Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Permanent protective orde...

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 07:45 PM

GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)

Permanent protective order failed to protect, defensive gunfire succeeded.

http://newsok.com/eucha-man-shoots-neighbor-trying-to-kick-down-his-door/article/3727020

Happened in Oklahoma

JAY — A Eucha man called 911 to report he had shot a neighbor who was trying to kick down his door, Delaware County Sheriff Harlan Moore said Friday.

Carl Hughes, 59, was found lying in the caller's yard about 5:15 p.m. Thursday with gunshot wounds to his left arm and two small punctures to the abdomen, Moore said.

The sheriff said Hughes was intoxicated and uncooperative and threatened law enforcement officers when they tried to provide medical treatment. Hughes was flown by helicopter to a Joplin hospital.

Moore said no arrests have been made and the shooting has been classified as self-defense.

SNIP

Court records show Edwards has a permanent protective order against Hughes. Hughes has been charged three times with violating the protective order and twice for planning or threatening to perform an act of violence, court records show.

In March, Hughes pleaded guilty to all the charges and received a one-year suspended sentence, records show. He was ordered to have no contact with Edwards.


Protective orders are just paper, they need something to give them weight. In this case a few bullets provided that weight.

22 replies, 1188 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Permanent protective order failed to protect, defensive gunfire succeeded. (Original post)
 GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 OP
LineReply If protective orders had more teeth
 jenw2 Nov 2012 #1
LineLineReply How?
 glacierbay Nov 2012 #2
LineLineReply What changes in the laws, to give more teeth to a PO, would you support
 oneshooter Nov 2012 #3
LineLineReply Please provide your suggestions. What "teeth" do you propose?
PavePusher Nov 2012 #4
LineLineLineReply This message was hidden by jury decision.
 jenw2 Nov 2012 #11
LineLineLineLineReply ???
 oneshooter Nov 2012 #12
LineLineLineLineNew Reply you just said "had more teeth" which means what?
 gejohnston Nov 2012 #13
LineLineLineLineNew Reply You haven't proposed anything.
 Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #14
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Someone has departed for a crunchy pizza. n/t
 PavePusher Nov 2012 #21
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Here's the results of the alert on his post
 glacierbay Nov 2012 #22
LineLineReply Well...
 rrneck Nov 2012 #5
LineLineReply Sometimes violence IS the answer to violence.
 GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #6
LineLineReply What would you suggest and how would it help when a drunk lunatic is breaking down the door?
 ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #7
LineLineReply Maybe if the protective order...
 krispos42 Nov 2012 #8
LineLineReply "You're trying to solve the problem of violence with more violence."
 TPaine7 Nov 2012 #9
LineLineLineNew Reply My son calls that violence by proxy.
 Remmah2 Nov 2012 #16
LineLineLineNew Reply I expect the police to show up with some comfy chairs and a nice chamomile tea
 4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #18
LineLineNew Reply Teeth can be used for violence.
 Remmah2 Nov 2012 #15
LineLineNew Reply Elaborate.
 4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #17
LineReply Yup.
 Servius Valerius Nov 2012 #10
LineLineNew Reply I'd say maximizing the equality of the individual
 4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #19
LineLineNew Reply How do you reason with thugs that are about to beat you up for kicks?
 GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #20

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:24 PM

jenw2 (374 posts)

1. If protective orders had more teeth

 

this wouldn't have happened. You're trying to solve the problem of violence with more violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:43 PM

glacierbay (2,477 posts)

2. How?

 

A protective order is nothing more than a piece of paper, it won't protect you against someone who is determined to harm you.
I've seen first hand how well protective orders work, they don't. When I respond to a report of a DV incident, I tell the victim to obtain an order of protection while at the same time I tell the victim that it won't physically protect and that they may want to strongly consider obtaining a gun and a CC permit to at least have a fighting chance if the worse happens.

