Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Business opportunity.Politician Spock said:Millions of women want to know just how rapidly one of those can move.
Business opportunity.Politician Spock said:Millions of women want to know just how rapidly one of those can move.
Laws are laws.
She had a TRO prohibiting him from contacting her and she, in the face of that, went to his apartment risking creating such contact. She did so to take the law into her own hands. I do not understand the theft charges, not without seeing the statute or ordinance since generally theft is seeking to permanently deprive the rightful owner of possession of an item, generally, but not always, for the benefit of the person depriving the owner of that item of value. Here she did not keep the items herself nor intend to permanently deprive him of the weapons, she gave them to authorities to make a determination as to his right to possess these things. There are arguably other crimes she committed, but theft or armed robbery, I am not seeing it.
If she knew he was in police custody I don't think there's much risk of "reverse violating" the TRO.She had a TRO prohibiting him from contacting her and she, in the face of that, went to his apartment risking creating such contact. She did so to take the law into her own hands. I do not understand the theft charges, not without seeing the statute or ordinance since generally theft is seeking to permanently deprive the rightful owner of possession of an item, generally, but not always, for the benefit of the person depriving the owner of that item of value. Here she did not keep the items herself nor intend to permanently deprive him of the weapons, she gave them to authorities to make a determination as to his right to possess these things. There are arguably other crimes she committed, but theft or armed robbery, I am not seeing it.
Hard to know when another has made bond. Still, point taken. At the same time, if I am the judge who issued the order I am discussing the parameters and expectations with her at the next available opportunity. I hope she remains safe. I suspect the parties attorneys are going to have lots of billable hours in this divorce proceeding with collateral domestic violence charges. The parties are now in a position where nearly all communication and contact between them, including temporary visitation will be court monitored and through their attorneys.If she knew he was in police custody I don't think there's much risk of "reverse violating" the TRO.
Other than that no comment
What about breaking and entering charges? How did she gain access to his apartment? I doubt he gave her keys.She had a TRO prohibiting him from contacting her and she, in the face of that, went to his apartment risking creating such contact. She did so to take the law into her own hands. I do not understand the theft charges, not without seeing the statute or ordinance since generally theft is seeking to permanently deprive the rightful owner of possession of an item, generally, but not always, for the benefit of the person depriving the owner of that item of value. Here she did not keep the items herself nor intend to permanently deprive him of the weapons, she gave them to authorities to make a determination as to his right to possess these things. There are arguably other crimes she committed, but theft or armed robbery, I am not seeing it.
As I wrote, there are arguably other crimes. Could be breaking and entering, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, depends on how the local codes are written. Could be robbery which is often unlawful entry of one form or another coupled with intent to commit or actually committing a felony. I find armed robbery weird in that she did not arm herself, as I understand it, to enter and commit the crime but rather had arms as a result of the crime. It just strikes me odd.What about breaking and entering charges? How did she gain access to his apartment? I doubt he gave her keys.
This isn't "the end justifies the means'
This seems like a no-brainer and it's been proven that it works. Unfortunately, on the federal level too many Senators were bought off by the NRA to pass the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. Since mass shootings often involve killing a domestic partner in the process, it could also help prevent them as well.Don't know the local laws, but I'd be in favor of temporary seizure of weapons to go along with a restraining order or DV charges. Probably best if law enforcement did it though.
Turns out if you take their guns, they don't just use another weapon. Imagine that.Women who are victimized by domestic abuse are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a firearm, according to a 2003 study in the American Journal of Public Health. A similar analysis from the Giffords Law Center indicates that two-thirds of women murdered by guns were killed by intimate partners.
"The data refute the hypothesis that abusers who want to kill will simply use another weapon if they don't have a gun," the Department of Justice stated in a since-archived 2016 paper on domestic violence and firearms. "In fact, guns make it more likely that a death will result."
In addition to guns facilitating intimate violence, there is a well-established link between misogyny and America's mass shooting phenomenon. As Pacific Standard reported in 2017, 40 percent of mass shootings that occurred between 2009 and 2012 started with a shooter targeting a partner or former partner, a rate that jumped to 54 percent in 2016, according to gun-control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. And these are overwhelming perpetrated by men: Out of the 95 mass shootings that occurred between 1982 and 2017 in Mother Jones' open-source database, only three cases—just over 2 percent—included female perpetrators.
Unsurprisingly, the role of misogyny in multiple mass shootings in recent years—the murder of 26 parishioners, including the shooter's former partner, at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, for example—has catalyzed a significant increase in state governments adopting or considering ERPO laws, including a new "red flag" measure introduced in Texas in late 2018.
so in countries with heavy gun control laws, there is no domestic violence turned deadly because there are no guns around ?Turns out if you take their guns, they don't just use another weapon. Imagine that.
Is that what the department of justice said, or are you just lying and distorting facts again?so in countries with heavy gun control laws, there is no domestic violence turned deadly because there are no guns around ?
please
avoid and deny and switch ... good game, we all know the answer, I just thought you might say itIs that what the department of justice said, or are you just lying and distorting facts again?
