Which makes you more safe: A restraining order, or a gun?

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Woman says she killed estranged boyfriend in self-defense

"The woman’s hands were shaking, but she spoke in a calm voice as she stood outside the apartment where 27-year-old Quentin Walker was shot and killed early yesterday.

She said that Walker, her estranged boyfriend and the father of her two children, broke into her apartment in the middle of the night and came at her with a crowbar in his hand.

She shot and killed him, using the gun she’d bought this year, Ashley said. She had feared that the protection order that was supposed to keep him away from her and their 7-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter would not be enough..."

Full story: Columbus Dispatch

[oldwomanc6 38]

Having been attacked in my own shower, I can tell you that a restraining order would do no good at all.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Shotgun 1]

I think it would depend on the situation.

[quade 3]

Quote

I think it would depend on the situation.

Some people are absolutists and only believe in black and white answers.

If a person's life has gotten to the point where they need to have restraining orders on people, a gun might also make sense. That said, it might not. A person might weigh their options and risks, and come up with a different solution.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PiLFy 0]

Why, a restraining order, of course, John. Because EVERYONE respects & follows the law. Just ask the fruitcakes up in Berkeley...

Hell, a R/O on a large enough piece of paper will even stop a charging lion in his tracks.

[sacex250 0]

Of course, having already obtained a restraining order against someone you just killed would be quite helpful when you're standing over a dead body with a gun in your hand and trying to explain why you shouldn't be taken away to jail.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Of course, having already obtained a restraining order against someone you just killed would be quite helpful when you're standing over a dead body with a gun in your hand and trying to explain why you shouldn't be taken away to jail.

If you're at home, it wouldn't matter if that corpse was a stranger or an ex. Still in a place that he doesn't belong.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course, having already obtained a restraining order against someone you just killed would be quite helpful when you're standing over a dead body with a gun in your hand and trying to explain why you shouldn't be taken away to jail.

If you're at home, it wouldn't matter if that corpse was a stranger or an ex. Still in a place that he doesn't belong.

Well, I'm glad that is so black and white for you - now prove it in court! You can't shoot just anyone in your home. A restraining order will go a long way in showing that the corpse on the floor shouldn't have been caught dead there!

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[popsjumper 2]

*groan*

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rwieder 0]

Quote

You can't shoot just anyone in your home.

Your home is your iminent domain. Should an uninvited intruder break in your house, threatning to cause discomfort or make you feel threatned he belongs to you.

Quote

A restraining order will go a long way in showing that the corpse on the floor shouldn't have been caught dead there!

A restraining order isn't worth the paper it's wrote on. It's a joke. It's not just real hard to walk through a protectective, or restraining order. These summons don't manage to do anything but cause more trouble in the end game.

And remember the old adage: (I'd rather be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6)

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Your home is your iminent domain. Should an uninvited intruder break in your house, threatning to cause discomfort or make you feel threatned he belongs to you.

So, how do you get a restraining order against an uninvited intruder if you don't know he's coming? An uninvited intruder is not "just anyone."

If the father of your children should come to your home, I'm pretty sure that shooting and killing him without good cause is against the law. A restraining order makes it clear that he's an "uninvited intruder."

Quote

A restraining order isn't worth the paper it's wrote on. It's a joke. It's not just real hard to walk through a protectective, or restraining order. These summons don't manage to do anything but cause more trouble in the end game.

So, are you suggesting that we'd be better off abolishing restraining orders, altogether? The vast majority of restraining orders do what they're supposed to do - get the person to stay away. Out of all of the restraining orders issued, very few of them actually escalate to violence.

A restraining order also compels the person to surrender their firearms, and it provides law enforcement with a mechanism to make an arrest.

Quote

And remember the old adage: (I'd rather be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6)

And there's a lot of people sitting in prison who have been judged by twelve and are going to stay there until they're carried by six.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[rehmwa 2]

I don't think you understand the context of the article since your comments aren't making a bit of sense. Read it again and you'll see that the restraining order was already in place - but the intruder broke in despite the existing RO.

You seem to be assuming that the woman got a restraining order after she shot him....

Frankly, I think the fact that there was a restraining order has NOTHING to do with the shooting. He broke in, he was attacking, he got shot - just as if a total stranger broke in and came at her with a crowbar.

