The psychos have to honor the protective order....

Now they're saying she actually got an order, but it was rescinded due to a lack of evidence.

 

Apparently there were no threats of violence, just texts and calls.

Protective order or not, it's just a piece of paper.

Protective order or not' date=' it's just a piece of paper.[/quote']

 

Right it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Thinking that this guy wouldn't have shot his wife because he didn't want to violate the EPO is a fallacy. That would be like someone saying they wouldn't rob a bank because their exit would cause them to jaywalk. Inconsequential.

 

EPOs are a good tool for punishing violators in a stalking case or a divorce or custody battle but they won't deter murderers. (or attempted murderers)

Right it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Thinking that this guy wouldn't have shot his wife because he didn't want to violate the EPO is a fallacy. That would be like someone saying they wouldn't rob a bank because their exit would cause them to jaywalk. Inconsequential.

 

EPOs are a good tool for punishing violators in a stalking case or a divorce or custody battle but they won't deter murderers. (or attempted murderers)

Thank you Toots for adding a little common sense. People who think that the EPO staying in effect would have saved this lady from being shot are delusional. The shooter obviously did not care about the laws when he chased this woman down and shot her multiple times. He would not have cared about an EPO. Prayers to her and her family.

My wife works at a bank in Fort Thomas. Bank went into lockdown at the time of the shooting on word that the shooter might have still been loose. Not a typical day in the Bluebirds neighborhood.

I don't think anyone believes that an EPO would have stopped this. No one in this thread has said any such thing. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this woman's expressed concerns for her safety turned out to be well founded.

I don't think anyone believes that an EPO would have stopped this. No one in this thread has said any such thing. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this woman's expressed concerns for her safety turned out to be well founded.

 

Okay, then what does the post saying someone has some explaining to do imply? And what does the post saying the lady has some grounds for a lawsuit imply? I'll tell you what it implies: that the judge who rescinded the EPO made a mistake in doing so and it played a role in the lady being shot. Which is delusional.

 

And obviously I'm not the only person that understood the implication as Toots and lawildcat both made similar responses about the EPO not have been able to protect this women from being shot.

Wow! No need for the defensiveness. But one must wonder why you think they call them PROTECTIVE orders. If there is any "delusional (an inappropriately strong term) thinking" going on here it is in thinking that the legal order should not have been granted. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

 

The fact is, if EPO's served no purpose whatsoever, as you are clearly implying, then they should not exist at all. Like Watusi said, nothing is going to stop a crazed gunman; however, lets not live in a fantasy world where we believe our legal system is perfect and can do no wrong. That is wishful thinking to the extreme.

I don't understand what the big deal is with issuing an EPO or restraining order. If there are no kids or they don't work in the same place, what is the harm in issuing the order. And in no way do I think it would stop someone like in this case, so what is the big deal with issuing it.

The issue with EPO's, like so many other things, is that they are manipulated by people for the wrong reasons (custody disputes, revenege, etc) which leave those who truly need them in a place where the burden of proof is just that - a burden. This woman knew her husband, saw the escalation obviously, believed she was in danger and could not be protected - even on paper - because Jane Doe is trying to stick it to her ex before they go to court for custody of Jr. and Little Susie X 100 every day. No, the paper wouldn't stop the bullets, but if her employer knows she has an EPO and his car is in the lot, the can call the police for that. Lots of employers are becoming more proactive in these matters.

The issue with EPO's, like so many other things, is that they are manipulated by people for the wrong reasons (custody disputes, revenege, etc) which leave those who truly need them in a place where the burden of proof is just that - a burden. This woman knew her husband, saw the escalation obviously, believed she was in danger and could not be protected - even on paper - because Jane Doe is trying to stick it to her ex before they go to court for custody of Jr. and Little Susie X 100 every day. No, the paper wouldn't stop the bullets, but if her employer knows she has an EPO and his car is in the lot, the can call the police for that. Lots of employers are becoming more proactive in these matters.

You are right on target.

 

Another case where the innocent few pay the price for the sins of the many.

Article in the paper today indicated the wife wanted the restraining order because she thought he may not be taking his medicine for his mental illness.

Wow! No need for the defensiveness. Why do you think they call them PROTECTIVE orders. If there is any "delusional (an inappropriately strong term) thinking" going on here it is in the wishful thinking that the legal order should not have been granted. If EPO's served no purpose whatsoever, as you are clearly implying, then they should not exist at all. Nothing is going to stop a crazed gunman, but lets not live in a fantasy world where we believe our legal system is perfect and can do no wrong.

 

"Wow". Seriously?

 

I don't see how I can defend my point without being defensive. They kind of are one and the same thing. I simply pointed out the posts that implied the rescision of the EPO played a role in the lady's shooting. And again, I'm not the only person that understood that implication.

 

As for EPO's serving no purpose whatsoever, which I never implied by the way, they can be helpful in some limited situations. As Toots pointed out, an EPO may help protect someone against a stalker or may help in a situation where the police can be called in time to arrest the perp before an incident happens. They may be helpful in the situation where the person slapped with the EPO is willing to comply with the law.

 

In this specific situation that we are talking about here, where the shooter ambushed the lady, it would not have changed anything. The lady had no opportunity to call the police and tell them that the EPO was being violated and to come arrest the guy; and obviously, the shooter wasn't concerned the least with complying with any laws at that point.

 

If you disagree with that point, by all means explain how the EPO could have prevented the situation. I'd like to understand your rationale.

 

The simple fact is that my use of the word delusional bothers you.

"Wow". Seriously?

 

I don't see how I can defend my point without being defensive. They kind of are one and the same thing. I simply pointed out the posts that implied the rescision of the EPO played a role in the lady's shooting. And again, I'm not the only person that understood that implication.

 

As for EPO's serving no purpose whatsoever, which I never implied by the way, they can be helpful in some limited situations. As Toots pointed out, an EPO may help protect someone against a stalker or may help in a situation where the police can be called in time to arrest the perp before an incident happens. They may be helpful in the situation where the person slapped with the EPO is willing to comply with the law.

 

In this specific situation that we are talking about here, where the shooter ambushed the lady, it would not have changed anything. The lady had no opportunity to call the police and tell them that the EPO was being violated and to come arrest the guy; and obviously, the shooter wasn't concerned the least with complying with any laws at that point.

 

If you disagree with that point, by all means explain how the EPO could have prevented the situation. I'd like to understand your rationale.

 

The simple fact is that my use of the word delusional bothers you.

 

So if an EPO is issued for a stalker, the stalker is going to stop because of it? That's what you're implying above.

 

I agree that a protection order isn't going to stop a lunatic hellbent on shooting someone like this loser. But, I also don't see any reason that it's going to stop a stalker or anyone else for that matter as you eluded. It's essentially a piece of paper.

 

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing what the use of them is, if as you've pretty much implied, they're essentially useless.