality. These are men who express most emotions as anger, whose frustration is always simmering beneath the surface, who feel unjustly put upon by the government, society, culture, and so forth. They are not insane (usually), but they are driven to desperation.

              And desperate men do desperate things.

              You cannot stop these sort of men with legal processes, because such actions simply confirms and validates their world view.

              The only hope is that the ex can physically get beyond the abuser's reach; then he can claim a victory, cool off, and see out another mate with whom to start the process over.
              well said
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                There it is. Right after his own lawyer, if he had one, told him not to contact her, the officer serving the order told him not to, the judge in the case (if there was a hearing) told him not to, and the written court order expressly ordered him not to contact her.

                Here's the thing about abusers: in their world, they are the victims, set upon and persecuted by forces beyond their control. But at the core of their being, they can cope and maintain pride because they are in control of their home/family/relationship.

                When their partner tries to leave, that core, that last bastion of light in a world of darkness and hostility, is threatened. That makes them desperate men.

                Eventually most cut their losses and move on to other partners, but a few, like this man, fight to the bitter end. When he couldn't get his wife back, he decided to 'win' the divorce, a scorched earth policy to show the world that he was not beaten, that he mattered.

                The court order and the threat of custody interference was a trigger event: 'they' were conspiring with his ex to inflict complete defeat upon him.

                Unable to prevail, he chose to make a stand, to go down fighting rather than be crushed by unjust forces beyond his control.

                That is his reality. These are men who express most emotions as anger, whose frustration is always simmering beneath the surface, who feel unjustly put upon by the government, society, culture, and so forth. They are not insane (usually), but they are driven to desperation.

                And desperate men do desperate things.

                You cannot stop these sort of men with legal processes, because such actions simply confirms and validates their world view.

                The only hope is that the ex can physically get beyond the abuser's reach; then he can claim a victory, cool off, and see out another mate with whom to start the process over.
                Itís the ďif I canít have you nobody canĒ syndrome. And in many cases, such as this one, nothing else mattered to the perpetrator.
                In his head killing himself after killing his victims is the ultimate victory. Nobody can mess with him now.
                Getting a restraining order is the worst thing the ex-wife could have done, obviously.
                Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  In his head killing himself after killing his victims is the ultimate victory. Nobody can mess with him now.
                  Getting a restraining order is the worst thing the ex-wife could have done, obviously.
                  Pretty much.

                  I've had countless hours talking with others in the system about this issue, and there simply isn't any good way to handle it. Any act on the part of the authorities simply feeds his world view.

                  These are generally not men in criminal lifestyles where you can exert leverage through conventional police power; they're otherwise ordinary men with jobs, frequently with no criminal record or habits.

                  And they are often slow-building: this drama officially started in 2011, but it had an abusive relationship before that. The divorce was final in 2015. It's hard to convince a judge that a guy is a ticking time bomb when it's been going on for eight years.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This has become one of the triggers for work place violence and one of the threats we have to train for constantly.
                    We just had a similar situation, a employees wife had to get a restraining order on her ex husband, he had been harassing them, escalated to stalking. Approaching them while at a restaurant, threatening them in public places, damaging property,
                    then last summer he went into a rage and ended up in a high speed chase that went through several counties, three hours later he crashed and was attested.
                    We average three or four of these situations where a restraining order is issued, and Iím serious we even had two employees who had so much animosity between them there was a restraining order issued, and they work in the same building.
                    But we worked it out, turns out loosing your salary is leverage.
                    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      This has become one of the triggers for work place violence and one of the threats we have to train for constantly.
                      We just had a similar situation, a employees wife had to get a restraining order on her ex husband, he had been harassing them, escalated to stalking. Approaching them while at a restaurant, threatening them in public places, damaging property,
                      then last summer he went into a rage and ended up in a high speed chase that went through several counties, three hours later he crashed and was attested.
                      We average three or four of these situations where a restraining order is issued, and Iím serious we even had two employees who had so much animosity between them there was a restraining order issued, and they work in the same building.
                      But we worked it out, turns out loosing your salary is leverage.
                      Yeah, people get wrapped up in the strangest ways.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                        Yeah, people get wrapped up in the strangest ways.
                        One of the problems is when romance blooms between employees. There should be a law!
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                          One of the problems is when romance blooms between employees. There should be a law!
                          I met my wife on the job.

                          But yeah, it creates more problems than good relationships, on the average. But every agency I served in had at least one officer marrying a dispatcher...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                            I met my wife on the job.

                            But yeah, it creates more problems than good relationships, on the average. But every agency I served in had at least one officer marrying a dispatcher...
                            I met my wife at work too, 37 years ago, and she remembers every detail.....
                            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                              I met my wife at work too, 37 years ago, and she remembers every detail.....
                              They do that. If I had known that every word and deed during the early dating period would be used against me for the rest of my life, I would have been more of a gentleman...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                                They do that. If I had known that every word and deed during the early dating period would be used against me for the rest of my life, I would have been more of a gentleman...
                                Mine saw me tear her ex- apart in court over child support, among other things. Nothing like knowing she doesn't want to be on the street penniless to make things easy...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X