Tuesday, July 29, 2008

"In general, a restraining order is only enforceable against a law-abiding, non-violent man."

Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks: Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice:

Women’s advocates and the state Attorney General's office are criticizing a new court ruling which will make it harder for women to get restraining orders against their male partners. Star-Ledger columnist Fran Wood, in her recent op-ed “Don't soften protection for women,” called New Jersey’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act “one of the best statutes in the country,” and said the new ruling could “diminish the ability of domestic violence victims to get the protection they need.”

Certainly abused women need protection and support, but there are many troubling aspects of the DVPA’s restraining order provisions that merit judicial and/or legislative redress.

Under the DVPA, it is very easy for a woman to allege domestic violence and get a restraining order (aka “protection order”). New Jersey issues 30,000 restraining orders annually, and men are targeted in 4/5ths of them. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence” (often conceptualized as 51%-49%), and judges almost always side with the accusing plaintiff.

Under the DVPA, the accuser need not even claim actual abuse. Alleged verbal threats of violence are sufficient, even though it’s almost impossible for the accused to provide substantive contradictory evidence.

The restraining order boots the man out of his own home and generally prohibits him from contacting his own children. Men are cut off from their possessions and property, and some end up in homeless shelters.


Update: Vox Day has more on New Jersey's lack of regard for the Constitution when it comes to men and domestic violence.

Labels: ,

54 Comments:

Blogger Trudy W Schuett said...

The biggest flaw in all of this is the presumption that laws have any effect on intimate partner abuse whatsoever. It's a problem of human relationships and emotion, and there's just no way to legislate that.

10:37 AM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Jacob said...

I have conflicting thoughts on the matter. I'm all about standing up for the trampled rights (and reputation) of men, and clearly the system is set up to allow a great deal of abuse, but on the other hand, prudence would seem to dictate that we err on the side of caution. I don't know if there is a way adequately address one of these issues without doing so at the expense of the other.

11:55 AM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Kevin M said...

I, too, have conflicted feeling on this subject, and I live in NJ. On the one hand, prudence and compassion dictate that a woman threatened with physical violence should have the legal means to protect herself. On the other hand, the cavalier manner in which many restraining orders are granted makes it very easy for a woman to exploit her male partner's legal vulnerability (and don't tell me that thousands of women aren't gleefully exploiting this tactic, much to their partner's wrongful suffering).

It's like the welfare system: We all want the poor and needy to receive the food and necessaries to help them get along, but when you set up any governmental system, you get governmental oversight...deaf, dumb and blind. Small wonder when welfare was instituted, the ranks of the poor exploded.

And not to sound cynical, but I really wonder how many women married men who suddenly and without any notice became violent SOBs. You'd think there would have been some sign of this behavior BEFORE the rings were exchanged. The more I look at domestic violence, the more I wonder about the people dying to get married.

12:30 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Vinnie said...

My future ex was granted a restraining order because "I might yell at her".

12:42 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:05 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger br549 said...

Just in case anyone is interested, a restraining order, OR an order of protection is only enforceable against a law abiding, non-violent WOMAN as well. Been there, done that. Trouble is, they are rarely enforced against a woman - if at all. I can only (again) speak for my own experiences.

My ex took one each of the above out on me, and then proceeded to break them both by calling and harassing (which she still does about every 3 months - like mary - 12 years later) and coming over and storming right into the house yelling and screaming over something she must have dreamed, because as with everything else she accused me of, it never happened.

Long and short, she was trying to get me to do something in anger. Keeping my head only made her more nuts. I should have filmed it. "Fatal Attraction" wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to my home movie.

But the police and medical professionals knew she was a nut case, and never enforced anything against her. She broke her own orders. Go figure. They let her do as she wished. My kids and I had to move - out of state, three times, three states, before she finally backed off.

But men are treated fairly, OK?

1:20 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I don't have conflicting feelings on this. These protective orders are routinely used by attorneys as a tool to gain the upper hand, usually against the man. From what I've seen abuse is rampant.

