Sets Wife on Fire After Protective Order Dismissed

[BPSCG]

I'm sure it's a comfort to Yvette Cade, lying in her hospital bed with burns over 60% of her body, that the judge has been removed from domestic violence cases.

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife? Okay, this bastard didn't try to actually kill his wife until after the protective order had been lifted, but he had been harrassing her despite the order. Sounds like it was just a matter of time before he tried to killed her, order or no.

More.

 

[luchog]

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife? Okay, this bastard didn't try to actually kill his wife until after the protective order had been lifted, but he had been harrassing her despite the order. Sounds like it was just a matter of time before he tried to killed her, order or no.[/URL]

No, if the person is determined to cause harm, a protection order won't stop him. However, it is still valueable in that it creates a "paper trail", it has the person on record as having a history of violent behaviour. It's not a "first offense". It also gives the victim more leverage to deal with the problem before it gets to the point of bodily harm.

Most situations that involve protection orders are escalated slowly. The abuser often violates the order several times in smaller ways before doing something more harmful. In a lot of cases, that will get the person locked up for violating the order before major harm can be done. The major problems occur when the local police refuse to enforce the lesser violations, or when the victim doesn't report the violations.

 

[epepke]

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife? Okay, this bastard didn't try to actually kill his wife until after the protective order had been lifted, but he had been harrassing her despite the order. Sounds like it was just a matter of time before he tried to killed her, order or no.

Dunno.

But I do know that a restraining order is a get-out-of-jail-free card if you kill someone for violating one in Florida.

 

[Tmy]

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife? Sounds like it was just a matter of time before he tried to killed her, order or no.

More.

All laws are essentially pieces of paper. There's nothing really stopping people from killing, speeding, or lying on their tax return. All you can really do is deter the behavior and punish those who break the law.

What would be the alternatve? Punishing people for future crimes they may commit?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Dunno.

But I do know that a restraining order is a get-out-of-jail-free card if you kill someone for violating one in Florida.

Details? I read about some state trying to make it illegal for anyone with a restraining order against them to carry a gun. I think that's really disturbing.

 

[ysabella]

A book called The Gift of Fear, by Gavin de Becker, gives his professional opinion. I gave my copy away, but to summarize what I remember, he says that restraining orders are not very helpful and they often anger the person they are filed against, which often causes them to escalate their violence. Mr. de Becker points out that it is almost always men being violent in these situations, and he credits women with knowing when they are in danger and feels that they should be listened to, when they often are not.

But the restraining order is a step that people in a violent domestic situation are generally required to make before they are taken seriously. In this Maryland case, there was a protective order filed, the husband violated it repeatedly, and nobody seems to have taken this woman's fears seriously. This was a completely predictable and preventable tragedy, and it makes me very sad.

 

[epepke]

Details? I read about some state trying to make it illegal for anyone with a restraining order against them to carry a gun. I think that's really disturbing.

Which details do you want?

Violation of a restraining order is considered a "forcible felony" under Florida law. Lethal force is justifiable under Florida law against someone who is in commission of a forcible felony.

The Florida websites aren't responding now, so I can't quote statutes.

 

[Skeptic]

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife?

Probably. Unless you think that the number of murdered wives would have been the same if all protection orders had been lifted, which seems highly unlikely.

To be sure, if someone if determined to do it, they'll break the law and do it--but it would surely help deter many who are less angry/psychotic.

The laws against murder, you can say with equal logic, never stopped anybody who was really determined to kill someone.

 

[Dancing David]

Details? I read about some state trying to make it illegal for anyone with a restraining order against them to carry a gun. I think that's really disturbing.

This is acommon judicial remedy in Illinois, especialy after the evidentiary hearing.

So you think that it is okay for perps to have firearms?

 

[Dancing David]

This appears to raise a question I'd asked a number of times (maybe even here): Has a court order of protection ever stopped a guy from harming his wife?

Probably. Unless you think that the number of murdered wives would have been the same if all protection orders had been lifted, which seems highly unlikely.

