I don't believe that.
If this was so, we wouldn't see cases of stalking.
After Christmas, take out a restraining order on me. Scan it and show me.
Restraining Order filed against David Letterman
- Thread starter BobK
- Start date
I don't believe that.
If this was so, we wouldn't see cases of stalking.
After Christmas, take out a restraining order on me. Scan it and show me.
True. I've done it.
The problem is getting the order enforced.
These things are called "Temporary Restraining Orders". Easy to get. To make them permanent you need to have proof. I suspect that this order will not become permanent.
BTW, I suspect that the cost would be >500 <1500 USD so don't look for an order on yourself anytime soon.
Beady
Philosopher
I can't believe that most countries don't have a similar process.
One might say "even so, common sense would dictate...." thus and such but I suspect that on more than one occasion a judge used his discretion with dire consequences so it is fairer and easier and safer to just grant a TRO and let the hearing for permanence get to the details.
There is something about onerousness too. I mean if this chick wanted a 3000 mile ban then I doubt it would have been granted.
One might say "even so, common sense would dictate...." thus and such but I suspect that on more than one occasion a judge used his discretion with dire consequences so it is fairer and easier and safer to just grant a TRO and let the hearing for permanence get to the details.
There is something about onerousness too. I mean if this chick wanted a 3000 mile ban then I doubt it would have been granted.
Are these temporary restraining order enforcable without evidence of stalking? I mean if Letterman runs into this lunatic in a resturant and refuses to leave, can he be tried and sentenced for that? If not then I agree there's little harm in granting automatic restraining orders, but not otherwise.
What, you want me to pay for your evidence?If Claus is willing to reimburse me...
Try Wiki. I did it w/ a lawyer so it was an expensive lesson with no textbooks. You system probably has the same thing.
He is restrained so yes he would have to leave. But the duration is short for these things.
Do you really think that Dave frequents Cafe Woo?
There's little point in a restraining order, if it doesn't have any consequences, or isn't enforced.
It is not just for stalking. Suppose a woman wants to take a child out of the country and the father has visitation rights? He can get a TRO. I'm sure that you can think of other non-stalker situations.
CT actually. But yes, your insight into the failure of the US legal system is quite correct. Dave could be reduced to a square yard of earth and would probably starve to death. Very observent.
Your business partner might empty out the joint account or sell of inventory during the dissolution of your company, a builder might be starting construction on a site that is might be of historical importance, a person might sell a work of art and be in the process of exporting it and title is disputed
and on and on. You probably have a different term for it.
Morrison's Lament
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 271
Where exactly do you live, CFLarsen? You can get a restraining order easier than a prescription for codeine most places I've been. You just show up, ask for it, try not to have any violent outbursts while filling out the paperwork and there ya go.
Doesn't mean anything, though, for reasons stated above. Getting it enforced is a matter of dealing with the police and they certainly won't put up with any "he's winking through the TV!" nonsense.
Restraining orders in Iceland tend to involve impoverished alcoholics and drug users involved in some kind of protracted dispute that escalates into threats or vandalism. In effect the authorities are breaking up the fight.
--- G.
Doesn't mean anything, though, for reasons stated above. Getting it enforced is a matter of dealing with the police and they certainly won't put up with any "he's winking through the TV!" nonsense.
Restraining orders in Iceland tend to involve impoverished alcoholics and drug users involved in some kind of protracted dispute that escalates into threats or vandalism. In effect the authorities are breaking up the fight.
--- G.
Last edited:
Denmark, a true perfect place.
Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
I would hope that speculation and possibility are valid grounds for considering whether I might become dangerous in the future. I collect Japanese and Filipino knives and swords, and my gun collection is extensive enough that should I start claiming that anyone is sending me signals through the television, I hope someone logically admits this behavior is "out of the ordinary" and starts questioning any legal actions I might take.
We don't know this ladies background, and it's likely that the judge didn't bother checking it out either. Is it good policy to simply believe that someone isn't a danger to themselves or others simply because they haven't been "checked out" by a competant authority?
I never said the woman should be locked up, but I fully believe that anyone taking legal action against a TV personality under these circumstances should be "investigated" a little more fully.
Certainly there are mentally-ill people who are no threat to anyone, but in an instance like this - I would like to believe the judge competant enough to delve into this ladies' life a little more to determine the depth of her delusions.
Here is Wiki's take on celebrity stalking
__________
Stalked public figures
Some stalkers have been following celebrities around since the advent of yellow journalism. In some cases, the stalking behaviour in question is quite harmless and does not go to extremes. In other cases, however, the celebrities being targeted:
have to leave their profession for many years while they build a new life (e.g. Andrea Evans); have their homes constantly searched by political authorities when away, while often returning with a house surrounded by bugs and recording devices. They are also forced to live side-by-side with informants. (e.g Vaclav Havel) Are forced to leave the country to avoid being arrested or persecuted. (e.g Alexander Solzhenitsyn). become the victim of violent attacks (Theresa Saldana and Pope John Paul II survived to tell the tale, while others, like John Lennon and Rebecca Schaeffer, did not); or have resulted in dangerous incidents, killing or injuring the victim (e.g. Princess Diana- disputed-- and Viktor Yushchenko-- poisoned but survived).
________
Here is another geocities site that mentions a few ill-fated stalkees:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/2943/stalkers.html
This site outlines the great number of celebrity stalkers that are so apparently prevalent and also details many of the celebrities who have lost their lives to stalkers.
Call me stupid, but I ALWAYS believe it's better to err on the side of caution, and this woman's behavior SHOULD HAVE triggered a more important question in the mind of the judge. Besides, no one is thinking of the innocent victim in this case, David Letterman. Isn't it a bit of a stigma to have a restraining order placed upon one's person, especially when the order is an unwarranted legal document? I fully agree that Letterman's response should be to sue the judge.
Think about it this way - a person you don't even know files a restraining order against you, then ends up dead under mysterious circumstances; when the police find the restraining order, what would be THEIR next logical step?