When a protective order are truly needed, it usually doesn't work because the abuser doesn't care about the threat anyway. Plus, if there is actual assault or just threats, there are already laws to take care of that.

1:20 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

If ROs weren't routinely abused by "victims" there wouldn't be much of a movement to curtail their use now would there?

5:32 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger JPinNJ said...

If "domestic violence' is as pervasive in society as womens groups suggest then it can clearly be proved by a more reliable standard of proof than one which is equivalent to a coin toss. And, since eye-witness testimony is considered the least credible, it doesn't take a statistician to know that when tossing a fair coin, over time, you will be right 50% of the time, but you will also be wrong 50% of the time.
Claiming "there are [often] no other witnesses in a "he said /she said" case infers the only basis for seeking a restraining order is the credibility of the accuser. Accordingly it is the preponderance of evidence that would "make it easier for judges, if they have any doubt as to a victim's credibility, to deny a restraining order".
The bottom line is simple. Not even "beyond a reasonable doubt" has prevented those falsely accused of murder or rape from execution and/or rotting in jail.

But protecting the masses of poor, defenseless women is not really womens groups purpose. The purpose is, in fact, the desire to use the restraining order as a means of intimidation within a marriage and as a first strike weapon in divorce.

10:06 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

jpinnj: Have you ever been stalked?

10:19 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger MemeSmith said...

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Benjamin Franklin

But according to the New Jersey Law Journal, Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City, NJ made the following statements (on tape) in a judicial training session regarding restraining orders:

Source (pdf of scanned New Jersey Law Journal article):

http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_1.pdf
http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_2.pdf

"Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," he said. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around ...The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection ... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights."

Regarding DV policy, the National Academy of Sciences states as follows here http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10849&page=6

“As a previous National Research Council committee found, the design of prevention and control strategies…frequently is driven by ideology and stakeholder interest rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of causes”

10:39 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Youngblai said...

I've never been stalked, but I've also never been tossed out of my own home either. I think that the Founding Father were quite clear that depriving a citizen of their property unjustifiably was quite verboten under that funny Constitution thing--and I think that this might be a tack to get new standards enforced.

If a lawyer stands up in court and says something fundamentally untrue (i.e., "Mr. Jones is a menace..."), regardless of the need to be an advocate for their client, there should be ramifications like loss of law license. Unfortunately, you have all three branches of government dominated by lawyers so, hey, what are the odds of _that_ happening?

I think that the day is coming where people will wonder when the rule of law ceased being respected. It will be the "minor terrors" like this that gradually pushed things to the point where the fabric of our society ripped. But, hey, let's not "worry about the rights"...

10:47 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger br549 said...

cham: Have you ever been accused of terrible things that you, your friends, neighbors, children, police, lawyers, doctors, and judges know full well you did not do - but has been allowed to stand anyway?

Ever been told to pack up your kids and move, have to leave a career job of 25 years and move out of state, only to be followed by the very same accuser? And that same accuser still bothers you 3 or 4 times a year a dozen years later - after following you around just to find out where you live to be able to keep making your life impossible? Ever sat down and seriously contemplated taking somebody out, because you felt that may be the only way your kids would be safe? And that person is someone you said "I do" to 23 years earlier? Ever seen someone snap so hard, so completely and permanently, that they are totally unrecognizable?

The nut house door swings both ways, cham. So I can say yes, I've been stalked. It's sort of still going on, matter of fact.

One could say your simple question touched a nerve, eh?

11:06 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger JPinNJ said...

To Cham:

No I have never been stalked, but I have been setup and thrown out of my house and ripped away from my children on false accusations of DV by my now ex-wife who was meeting in secret with her divorce attorney for 6 weeks before she went down to the courthouse with her attorney to file for a TRO based on my sliding a box across the kitchen counter.

You see she and her attorney had planned it for weeks even down to detail of making sure the "correct" judge was presiding on this "special day".
Have you ever been falsely accused, thrown out of your house and ripped away from your children CHAM

11:10 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

BR549:

If you didn't get an order of restraint on your exwife, you most certainly should have done so.

