|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I...
You know, this....
If....
Gah.
HOW IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH DOES A BLIND GUY, IN FLIPPIN' WHEELCHAIR FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD GET A RESTRAINING ORDER PUT AGAINST HIM?!?!?!?!?!
What POSSIBLE threat...
How...
Oh, what a crock of sh!t!!!
Possession of a Penis in the first degree. I swear to Christ, just when you thought it couldn't get any more idiotic the come out with: COMPLETE PHEMINIST IDIOT 2.0.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOW IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH DOES A BLIND GUY, IN FLIPPIN' WHEELCHAIR FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD GET A RESTRAINING ORDER PUT AGAINST HIM?!?!?!?!?!
How? He made too many phone calls, and according to the super-fems that is a certain indicator that a man is dangerous and violent. So, the judge issued a restraining order (probably ex-parte) against the for making annoying calls. Note that most men fail to realize this practice is now a criminal offense. They call it stalking.
We have a similar law in CA. The super-fems luv mandatory arrest law because it systematically criminalizes males. Oh. But we all know that it cannot happen to us. Right?
The bigger question is, if that were a female in that chair, would the police have felt compelled to make the arrest...according to the DV laws?
HELL NO they wouldn't have! They made the arrest because they feel compelled to follow a code of chivalry that is no longer valid. No other reason. Further, the judge never would have given a man the order against a female for stalking. That is considered cute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, don't forget that he is in New Hampshire. So if he falls behind on any child support payments his driver's license will be revoked by the state!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, don't forget that he is in New Hampshire. So if he falls behind on any child support payments his driver's license will be revoked by the state!
And that means White Castle will have all those braille menus stacked in their drive-throughs for nothing.
Jeezus, what a bunch of loons.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possession of a Penis in the first degree. I swear to Christ, just when you thought it couldn't get any more idiotic the come out with: COMPLETE PHEMINIST IDIOT 2.0.
At least somebody pointed out the problem. I was surprised to see that even mentioned in the story. Usually it's just Joe Blow, some age, was arrested last night...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't be too surprised Nightmist.
We're progressing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, Harry...?
Love the new Secretary.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would it have been impossible for this woman to block his number instead of causing his arrest? Wha?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would it have been impossible for this woman to block his number instead of causing his arrest? Wha?
Oh come onnnn! We all know that would require social responsibility, and then the woman would not have the special victim status. Unacceptable!
For the humor challenged...that is a joke in the form of sarcasm. :')
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @01:33AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
There is no freedom in new hampshire, which almost killed this man. This totally gives "live free or die" a new meaning. Quite literal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a voice of dissent here. Although we certainly don't have all the facts from this story, from what we're presented with it seems to me that this man needs some correction.
From this story it doesn't seem that this man has any reason for calling up his ex. There's no mention of kids, alimony, or any other mitigating factors. He was apparently presented with a court order to not phone his wife, and he felt that he didn't have to comply.
There's no constitutionaly protected or God granted right to phone up and harrass someone who has made it clear that they don't want to hear from you, and it is the proper place of the law to punish those who make others miserable.
It doesn't seem to me that this mans health was jeapordized in any way by what happened. I'm sorry for him that he's blind and in a wheelchair but that doesn't place him above the law.
Yes, there are frequent abuses of protection orders, but from the information here it doesn't seem that this is one of them. If we're truly interested in gender equality then we must insist that men take responsibility for their actions as well as women.
Let's not go in the direction feminism has gone by turning absolutely every man into a victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protective orders, Matt, are, and have been for if there is a danger to someone. There is no danger here. We have one ass who is harassing someone, a bigger ass in the form of the state with a stupidly written and draconian law, and a third ass in the form of a woman who is guilty of abusing the process.
A protective order, let alone an arrest, is most inappropriate. A more reasoned response would be to have her phone number changed to unlisted/unpublished, charge it to his bill where he can pay for it or get his own taken out, and then a few c-notes to make up for the inconvenience to her.
Of course, that would win no votes from the pheminazi block, so that isn't considered.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @10:18AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
...and then a few c-notes to make up for the inconvenience to her.
But of course we live in a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world of men. It would be too civilized to fine him and treat the man with respect. No we must criminalize the man as Matt suggest.
Thankyou NOW and feminism for teaching such a hatred of men that we now arrest blind men in wheel chairs as a serious danger to a women and seek to impose a jail term.
Oh, but that is not good enough, and 33% of all women are still not safe. So, we must find new ways of criminalizing men.
Next, we will pass laws for criminalizing men when a wife commits murder. It is coming our way courtesy of the Ms. Yates trial. I guarantee it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protective orders, Matt, are, and have been for if there is a danger to someone. There is no danger here.
Actually that is no longer true. There does not have to be a danger for a restraining order to be issued in the State of CA. A restraining order can be issued for most any reason. For example here is a snippit of the CA code:
6320. The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, annoying telephone calls as described in Section 653m of the Penal Code, destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of other named family or household members.
