Google+ invite lands man in jail

Post by king_jester » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:50 PM UTC

cdash wrote: post #74

einhverfr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the process is something like this (disclaimer, this is secondhand from listening to lawyers and I have no experience with the process): 1. Alleged victim goes to judge, gets temporary restraining order on essentially no evidence. This is supposed to be a stop-gap while further process is going on. 2. Alleged perpetrator is notified and a court date set to discuss whether the restraining order is appropriate. Te…

If the situation is life-threatening, how would a restraining order prevent it?

Post by king_jester » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:53 PM UTC

einhverfr wrote: post #63

rmc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if the person is threatening your life, then it makes sense that you might break up with them...

But if the person is threatening your life, it makes no sense to get a restraining order. "Yes, I know you want to kill me, so don't contact me, don't come near my home at such and such address, or my work at such and such address, or you will be guilty of a minor misdemeanor!" Right.... that's a good idea...

Post by king_jester » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:55 PM UTC

pervycreeper wrote: post #23

tluyben2 wrote: post #10

I watch American tv shows and movies and am well aware of restraining orders but thought it was something very rare and almost never happens; now I read this. Is it that normal to get one 'after a breakup'? I have never heard anything like that in my country except for hardcore, life threatening criminal situations. Is it that easy to get one there and you actually get rounded up and hauled to a cell for violating wh…

(IANAL) Restraining orders are usually granted without requiring any evidence, aside from the testimony of the person requesting it. I believe it is a common strategy for (especially) women to exploit this in order to gain some sort of advantage over their partners following a breakup.

Post by king_jester » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:58 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #73

Joeboy wrote: post #54

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably s…

In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.

Post by adekok » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:01 PM UTC

Joeboy wrote: post #77

adekok wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. "My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the…

> The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. And that is terrible, but I am not necessarily sure it is net terrible. To decide that, we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse when you reasonably fear a partner might harass, assault or kill you. I've no doubt the implementation details suck though. Ninja edit: Words.