The one incident that still haunts me to this day is one where we were dispatched to a report of a man at the home of his estranged wife who had an order of protection against him, when we arrived, the wife and 5 yo daughter were stabbed to death and he had cut his own throat and was bleeding out. She didn't have any way to protect herself as she didn't have a gun.
With a gun, at least she and her daughter would have had a fighting chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:48 PM

oneshooter (5,908 posts)

3. What changes in the laws, to give more teeth to a PO, would you support

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:22 PM

PavePusher (15,374 posts)

4. Please provide your suggestions. What "teeth" do you propose?

 

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

P.S. What do you suggest someone do when violence is being done to them? What will stop the attack other than violent resistance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PavePusher (Reply #4)

jenw2 This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to jenw2 (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:06 PM

oneshooter (5,908 posts)

12. ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:07 PM

gejohnston (12,599 posts)

13. you just said "had more teeth" which means what?

Make it a felony to violate the RO?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:08 PM

Decoy of Fenris (395 posts)

14. You haven't proposed anything.

You made a statement, then offered no solution or implementation, nor even supported your claim of "Teeth" resulting in increased personal security in situations like this. Then, you called someone a liar when they called you on your lack of the above. Can you clarify your position, preferably with descriptions beyond "If X happened, Y wouldn't happen"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:37 PM

PavePusher (15,374 posts)

21. Someone has departed for a crunchy pizza. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PavePusher (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:46 PM

glacierbay (2,477 posts)

22. Here's the results of the alert on his post

 






At Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:34 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

So you're not smart enough to understand my proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=86040

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Accusing a DU'er of lying w/o any proof.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:48 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: An unwarranted personal attack in addition imo.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

Every now and then we actually win one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:23 PM

Star Member rrneck (13,785 posts)

5. Well...



That's all I got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:25 AM

GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)

6. Sometimes violence IS the answer to violence.

To believe that violence is never the answer is to be a naive Pollyanna.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:34 PM

ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)

7. What would you suggest and how would it help when a drunk lunatic is breaking down the door?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:15 PM

Star Member krispos42 (45,157 posts)

8. Maybe if the protective order...

...had been wrapped around a large rock? Glued to a baseball bat? Etched into the blade of a machete?



The problem of individual offensive violence can often only be stopped by a greater application of individual defensive violence. I suppose capitulation and surrender and pleas for mercy can stop it to, but often times only when the attacker gets a muscle cramp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:35 PM

Star Member TPaine7 (4,286 posts)

9. "You're trying to solve the problem of violence with more violence."

 

So is everyone who calls the police, except they're outsourcing the violence.

Police bring violence, or the threat of violence, to every confrontation. They use violence against violence daily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:29 PM

Remmah2 (3,291 posts)

16. My son calls that violence by proxy.

 

Only if they get there in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:56 AM

4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)

18. I expect the police to show up with some comfy chairs and a nice chamomile tea

 

that way we can all sit down in a relaxing environment and discuss what's wrong. Maybe we can convince the murderer/rapist/burglar to change his/her life and become a dental assistant or something.

What do you expect when you call the cops?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:28 PM

Remmah2 (3,291 posts)

15. Teeth can be used for violence.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:54 AM

4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)

17. Elaborate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:36 PM

Servius Valerius (13 posts)

10. Yup.

I lean progressive on a lot of things... but concealed carry needs protection and even encouragement. The more trained, responsible individuals that are comfortable using minimum necessary force to resolve situations, the safer we all are.

That said, non-violence training can help practitioners defuse situations that might've evolved into violence, and those who make peace a practice can create some powerful narratives. Quakers are notably skilled at this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Servius Valerius (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 10:57 AM

4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)

19. I'd say maximizing the equality of the individual

 

regardless of race, gender, status, etc *is* a progressive ideal.

Keeping the weak and defenseless weak and defenseless by limiting protection to the wealthy is not a progressive notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Servius Valerius (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:36 AM

GreenStormCloud (10,180 posts)

20. How do you reason with thugs that are about to beat you up for kicks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

Advertise on DU

© 2001 - 2013 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.