Judge Removed by High Court After Denying Restraining Order Based on False DV Charges

Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2007-11-05 14:14

Covered in Sacks' most recent newsletter. Excerpt:

'The Shull case and the recent Virginia Supreme Court decision are an infuriating example of how lightly our legal system takes false accusations against men. In this case, everyone agrees that Judge Shull was placed in a very difficult situation, and that he had to make a tough call where children could have been in imminent danger. Nobody even disputes that he got it right--and yet it doesn't even matter.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

As I recall, the judge got in hot water because during the hearings he required the female alleging assault to show the scars on her thigh that her defendant husband claimed she had self-inflicted. (They were apparently four neat wounds likely caused by cutting with a razor blade -- hardly the knife wounds she accused him of.)

Even though the female accuser was shielded by curtains when she displayed her scars, the judge got into trouble for procedural improprieties or somesuch "moral" lapse.

Apparently no one disagrees that the woman was lying.

She'll probably sue and win for emotional and psychological distress now.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Roy on Mon, 2007-11-05 14:32

There is no defense for a man accused of domestic violence. Even if a judge asks for proof, it is wrong. That's insanity.

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Garak on Mon, 2007-11-05 21:08

Let's keep facts out of this process.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Sosickoftheirlies on Mon, 2007-11-05 21:10

Now if this had been reversed (man accuses ex-wife, had to drop trou, turned out he's full of crap) the feminazis would be cheering this guy all the way the US Supreme Court, not having him thrown from the bench like some two bit hack.

A few questions:

1) What the hell ever happened to the burden of proof? "How dare you ask a WOMAN to prove that she was violently assaulted? You should believe her without question, because we all know that ALL men are monsters and women never lie!" Just ask any radical feminist...she'll tell you.

2) If he HAD just believed her, and she turned around and murdered her kids because she's quite unbalanced (given the facts), would the feministas have had her prosecuted as vigorously as she would have deserved?

3) Why wasn't this woman charged with perjury and making false statements to the police?

4) If the charges of her stealing SEVERAL schedule II drugs for recreational use are true, why isn't she in prison?

Just goes to show you that there is no such thing as REVERSE discrimination. It's just plain old, vanilla flavored discrimination.

But it's made with real vanilla beans.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xEODGuy on Wed, 2007-11-07 08:44