|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article looks to me to be an editorial piece (although it is listed as news) aimed at chastising the judge for her decision. Note the inherent sexism of the quotes, and the last two paragraphs regarding the judge's interpretation of the law. Makes me wonder what kind of political business is going on in the background.
No mention of verification of need for the POs, either. Looks as if the writer is working from a "All DV happens to women/Believe the women" POV, and objects to the judge's decision on that account.
Isn't it interesting that being held accountable for your decisions can have a "chilling effect"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't catch the logic here at all. The women are in fear for their LIVES and yet go back to the very people that the court is supposedly protecting them from.
Just a hypothetical, could this women go to this man and then claim he violated the restraining order? I mean, he is with x number of feet from her. Being a helpless victim, she obviously could not control her own action to seek out the person she was deathly afraid of.
Also, I hate the idea that paints these women as victims regardless of circumstance. If you are stupid enough to hang out in the ghetto with wads of cash strapped to you, don't be amazed when you get robbed and the cops laugh at you.
These women who go back to their alleged abusers need to be held accountable for their assine actions. I suppose these poor victims are all confused and helpless, so it can't be their fault they are stupid. Maybe it will bring down the number DV complaints. Maybe people will think twice before relying on the government to bail them out of their mess that is their life. Maybe the government will be able to spend more time and resources on the ones that actually need it. Maybe, I'm living in a dream world if I think that will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have been cases in Australia where women have taken out
such orders to evict their husbands. Then she phones him up
and says she wants a reconciliation and invites him
over to discuss it. While she's waiting for him to
show she calls the cops and says he's threatening her and violating
the order.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it NOT her fault. I mean the poor little helpless victim woman was having feeling for some drooling gorilla man. She can't help it if she has no logical bone in her body, after all she's just a woman! And why on earth would she invite him over! She has no ulterior motives. I mean we all know the ALL women and kind and gentle and have absolutely no spark of vengence in them.
Personally I give my wife a hell of lot more credit than what these idiots that represent "women's" intrests in DV cases do.
I still can't understand why people who consistently promote "minorities" as victims and needing all sort of assistance don't see the damage they do for those very people.
Removing resposibility from women in the law makes society view them as irresposible and helpless.
By lower test standards for minorites, you support the bigots position that they are mentally inferior.
The one judge that actually does some critical thinking , and not emotion and fear, is grilled. How pathetic or legal systems has become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good rule: if your ex wants to talk reconciliation, make her come to YOUR place, and have witnesses already there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A better rule - do the talking at the courthouse or any other public, official site), in front of witnesses from both parties. And have a tape recorder running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And we are going to write letters about this?
yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The judge's frustration is understandable, but she's making a terrible mistake, said Lisa Beran, an attorney for the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association. Beran attended the Dec. 12 hearing."
The CABOJS
begin to sprout here:
"Abused women might flee their attackers several times before they leave for good because they can't afford a new place to live, or they're still in love with the man, Beran said."
This is an implicit appeal to equate the above to "falling off the wagon"; it is what I like to think of as CABOJS Cud from A Belly full Of Junk Science.
There is no data, or reference to such, included in the complaint to substantiate what universally motivates these women. So there can be no direct cause and effect link to demonstrate that such judgments are a genuine problem.
In fact, and on fact, these women are very clearly at risk, but the risk is actually one of becoming repeat offenders, by chronically violating court orders.
The CABOJS now become more than sprouts here; they have begun to blossom into BBBs (Bullshit Baffles Brains).
Punishing abused women for going home -- however unwise their decisions appear to be -- creates ``a chilling effect'' that can discourage other women from seeking protective orders, said Sherry Currens, executive director of the association.
They are being punished for violating a court order - not for going home. Their decissions do not risk appearing unwise, they are clearly unwise:
1) They violate a court order.
2) A geninely violent man is a violent man; he has no control over his behavior which is why it is referred to as a problem or syndrome.
To continue, "a chilling effect that can discourage other women from seeking protective orders" is strangely redundant as the judgment is supposed to "discourage other women from seeking protective orders" these are serious orders, strong acts of law that affect a man's life dramatically. There is no data or reference to such that would indicate what might universally motivate any particular man or woman to seek a restraining order(CABOJS). Sound law cannot be formed around fanciful suppositions or coulda shoulda woulda mighta - or some other of the many varieties of CABOJS.
CABOJS are actually quite diverse and blend beautifully when bedded in a garden of logical fallacies.
"Punishing abused women for going home" is a strange thing to say. If the woman cannot go home because she has asked the court to restrain her from doing so and then she goes home anyway, she needs to be fined and then remanded for psychiatric evaluation.
CABOJS are fecund and so the garden quickly overflows with BS:
The risk here is that women will be discouraged from asking for an order if they think it can get them into trouble later, or if they think a judge is going to chastise them in a courtroom,'' Currens said.
Truth be told; not only do we still not know what universally motivates women to seek a restraining order(CABOJS), but also it doesn't sound like these women undertake anything resembling thought to begin with, let alone that there might be a risk of any alleged future thoughts occurring at all. BBBs firmly takes root by suggesting that should such alleged future thoughts mysteriously occur that they would translate into some kind of rational decision and be followed through with rational action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fox News The O'Reilly Factor last night I heard an ignorant O'Reilly freely use politically correct but wrong domestic violence stats. When he commented on violence against women reaching epidemic proportions I shut it off. Did anyone suffer through the rest of that segment and did he approach being "fair and balanced"? I sent him an email quoting Wendy McElroy 9/11 column.
We've got a long way to go but thanks to all of you who continue the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fox News The O'Reilly Factor last night I heard an ignorant O'Reilly freely use politically correct but wrong domestic violence stats.
I maintain that Bill O'Reilly is never going to be of any help to us. He has, in the past, attacked father's rights groups. And now we see that he's taking the gender feminists word on domestic violence. Again, I think he's just the Fox News Jerry Springer.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