The point that he violated his RO is background that doesn't matter really (other than the woman was scared of him and took action for additional protection - good for her) ...... unless you think she set him up (took out the RO, acted all scared, and invited him over to pry up some loose floorboards before shooting him in cold blood....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

I don't think you understand the context of the article since your comments aren't making a bit of sense. Read it again and you'll see that the restraining order was already in place - but the intruder broke in despite the existing RO.

You seem to be assuming that the woman got a restraining order after she shot him....

Frankly, I think the fact that there was a restraining order has NOTHING to do with the shooting. He broke in, he was attacking, he got shot - just as if a total stranger broke in and came at her with a crowbar.

The point that he violated his RO is background that doesn't matter really (other than the woman was scared of him and took action for additional protection - good for her) ...... unless you think she set him up (took out the RO, acted all scared, and invited him over to pry up some loose floorboards before shooting him in cold blood....)

No, his comments make perfect sense (to me at least).
Keep in mind that any self defense shooting is a major issue.
ANY legal documents in place that would help establish the prior threat are very valuable.

The effort taken to file the restraining order and to have it served go a long, long way in establishing that the dead guy had no intent of respecting the law, and was probably intent on hurting or killing the woman.
Establishing those things before the shooting make it a lot easier to prove the self defense claim.

A gun doesn't make me feel safer, it acutally makes me feel less safe, mainly because of the consequences I'll face if I have to use it. If I decide those consequences are less than the consequences of not using the gun, then the gun gets used. If not, not.

The restraining order would make me feel safer because it greatly helps lessen the potential of those consequences.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

that's a dizzying post - but if it works for you, then it's good for you

those that aren't comfy with guns have the option to not personally own one - no issues there - seems to apply to you and yours

she clearly didn't feel that way

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course, having already obtained a restraining order against someone you just killed would be quite helpful when you're standing over a dead body with a gun in your hand and trying to explain why you shouldn't be taken away to jail.

If you're at home, it wouldn't matter if that corpse was a stranger or an ex. Still in a place that he doesn't belong.

Well, I'm glad that is so black and white for you - now prove it in court! You can't shoot just anyone in your home. A restraining order will go a long way in showing that the corpse on the floor shouldn't have been caught dead there!

Generally speaking, in Florida you pretty much can. If the person has forcibly enters or intrudes your home, the law automatically assumes the perp will kill / cause bodily harm and you're allowed to shoot. Furthermore, in FL, you aren't required to retreat first.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, his comments make perfect sense (to me at least).
Keep in mind that any self defense shooting is a major issue.
ANY legal documents in place that would help establish the prior threat are very valuable.

It just doesn't make much of a difference. The RO would not give her free rein to invite him over and then shoot him in the back. The Castle Doctrine for the state would still apply. In FL, TX, AZ, and several others, you don't need to retreat, so it's a bit freer in what you can do, but even there if it's obvious you murdered the guy, the RO doesn't translate to a get out of jail free card.

and without such a RO and a home full of children, a mom that shouted out warnings and then shot an ex boyfriend that is breaking in through a window...is going to get pretty sympathetic treatment for the LEOs. They will probably want to verify that he is an ex if there was no forcible entry, but in an obvious break in...people do have the right to self defense. And mothers fighting off former lovers are going to be treated better than most.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I think it would depend on the situation.

A restraining order won't stop a murderer.

However, if the person's crime or intended crime is anything short of murder, a restraining order can be a very effective tool in ensuring that they will be arrested. Once a restraining order is in place, mere contact--as opposed to behavior that rises to the level of stalking or threats--is sufficient justification for the person to be arrested first and asked questions later. A lot of crimes in this kind of situation are of a "he says, she says" nature. A restraining order moves things out of the "he says, she says" arena and legally establishes that any contact, regardless of its nature, is a crime. Proving mere contact is generally much easier than proving intimate details of what that contact involved.

A restraining order is a legal tool. Again, if someone is bent on murder and nothing else, they won't be stopped by a restraining order. But if you're dealing with someone who is likely to gradually escalate their abuse if they aren't dealt with in a firm way by authority, a restraining order is a tool that can help.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[PiLFy 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it would depend on the situation.

A restraining order won't stop a murderer.

However, if the person's crime or intended crime is anything short of murder, a restraining order can be a very effective tool in ensuring that they will be arrested. Once a restraining order is in place, mere contact--as opposed to behavior that rises to the level of stalking or threats--is sufficient justification for the person to be arrested first and asked questions later. A lot of crimes in this kind of situation are of a "he says, she says" nature. A restraining order moves things out of the "he says, she says" arena and legally establishes that any contact, regardless of its nature, is a crime. Proving mere contact is generally much easier than proving intimate details of what that contact involved.