(Source)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=8330036480+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Basically, if you are male and a female is bothered by you, she can get a restraining order for any reason! So, for example, if you make a couple of unwelcome phone calls to an x-domestic partner, they can get a restraining order! You do not have to present an actual danger to that person. This is not an exaggeration it is CA State law.
Then if you are a gun owner, you are required to surrender all weapons by law. Here is the CA code:
6389. (a) A person subject to a protective order, as defined in Section 6218, shall not own, possess, purchase, or receive a firearm while that protective order is in effect.
(b) The Judicial Council shall provide a notice on all forms requesting a protective order that, at the hearing for a protective order, the respondent shall be ordered to relinquish possession or control of any firearms and not to purchase or receive or attempt to purchase or receive any firearms for a period not to exceed the duration of the restraining order.
(c) If the respondent is present in court at a duly noticed hearing, the court shall order the respondent to relinquish any firearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subject to that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours of the order, by either surrendering the firearm to the control of local
law enforcement officials, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified in Section 12071 of the Penal Code. If the
respondent is not present at the hearing, the respondent shall relinquish the firearm within 48 hours after being served with the order….
(Source)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=8332918653+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Are you getting the point? Note, that an order of protection can be obtained in your absense without your knowledge. Further, it is not uncommon for it to become permanent without the defendants knowledge. Thanks NOW. We appreciate your totalitarian laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @01:22PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you getting the point? Note, that an order of protection can be obtained in your absense without your knowledge. Further, it is not uncommon for it to become permanent without the defendants knowledge. Thanks NOW. We appreciate your totalitarian laws.
Thanks Warble. Its a wonderful racket they have going on, isn't it?
America , "Land of the Free". Heh.
A disgusted Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
America , "Land of the Free". Heh.
That problem has NOW been solved, courtesy of a local chapter in your State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"""He was apparently presented with a court order to not phone his wife, and he felt that he didn't have to comply."""
I believe what gives this story "legs" is the mental picture of a helpless blind and wheelchair bound older man being subjected to the brutal might of the government's iron heel under the authority of violating a court order. He is viewed as an underdog because of his handicapped state and thus automatically gets sympathy. He is also viewed as a victim of the restraining order gambit which has been overly used and much abused by judges and ex-spouses (mostly women) to punitively get back at an ex in the ongoing domestic violence wargames. What annoys us about this story is the comically absurd excessiveness used by the state to correct a minor problem. They had to take him to jail in an ambulance you recall! And of course in cases like this we always have the thought in the back of our minds of the very real problem of sex discrimination that the state is guilty of,"what if the genders were reversed? Would a handicapped female be treated this way?" That is an additional factor that particularly annoys us.
The state used a sledgehammer to kill an ant. And that, as it well should, makes us uncomfortable and defensive.
As suggested by someone earlier, the blocking of the complainant's phone number would have been the best remedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @10:10AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there are frequent abuses of protection orders, but from the information here it doesn't seem that this is one of them. If we're truly interested in gender equality then we must insist that men take responsibility for their actions as well as women.
Excellent point....we should have equality. Now show me where women are being arrested and prosecuted when they make unwelcome phone calls. Don't argue that they don't make the calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merely anecdotal, but when I was youngish and singlish it seemed like more of the women I knew were likely to call their exboyfriends a million times a day then the men I knew were likely to call their exgirlfriends. Obviously there were deviations from that rule, but that seemed to be the norm.
On the other hand, I don't know the nature of the man's call. If the man merely called to speak to his exwife, I don't see the problem and the woman and the police overreacted. If he made calls threatening her life, I see where an arrest *might* be warranted, depending on the validity of the threats. People do hire hitmen after all. I just don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he made calls threatening her life, I see where an arrest *might* be warranted, depending on the validity of the threats.
Courtesy of NOW, that loophole in the law has been fixed. You can now be arrested and prosecuted for making a few, say less than a dozen, phone calls that annoy the x-intimate.
AND NOW....Coming to a legislature, sponsored by our friends at NOW, are new laws designed to regulate and prosecute inappropriate male thoughts before they become actions. They call this new legislation “The Woman’s Preemptive Strike Act.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @04:06PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
so i was browsing NOW to see what they've been up to. lookie what i found.
"[...] help NOW secure equality and fair treatment for all women."
kay. how can they possibly believe that equality can be localized to a specific group? that's just not how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Matthew,
I know learned more about this guy's situation because a know a local police officer who had more information. The guy was actually calling his ex-wife because he wanted to check if the heating system was working in her house. He had called earlier to have it fixed (the house was his before the breakup, and she got the house because she argued in court that he was in no condition to take care of it himself), and he was following up on having the work done. The impression I got was that this was a very vindicitive ex-wife who got tired of living with a person she had to take care of 24-7 and realized if she divorced him she could get the house and be left alone. It's a really sad situation.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
