Rachel Lucas wins at Internets again, this time for her spot-on assessment of the effectiveness of restraining orders.
Of course, if the woman in the video gets a gun and a carry permit to protect herself from a violent psycho who thinks nothing of beating the shit out of her in the middle of a courthouse, nothing good can come from it, because he’s only going to take the gun away and use it against her. Because 240-pound males have no way to kill a woman if they don’t have access to guns. Or something.
Now imagine that assault in the woman’s kitchen at 2 in the morning, and her with nothing but a cell phone in her hand. There was a cop within shouting distance of that fracas, and Violent Psycho still had enough time to hurt or kill her. What chance would she have had in her kitchen at 2AM, armed with nothing but a cell phone?
Oh, she got the restraining order. A temporary one. And he got a $25,000 bond, which means he has to put up the princely sum of $2,000 before he can walk the streets again until his trial. But I’m sure it will be fine. He doesn’t seem like the type to hold a grudge, or violently lose control of himself.
I am a NYS Court Officer. Leaving the matter of the Restraining Order (which, in my state are almost always temporary, even the Permanent ones and are typically ignored), I can’t for the life of me understand why a courthouse would function without an officer or deputy or…something in the courtroom.
People get very angry in court and routinely attack other people (their attorney, usually. But also their attacker, their child’s attacker, the judge, the clerk, spectators, etc.).
I work in Family Court which is particularly…volatile.
Crazy stuff.
Setting aside the gun issue briefly, in what moment of lunacy does a magistrate LEAVE THE REQUESTING PARTY TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ALONE IN A ROOM WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUESTED ORDER?! That judge and court should be sued for sheer incompetence. I didn’t read past the first sentence before the first “WTF??” came out.