Why Did Court Deny Protection For Woman Being Stalked?

[UndertheOcean]

http://www.wftv.com/news/22525601/detail.html

This case is so heart breaking , and with all the warning signs the police and justice system were utterly useless.


The AT&T building were this happened is right next to where my office is.

[Zoeisright]

1. Because the court is misogynist.

Women and children rank at the bottom in this country. And the courts are no exception to that.

[Bitwit1234]

5. I say a movie on TV

I think about a 16 year old, when it started was stalked. And they eventually made a law about this. What happened there. I think these right wing judges, that have been appointed, have no idea of what they are doing. Talk about activist. And then they have no compassion anyway. Don't republicans advocate torture.

[ddeclue]

7. I'm not a lawyer but you have no idea why. you aren't simply entitled to a TRO without a good reason

You have no idea why.. you aren't simply entitled to a TRO simply because you "feel afraid" there has to be an objective standard of risk that justifies limiting someone else's freedom - and this doesn't simply apply to male - female sexually motivated interactions, it applies to any interaction between people for any reason.

Imagine if anyone could get a TRO just by asking for it. You could use the TRO process to harass someone who has done you no harm and does not threaten you - that would be a perversion of the intent of a TRO. It's not a sword, it's a shield.

You have a right to tell people who can and cannot be on your property. So does your employer. Both the victim and the victim's employer could have and should have issued trespass warnings to the perpetrator in this case without having to justify their reasoning to a court.

That's different than getting a TRO though - you don't know what was presented to the court so to automatically blame the judge as "misogynist" is to make preposterous assumptions about the character of that judge.

Ultimately, in a case like this, a TRO would not have mattered if issued anyways. The perpetrator felt he had nothing to lose as demonstrated by her murder and his own suicide so going to jail for violating a TRO was clearly NOT a deterrent to him and there was little likelihood that an outside agent was going to modify his behavior - only he could do that.

The only options in such a case would have been for the victim to defend herself physically against her attacker or find a way to hide where he could not find her.

In this particular case the only solution would have been for her to shoot him before he shot her.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Captain Hilts]

2. Because "it's a private matter" that courts "shouldn't get involved in," OR "She's being hysterical"

That MOST women are murdered by people they know just doesn't cut it in court.

[damntexdem]

3. Why hasn't the judge been removed from the bench?

Will he be?

[Raven]

4. Massachusetts just passed a new stalking law. Before, the person had

to know their stalker, have some sort of a prior relationship with them. The case that caused the revision to the law was a waitress who was stalked for 2 years by a patron who got obsessed with her. She didn't know him, didn't date him...just turned him down when he asked her for a date. She tried to get restraining orders against him but couldn't.

[AngryAmish]

6. Usually the judge does not think she is in danger at that moment

(I don't know why in this case)

Anyway, these emergency hearing are ex parte - without the stalker being there. There are problems with this - the stalker is having his liberty impinged without his opportunity to tell the judge what is going on. So these are only granted if there is danger - for due process reasons.

So the judge thought nothing would happen until the stalker gets served with the complaint and has a chance to show up in court to tell his side of the story.