To be sure, if someone if determined to do it, they'll break the law and do it--but it would surely help deter many who are less angry/psychotic.

The laws against murder, you can say with equal logic, never stopped anybody who was really determined to kill someone.

This raises an interesting point, the number of perpetrators who commit domestic violence that are psychotic is very LOW, compared to thier usual propensity to batter family memebrs when psychotic.

The VAST majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are not mentaly ill, they are 'control freaks' who enjoy hurting people.

Orders of protection are very useful, lets us remeber a very important thing about domestic violence, it is systemic on the part of the perpetrator, it involves controlling every espect of the victims life, it is generaly secret and private and the perpetrator does it BECAUSE THEY CAN, most perps are not 'criminal' in the usual sense of the word, they are very concerned about appearances and thier ability to convince people that they are perfectly normal, they depend on keeping up an appearance of normailty to maintain control of thier victims.

Therefore an order of protection can be useful in keeping the perp from physicaly harming the victim.

Now in the five to fiveteen percent where the perp is extremely antisocial , then the order doesn't mean squat, but many victims have found the order to be useful:
1. If the local police respond by making a report and
2. The judge actualy rules that there is a violation.

The best method to help victims would be to just arbitrarily lock up the perps while thier victims sperated from them, but that would violate civil rights big time.

 

[gnome]

This is acommon judicial remedy in Illinois, especialy after the evidentiary hearing.

So you think that it is okay for perps to have firearms?

I have to argue as a logical point, that someone with a restraining order on them is not necessarily a perp.

That said, I am a firm believer in restraining orders should the occasion be appropriate. It gives the victim a justification for having the person removed if they show up harassing. While in some spectacular cases the violator shows up shooting, I suspect in the majority of cases the restraining order was broken without violence--and so intervention can come without violence.

To refuse a restraining order because "he might get mad and kill you" seems like giving in to fear. The anger is for a reason--they're angry because it is now very difficult for them to victimize their target.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Which details do you want?

Violation of a restraining order is considered a "forcible felony" under Florida law. Lethal force is justifiable under Florida law against someone who is in commission of a forcible felony.

The Florida websites aren't responding now, so I can't quote statutes.

If you're talking about the "Stand Your Ground" law, I think that you're reading too much into it. But it is ridiculous that violating a restraining order is classified as a felony. Just restraining orders themselves are a mockery of the Constitution. There's no justification at all for making it a felony.

This is acommon judicial remedy in Illinois, especialy after the evidentiary hearing.

"Remedy"? Taking away someone's constitutional rights is a remedy for someone being scared?

So you think that it is okay for perps to have firearms?

"Perp" is a rather vague term, having no precise meaning. You might as well ask "Do you think it's okay to have sinister individuals possess firearms?"

 

[Dancing David]

I have to argue as a logical point, that someone with a restraining order on them is not necessarily a perp.

That said, I am a firm believer in restraining orders should the occasion be appropriate. It gives the victim a justification for having the person removed if they show up harassing. While in some spectacular cases the violator shows up shooting, I suspect in the majority of cases the restraining order was broken without violence--and so intervention can come without violence.

To refuse a restraining order because "he might get mad and kill you" seems like giving in to fear. The anger is for a reason--they're angry because it is now very difficult for them to victimize their target.

While it is true that a small number of orders of proection are granted as a form of harrasment, often by the perpetrators, I was asking why should someone who recieves an order against them not have thier ability to own a fire arm limited.

In Illinois the firearm restriction is never applied in the emergency (non-evidentiary) hearing, usualy it is granted as a result of the plenary hearing, which is one where the recipient of the OP can present evidence and counter the claims of the victim. And in fact firearms are usualy only limited when the judge has a special hearing to do so, even hough the law clearly states that it is meant to be a common remedy in a plenary order of protection.

Considering the threshold it takes to get an order of protection, much less a plenary order, I feel that it is no less a civil rights issue than felons loosing the right to bear arms or people who volunatrily undergo a psychiatric hospitalization.

As a point of fact most judges are very reluctant in Illinois to limit the ability of perps to bear arms, especialy them whats are police officers.

