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.
I never said anything about which court it was tried in. I merely posted the court's ruling, which does in fact base the decision on the defendant's belief in Sharia Law.
Here, the concept of a restraining order is to prevent future criminal offenses from taking place. It isn't a Sharia Law case, it isn't a criminal case. Is there an immediate danger? You need to be aware of the difference between family court and criminal court.
Between you and me, if Judge Charles knew that they would have no choice but to have future litigation over child support etc., then it would follow that it would be an extremely delicate time period and a final restraining order would be necessary.
November 22, 2008:
On the day of this episode, a domestic violence complaint was filed, and a temporary restraining order was issued. However, the action was later dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Later:
Following a finding that a defendant has committed a predicate act of domestic violence, the judge is required to consider whether a restraining order should be entered that provides protection to the victim.
Although this second determination — whether a domestic violence restraining order should be issued — is most often perfunctory and self-evident, the guiding standard is whether a restraining order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29a(1) to -29a(6), to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse. SeeN.J.S.A. 2C:25-29b (stating that "[i]n proceedings in which complaints for restraining orders have been filed, the court shall grant any relief necessary to prevent further abuse") . . . .
In the present matter, the judge properly found that defendant had assaulted and harassed plaintiff in violation of the PDVA. However he declined to enter a final restraining order, determining that the domestic violence constituted merely a bad patch in a short-term marriage and did not result in serious injury to plaintiff, and that plaintiff and defendant had separated, a divorce proceeding was pending in Morocco, and the parties had no reason for further contact. Nonetheless, the judge recognized that contact between the parties would necessarily occur upon the birth of their child. The judge additionally appeared to be sufficiently concerned about the likelihood of renewed domestic violence to instruct defendant to have no contact with plaintiff. In this regard, he also relied upon the likelihood that a no contact order had been put in place as a condition of defendant's bail in the pending criminal proceedings against him arising from the acts of domestic violence that formed the basis for the civil action.
It is my understanding that a person's intention(s) can not be proven as the act it self has not happened yet.
A judge to be considering intent, is different.
I have no idea what you are saying.
The act had happened. The woman was RAPED by her husband. The husband didn't intend RAPE, he believed that since they were married, that all sex was consensual. You might consider that American conservatives have actually argued the same exact thing. In fact, in some states there is no such thing as spousal rape, legally, it's considered domestic assault. In other states, the penalty for spousal rape is much less severe than for non-spousal rape. That's AMERICAN law.
The husband was prohibited from being within a certain distance of his wife as a condition of his bail agreement in the CRIMINAL court. The CIVIL court judge was hearing the case of whether the CIVIL restraining order should be extended. He considered intent because he is being asked to evaluate risk. He was being asked to consider whether the man intended to harm his wife in the future so as to determine if she was at-risk. He is also supposed to consider the woman's fears, and whether her fears are warranted, and what impact those fears could likely have on her life. Because he paid undue attention to the man's claims, and did not pay enough attention to the woman's claims, his ruling was OVERTURNED.
This was not the CRIMINAL court, which is prosecuting the husband for his CRIMINAL actions.
The act had happened. The woman was RAPED by her husband. The husband didn't intend RAPE, he believed that since they were married, that all sex was consensual. You might consider that American conservatives have actually argued the same exact thing. In fact, in some states there is no such thing as spousal rape, legally, it's considered domestic assault. In other states, the penalty for spousal rape is much less severe than for non-spousal rape. That's AMERICAN law.
The husband was prohibited from being within a certain distance of his wife as a condition of his bail agreement in the CRIMINAL court. The CIVIL court judge was hearing the case of whether the CIVIL restraining order should be extended. He considered intent because he is being asked to evaluate risk. He was being asked to consider whether the man intended to harm his wife in the future so as to determine if she was at-risk. He is also supposed to consider the woman's fears, and whether her fears are warranted, and what impact those fears could likely have on her life. Because he paid undue attention to the man's claims, and did not pay enough attention to the woman's claims, his ruling was OVERTURNED.
This was not the CRIMINAL court, which is prosecuting the husband for his CRIMINAL actions.
I have carnal knowledge of this type of situation. With that said...
In a court of law there are many things that can only be proven by the physical evidence that is presented. One can not prove a person's intent as they would have to be a mind reader in order to do so. (these were words from a lawyer in a similar situation)
The laws in this country are messed up were domestic violence is concerned, throw Sharia in the mix of them, well there goes the neighborhood.
There are allot of women in prison today, because they just couldn't take it any more. And the law, was no help.
I have carnal knowledge of this type of situation. With that said...
In a court of law there are many things that can only be proven by the physical evidence that is presented. One can not prove a person's intent as they would have to be a mind reader in order to do so. (these were words from a lawyer in a similar situation)
The laws in this country are messed up were domestic violence is concerned, throw Sharia in the mix of them, well there goes the neighborhood.
There are allot of women in prison today, because they just couldn't take it any more. And the law, was no help.
It doesn't seem like you are actually addressing the topic of this thread.
And it doesn't seem like you actually understand the distinction between criminal law and civil law.
It doesn't seem like you are actually addressing the topic of this thread.
And it doesn't seem like you actually understand the distinction between criminal law and civil law.
The topic of this thread is Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma over Anti-Shaiah Ballot.
Something was brought up about a court case that was an example of Sharia law ruling. Then other said, no it wasn't. And they have been bating that back and forth for several pages now.
The distinction to be made is not criminal law or civil law, but Sharia law and is it being applied in our courts today?
Here, the concept of a restraining order is to prevent future criminal offenses from taking place. It isn't a Sharia Law case, it isn't a criminal case. Is there an immediate danger?
How can anyone believe that a man who thinks it is his right to have sex whenever he wants, even without his wife's consent, and therefore by force, is not a potential danger to the wife?
The judge did in fact use Sharia Law to excuse the man's intentions and acts that caused physical harm to his wife.
The topic of this thread is Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma over Anti-Shaiah Ballot.
Something was brought up about a court case that was an example of Sharia law ruling. Then other said, no it wasn't. And they have been bating that back and forth for several pages now.
The distinction to be made is not criminal law or civil law, but Sharia law and is it being applied in our courts today?
Ok.
Tell us what Sharia law the judge BASED his decision upon.
How can anyone believe that a man who thinks it is his right to have sex whenever he wants, even without his wife's consent, and therefore by force, is not a potential danger to the wife?
The judge did in fact use Sharia Law to excuse the man's intentions and acts that caused physical harm to his wife.
Did not.
The judge opined that the man believed he had a right to have sex with his wife regardless of her consent. That's not Sharia law, actually. That's the actual law in many countries. That was the law in the United States until about three decades ago. Thirty years ago.
The judge's opinion was that as the man was now aware that his actions were illegal, and that the man's bail agreement require that he have no contact with her, and that they were in the process of divorcing, that he didn't pose a threat.
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.
