Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Connecticut mother who applied for a restraining order against her son's father because he was both physically and mentally abusive, said that he told her he would make the seven month old baby disappear.
A judge denied the order saying he saw no imminent threat, the father jumps off a bridge holding the boy, whose body has now been recovered, while the father is in serious condition in the hospital.
Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution? Or doing your job? If a man continues to say he's going to make your baby disappear, a judge is an idiot not to believe him.
This is very sad. My emotional impulse would be for the judged to be removed from the bench. I don't know what evidence was brought before him. What I do know is that abusive men are often very careful at hiding their abuse and framing the abused as emotionally unfit. Do family court judges not get any training in how manipulative abusive men and women can be? This is very sad and upsetting.
I feel bad for this woman! But screw the damn restraining order, as they don't amount to jack s*** anyway to a person who truly has alterior motives as is the case here! Buy a freakin' gun, or learn some form of self defense, so as to not be a victim!
I feel bad for this woman! But screw the damn restraining order, as they don't amount to jack s*** anyway to a person who truly has alterior motives as is the case here! Buy a freakin' gun, or learn some form of self defense, so as to not be a victim!
How did he get the child? Would a restraining order would have allowed others in care of the child to refuse to hand the child over to him? He is this child's father. He did have rights. I am not against guns but guns do not and can not solve every problem.
I don't know if judges receive training at all. She did get a temporary restraining order, but this judge overturned it.
I agree restraining orders don't do much to deter nuts who would violate them anyway. I think those who are violent should have some chip implanted so an alarm goes off somewhere if they get within 100 feet of the person who got the order. Violate it twice and you're behind bars.
How did he get the child? Would a restraining order would have allowed others in care of the child to refuse to hand the child over to him? He is this child's father. He did have rights. I am not against guns but guns do not and can not solve every problem.
He was able to pick up the child when the judge overturned the restraining order. It doesn't say if he was allowed supervised visits with the boy during the 12 days there was an order in place.
How did he get the child? Would a restraining order would have allowed others in care of the child to refuse to hand the child over to him? He is this child's father. He did have rights. I am not against guns but guns do not and can not solve every problem.
They may not solve every problem, but can be in this instance a deterrent. Not to mention she can tell the cops and this idiot judge that she intends to use it if she feels threatened by this a-hole in any way.
They may not solve every problem, but can be in this instance a deterrent. Not to mention she can tell the cops and this idiot judge that she intends to use it if she feels threatened by this a-hole in any way.
You are the worst advocate for guns rights ever. Telling the judge she would use it if she ever felt threatened would have enforced her boyfriends narrative that she was prone to temper tantrums and may have caused her to loose her partial custody. You are completely ignoring that as a father he had the right to be with his child and may have even had the right to have unsupervised visits. If a restraining order would have infringed upon his rights sufficiently he may not have had access to the child. Had he then obtained the child it would have been kidnapping and she would have been able to immediately call the police. This is all speculative since we don't have much evidence right not. Your idea that a gun solves all problems even wen using that gun would be illegal is idiotic.
I don't know if judges receive training at all. She did get a temporary restraining order, but this judge overturned it.
I agree restraining orders don't do much to deter nuts who would violate them anyway. I think those who are violent should have some chip implanted so an alarm goes off somewhere if they get within 100 feet of the person who got the order. Violate it twice and you're behind bars.
You would still need a restraining order in order to enforce that. Since the judge over turned the restraining or the woman had no protection. Also people who have restraining orders against them are still citizens who have rights. Lets not forget that.
They may not solve every problem, but can be in this instance a deterrent. Not to mention she can tell the cops and this idiot judge that she intends to use it if she feels threatened by this a-hole in any way.
Of course the husband could get his own gun(s), too.
Haven't the courts ruled that being under a restraining order doesn't limit your Second amendment rights?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