 

[Dancing David]

"Remedy"? Taking away someone's constitutional rights is a remedy for someone being scared?

"Perp" is a rather vague term, having no precise meaning. You might as well ask "Do you think it's okay to have sinister individuals possess firearms?"

The term remedy is the legal one, common remedies are : to order the recipient to not come within 150 feet of the petitioner, to not make phone contact or third party contact.

Your feeling that someone is granted an order just because they are scared is interesting, usualy the judge requires that there be some sort of physical evidence that the petitioner is at risk before granting an OP.

What do you constitutionaly suggest a person do to protect themselves from another person?

Perpetrator is a value added term, but Orders are rarely granted with out good cause.

Why is it when there is a talk about domestic violence everyone gets bent out of shape defending the perps, and they just don't care that 2,000 people are killed every year by thier domestic partners?

There is very little evidence to suggest that orders of protection are abused by victims but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that victims are not being protected.

 

[epepke]

If you're talking about the "Stand Your Ground" law, I think that you're reading too much into it.

No; this was the case long before the "Stand your Ground" law. I last researched this around the middle of the 1990s.

But it is ridiculous that violating a restraining order is classified as a felony.

I'm describing what it is. You're saying that you don't like it. Those are entirely different classes of assertions.

 

[gnome]

Why is it when there is a talk about domestic violence everyone gets bent out of shape defending the perps, and they just don't care that 2,000 people are killed every year by thier domestic partners?

I wouldn't worry so much. Violence against domestic partners surely shocks and affects most of us. People defend perpetrators not because they love the crime or the criminal, but because they love fairness--which I define not as concern for criminals, but as concern for truth and facts.

 

[Dancing David]

I wouldn't worry so much. Violence against domestic partners surely shocks and affects most of us. People defend perpetrators not because they love the crime or the criminal, but because they love fairness--which I define not as concern for criminals, but as concern for truth and facts.

That may be but is continues the cycle of violence and helps to keep the victims in harm's way. I understand that you are a very reasonable person, but not all that make the arguement are.

The perpetrator (regardless of thier gender) has an inordinate amount of power as well:

1. Most people blame the victims from the start.
2. Many law enforcement refuse to intervene (understand-ably so, they get attacked by victims for arresting the perpetrator, the perpetrator has the better story, victims won't testifiy, victims change thier minds)
3. Society supports the perpetrator in controling the victim.

So I find it difficult that people usualy side withe the perpetrator:
1. "It can't be that bad they didn't hit them", no but they choked them to the point of unconsiousness(number one control tactic)
2. "they are just doing it to keep them away from the children.", after they terrified the children on a daily basis.
3. "If they weren't stupid they would just leave".

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

This type of male behavior is something that I could never understand. What is it that drives (and it's usually males), to harm or kill their ex-partners? Is the rationale that "my life is now crap, so I will make your life miserable as well"?

Here in Orlando last week, a police officer killed both of his children (around 8 and 10 IIRC), and then took his own life. There was a pending custody order that would have returned the kids to the seperated mom.

It seems every other week a similar story of a males killing his children and spouse, then committing suicide. It's becoming mundane.

Charlie (a male lost in maleness) Monoxide

 

[gnome]

So I find it difficult that people usualy side withe the perpetrator:
1. "It can't be that bad they didn't hit them", no but they choked them to the point of unconsiousness(number one control tactic)

I would find this an abhorrent argument as well.

2. "they are just doing it to keep them away from the children.", after they terrified the children on a daily basis.

An abhorrent argument if made from ignorance, but if one has evidence... it's a valid point. (that is, if there is good reason to believe the claims of abuse/terrorizing children are false)

3. "If they weren't stupid they would just leave".

That's just an ignorant argument in general.

I think I agree with you about most of this--maybe we just differ on how common it is.

 

[Tmy]

I have to argue as a logical point, that someone with a restraining order on them is not necessarily a perp.

.

In Mass you have to show that the person is/was violent or theres a legit fear of immenent harm.

A non violent person shouldnt have a Order against them.