Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google+ invite lands man in jail

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#131

Post by aestra »

einhverfr wrote: post #120
jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. Man: {apparently continues harassing her} Police: {enforce} Not seeing what the problem is here. The question of whether he actually did attempt to contact her is a fact-based one for the courts... Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and…

> Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and called her. He can certainly argue that in court. And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.

Really?

I think that's the legal equivalent of your mom saying "of course he couldn't have committed that murder, he was with me that night, we were watching Netflix."

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#132

Post by aestra »

DanBC wrote: post #116
jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. Man: {apparently continues harassing her} Police: {enforce} Not seeing what the problem is here. The question of whether he actually did attempt to contact her is a fact-based one for the courts... Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and…

I agree with you. The problem is that the order of events is sometimes: Person a: "i swear in court under penalties that person B poses a risk of harm to me and I want the court to prevent access" Judge "person b must not contact person a at all. This is a temporary order until we get a full hearing. Serve the papers so that person b knows about this because their not here for this meeting." Person b: "my life sucks.…

>clicky clicky friend request sent to everyone in person b's list

The person with the restraining order has the responsibly to remove that person from their lists. Email, phone, etc, so they don't accidentally press a wrong button, butt dial, etc. I know once or twice I dialed the wrong contact. They also have the responsibility to drive a different way home so they don't go by their house. They didn't take the proper precautions.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#133

Post by rmc »

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...

It makes perfect sense if the person is likely to kill/harm you in a fit of passion.

If the harasser could get carried away in an argument and start beating, but didn't leave the house planning to kill, then restraining orders can limit the time the harasser is around you and limit the time before they 'blow their cool'. When the harasser breaks the restraining order and comes near you "just to talk, I promise", you can get the police involved straight away, and the harasser can be hauled off before they lose their cool.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#134

Post by rmc »

einhverfr wrote: post #120
jellicle wrote: post #108

Judge: do not contact this woman. Man: {apparently continues harassing her} Police: {enforce} Not seeing what the problem is here. The question of whether he actually did attempt to contact her is a fact-based one for the courts... Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and…

> Similarly, if the woman receives a phone call with heavy breathing from the man's home phone number, it's certainly possible that he didn't do it: perhaps someone broke into his house and called her. He can certainly argue that in court. And all he has to do to win is raise reasonable doubt. Get a friend to say "I did it as a prank, and he told me not to." No restraining order violated.

Sure, but you've have to prove it in court. The criminal justice system is used to sorting out claimed alibi's. I'm doubtful you have discovered some novel hack to the justice system.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#135

Post by rmc »

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?

Imagine a person who is likely to kill/harm you in a fit of passion.

If the harasser could get carried away in an argument and start beating, but didn't leave the house planning to kill, then restraining orders can limit the time the harasser is around you and limit the time before they 'blow their cool'. When the harasser breaks the restraining order and comes near you "just to talk, I promise", you can get the police involved straight away, and the harasser can be hauled off before they lose their cool, and things escalate.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#136

Post by aestra »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33
rjknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it sounds unlikely, then there's probably more to the story. We don't know what happened between them that caused a judge to believe the order to be necessary, but I presume that such orders are not given lightly.

They are given lightly. For example, a woman in Santa Fe got a restraining order after a "breakup" with David Letterman. He was ordered to stop communicating with her via code words on his show. Kelsey Grammar was also involved somehow. http://www.volokh.com/files/lettermanapp.pdf http://www.volokh.com/files/lettermantro.pdf (It was later overturned on the grounds that the Santa Fe court didn't have jurisdiction over…

They are also not given when they should be.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/alissa-blanton-stalker-kills-flori...

EDIT: She was actually looking for an order of protection, my mistake

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#137

Post by rmc »

einhverfr wrote: post #122
cdash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh I agree with you. If I thought someone might actually try to kill me (not just hurt me), a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead. But I understand that to be the theory.

a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead

Not an option for some people. You need savings and cash while hiding. What if you have children, can you just pull them out of school (say), while you hide? How long would you hide for? 5 years?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#138

Post by rmc »

dredmorbius wrote: post #29
pervycreeper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

There's a distinction in many jurisdictions between a temporary order (granted as a matter of course on prima facie statement of the requester) and a permanent order, which generally requires a hearing and evidence from both parties (though if only one shows, the order is generally granted base on preponderance of evidence). ROs suffer from a number of deficiencies: if someone's really bent on doing harm, they can be…

if someone's really bent on doing harm, they can be grossly ineffective

The flip side of that statment is that in some situtations they are effective at stopping harm, and that they act as a deterrent.

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#139

Post by rmc »

adekok wrote: post #92
king_jester wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Perhaps the reason why women seek TROs and ROs is because they are much more likely then men to be the victim of physical assault, stalking, harassment, or murder from their partners or former partners.

> they are much more likely then men to be the victim That's the common belief. How do we know it's true, and not a "just so" story? My investigations into this led me to CDC reports (and others) showing that DV / IPV was largely 50/50. Harm was more often done to the smaller partner (i.e. women). But women also tended to use more weapons in their attacks. These reports aren't hard to find. Most people don't look.

Rather than look at all cases of "harm", look at the serious cases, like murder, or harm requiring a hospital visit/stitches/broken bones/etc. What's the split then?

Re: Google+ invite lands man in jail

#140

Post by aestra »

einhverfr wrote: post #122
cdash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh I agree with you. If I thought someone might actually try to kill me (not just hurt me), a restraining order is the last thing I would get. I'd go into hiding instead. But I understand that to be the theory.

> I'd go into hiding instead.

This person knows where you live, where you work, who all your friends are, your family.

Yeah, right. You are expected to quit your job, take your kids out of school (who are possibly also his kids), move hundreds of miles away, and possibly still not get away because they are following you around. On a whim. Oh, and never contact your friends and family again, they can be watching.

Post reply on HN