Oh you want a straight answer? You’re proven wrong by verified facts, ignorant and lying again. You like that better?avoid and deny and switch ... good game, we all know the answer, I just thought you might say it
I still get NRA junk mail every month or so (used to be a member). If it stops at some point, I’ll be sure to go to their site to “express interest” so they send out more mailers that I can toss in the trash.NRA continuing its downhill slide:
The National Rifle Association has shut down production at NRATV.
The N.R.A. on Tuesday also severed all business with its estranged advertising firm, Ackerman McQueen, which operates NRATV, the N.R.A.’s live broadcasting media arm, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The New York Times.
While NRATV may continue to air past content, its live broadcasting will end and its on-air personalities — Ackerman employees including Dana Loesch — will no longer be the public faces of the N.R.A.
Their site is excellent for sending emails to elected representatives regarding every piece of proposed gun control regulation in the country. I just change the pre-written emails to support it.Jobber said:I still get NRA junk mail every month or so (used to be a member). If it stops at some point, I’ll be sure to go to their site to “express interest” so they send out more mailers that I can toss in the trash.
In some states, the police take your license.When my FIL was charged with DUI, I should have gone and taken his car.
In my city, I have to have a permit to buy a handgun. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of taking away that permit and not taking away the gun?In some states, the police take your license.
you don't need a license to driveIn some states, the police take your license.
It does stop people. It doesn’t stop everyone, but it does stop people.you don't need a license to drive
to legally drive you do ... but 15% +/- of the cars on the highways in this nation are driven illegally either by uninsured , under insured or unlicensed
you knew that, right ?
its also illegal to drive distracted, DUI, speed etc ............. does that stop people ?
No, you can buy a car without a license.In my city, I have to have a permit to buy a handgun. Wouldn't that be the equivalent of taking away that permit and not taking away the gun?
This is something I've been saying for quite some time. You can buy and operate a vehicle without a license, registration or insurance.No, you can buy a car without a license.
noIt does stop people. It doesn’t stop everyone, but it does stop people.
Sometimes. Sometimes they are physically restrained by a police officer.no
people stop themselves - you can have deterrents and laws and rules, but in the end, its the person that makes the decision isn't it ?
sometimes they need to beSometimes. Sometimes they are physically restrained by a police officer.
I think we just changed subjects for some reason.sometimes they need to be
sometimes these people are criminals, drug runners, sex offenders and who knows what else .... because its an uncontrolled border
nopeI think we just changed subjects for some reason.
Why would I care if Booker's an idiot?nope
people kill people because they choose to - with whatever weapon they can, even their hands and fists
people drive because they want to - licensed or not
rules and laws bind legal law abiding people - and while I'm in favor of having deterrents .... another few laws on the hundreds we have is ridiculous
did you watch the video ? I'm guessing you didn't - it shows the idiocy of Booker
The purpose of deterrents and laws and rules is to influence those decisions.no
people stop themselves - you can have deterrents and laws and rules, but in the end, its the person that makes the decision isn't it ?
you think its fake news? did you cross reference with anything ?KarmaPolice said:Sweet, another Fox link.
No I didn't cross reference it, because if I know it's a link to Fox I won't even bother clicking in the first place. I try to not give their product views, clicks, and traffic.you think its fake news? did you cross reference with anything ?
now, CNN won't run these kinds of stories .... why do you think that is ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7241311/South-Africa-deploys-army-streets-crime-ridden-townships-surge-murders.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48962265
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/south-africa-military-set-to-deploy-against-cape-town-gangs-11716590
living in your own little echo chamber huh ?No I didn't cross reference it, because if I know it's a link to Fox I won't even bother clicking in the first place. I try to not give their product views, clicks, and traffic.
I dont care about CNN either, and dont give them clicks if I can avoid it as well.living in your own little echo chamber huh ?
try it .... cross reference links/sites/news and see if CNN isn't reporting what everyone else is ............. if they're not? maybe you can self think why that might be
news nowdays have agenda's ... Fox, CNN, USATODAY .... all of them
IMO you have to look across the spectrum - find what's real, what's biased etc ......... and if CNN isn't reporting something many other outlets are? you better ask yourself why or you're allowing mind control
I thought it was by -fish though. I didn't know I could be controlled by two sources.Your mind is being controlled, Karma Police. Controlled!
cross reference - was the story real or not ?I dont care about CNN either, and dont give them clicks if I can avoid it as well.
There are plenty of sources that have mild slants and report actual news, so why not just use them? No, all outlets dont have an "agenda". I don't get why anyone would waste any time on the fringes of news, which is what Fox is.
You say that you read news from all sources, but seem to continually link to Fox and a couple others.cross reference - was the story real or not ?
Fox is fringe news LOL .... I read news, from all sources, I try to check whats real and what isn't .... try it. Use that link ... try it
I think you'll find FOX reported valid news. You dismissed it because of a weird liberal left Fox isn't real news thing .... which ironically, is fake news in itself !