A restraining order is a legal tool. Again, if someone is bent on murder and nothing else, they won't be stopped by a restraining order. But if you're dealing with someone who is likely to gradually escalate their abuse if they aren't dealt with in a firm way by authority, a restraining order is a tool that can help.

Or, it can cause the escalation by pushing a controlling person's buttons.

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

that's a dizzying post - but if it works for you, then it's good for you

those that aren't comfy with guns have the option to not personally own one - no issues there - seems to apply to you and yours

she clearly didn't feel that way

No. Not at all. I own and use guns on a regular basis. I also understand (as in really understand) what the consequences are for having, carrying and using them. If I was in a situation where a restraining order seemed necessary, and I had reason to believe that the subject of the RO would choose to ignore it, then I would carry, regardless of the legality (into places where I shouldn't but could most likely get away with it).

Guns don't solve problems. They often (usually) create more problems. Using one certainly will make more people involed in the problem. But dealing with those problems (police, prosecutors, plaitiff lawyers, media, ect.) sure beats being dead.

My point was (and is) that having the RO demonstrates that she was enough in fear of this dude to go to the effort to file and process and have it served.
That action will go a long way in lessening her subsequent problems.

Being able to establish before the incident that there was a distinct possibilty of this dude attacking her will go a long way towards her claim of self-defense.

My point is that guns simply give you an effective means of fighting back (a good thing). But the responsiblilty of having them and the consequences of misuse of firearms are immensely under-rated in most conversations.

The RO give you a far better chance at winning in court, which is usually a lot longer, more expensive and less fair fight than the gunfight that starts the whole process.

Edit to respond to Kelpdiver:

The RO doesn't give you free reign to murder, nor is it a "get out of jail free card". It will be a help for the legal battle that is almost sure to follow,

Anyone who shoots someone should plan on being arrested, handcuffed and thrown in jail regardless of the circumstances.
Plan on a legal bill in the low 5 figures.
Even with a Castle Doctrine (which basically removes the requirement to retreat in the face of a threat) shooting someone is considered really serious by the LEOs.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Or, it can cause the escalation by pushing a controlling person's buttons.

Yes, that's the risk.

But if you're dealing with an abusive person, you need to do something to stop the abuse. The risk is always going to exist that you push their buttons and the abuse escalates. I don't see a way to avoid that risk and still stop the abuse.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Guns don't solve problems. They often (usually) create more problems.

Source?

[steve1 5]

I went to a training, on domestic violence, recently. A FBI investigator was one of the speakers. He told of an investigation, where a Native American woman was beaten to death with a tire iron. The restraining order she had, on her nut case boyfriend, didn't help one bit. She tried to defend herself with a knife, but that proved futile. She was hit close to fifty times in the back of the head with a tire iron. Blood spatters were found thirty feet away from the body.

Too bad she didn't have a glock, to protect herself with!

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

Quote

Guns don't solve problems. They often (usually) create more problems.

Source?

AACFI carry class.

http://www.aacfi.com/pdf/MNEverythingYouNeedToKnow-Intro.pdf

This link is the intro to the "Everything You Need to Know About Carrying In Minnesota".

Second page (page 14) about a third of the way down.

For the record, I am pro-gun rights.

I just hate the ideas some people have about self defense. It's not simple, or easy or fun.

It's a life and death decision. Often "his life or my life" and it will have consequences.

AggieDave (most know that he's a Texas cop) has stated that the average cost to the citizen for a "No Bill" (no charges filed) CHL shoot is in the area of $50,000.

I really feel my life is worth that.

But not my car stereo.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PiLFy 0]

It's your choice, of course. Were I in an abusive relationship. I'd end it. Were I in fear for my life. Bet your ass I'm ready to defend it. That's not bravado. It's common sense, IMHO. My reply to you wasn't an invite to a back & forth. It was merely an observation. I'm dead set in my SA beliefs. I've no need or desire to join the fray, here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

AggieDave (most know that he's a Texas cop) has stated that the average cost to the citizen for a "No Bill" (no charges filed) CHL shoot is in the area of $50,000.

So how much cheaper is it if there is a restraining order? 48000?