11:22 PM, July 29, 2008  
Blogger Acksiom said...

Cham:

Have you ever been accused of terrible things that you, your friends, neighbors, children, police, lawyers, doctors, and judges know full well you did not do - but has been allowed to stand anyway?

Have you ever been falsely accused, thrown out of your house, and/or ripped away from your children?

Also, "Those pesky women simply won't behave right to make men happy."

Personally, I've always found that making other people happy is one of the greatest, most wonderful and uplifting joys in life that a person could ever experience.

Apparently, though, in the Chamiverse, that isn't the case -- at least, when the people to be made happy are male, and the person to be experiencing that greatest and most wonderful and uplifting of joys is female, that is.

Tell us, Cham: why do you want to deny so deeply rewarding and pleasureable an experience to not only yourself, but other women as well, as it appears you do?

12:09 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Lingüísta said...

Hm, maybe it would be OK to tone down the words a bit. I'm sure there are men who got unfair restraining orders without any real reason for that, but there are also stalkers who should be restrained. Men and women. The problem is telling them apart. If the legislation and court practices are lacking, they should be changed; but as far as I can see, restraining orders are a necessary tool in some cases.

Or are they? Someone claimed above that, in the cases in which restraining orders are really necessary (the restrained spouse is really a bad person, a stalker, a threat, etc.), it doesn't work, because the spouse in question ignores it. Is that so? Can you ignore a restraining order? I thought this would imply severe consequences (prison, etc.)

2:13 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Kevin M said...

Cham: "Have you ever been stalked?"

Have you ever been stalked and tried to defend yourself with a piece of paper?

Conversely, have you ever had a judge tell you that you can't go near your wife, property or children because your wife has exploited her smaller physical size and her talent for tear-duct dramatics to cast you in the light of an aggressor so that, when the divorce proceedings arrive, they arrive on the coattails of an RO that already makes you suspect in the eyes of a jury?

Let's get back to the basis here: ROs only work with law-abiding citizens, NOT THE CREEPS FOR WHOM THEY WERE INVENTED. Or have you never read of a woman murdered by a guy who looked upon an RO the same way Hitler looked upon that flapping bit of paper Neville Chamberlain so famously waved in the air??

4:25 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Here is the results of a study regarding reoffenses after a protective order has been issued.

Filing for a protective order resulted in a significant (66%) decline in abuse in the cases examined by this study.

It's an interesting study, take a look.

7:48 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Rigel Kent said...

Cham, try reading what's been written by the people you want to criticize. BR549 clearly stated that he had a restraining order but the authorities chose not to enforce it.

So from you're great fount of wisdom, please share, what should he have done then?

7:51 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger JPinNJ said...

CHAM
mandatory arrest laws and resulting restraining orders have increased partner homicides by 54%, according to a recent Harvard University study.
“Mandatory arrest laws are responsible for an additional 0.8 murders per 100,000 people.” –Radha Iyengar, PhD

7:55 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Rigel Kent said...

I took a look at the study cham. And ignoring for a moment that 200 couples in one county is hardly enough of a statistical universe to base any sort of predictions on, the entire concept of the study is flawed. It's assuming that all of the cases where a woman filed for a protective order were legitimate.

I.E., that there was violence before the order was sought. I don't think anyone here is complaining about women who are being abused getting legal help, they're upset that the whole process of getting a po makes it easy for a woman to claim abuse, or the threat of abuse where there's been none.

8:02 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

I'm not criticizing anyone. All I have done here is ask one question which has generated a rather interesting set of responses.

We don't know enough about BR549's case to make a judgment. Mind you, I'm not saying he didn't experience a bad situation.

8:02 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Rigel Kent said...

Oh, please cham. Of course you're criticizing. And you have done more than ask a question. You told Br549 to get a restraining order if he didn't have one. Even though he stated that he did have one, but that it hadn't been enforced.

Listen (or read in this case) before you speak (or type as the case may be).

And I didn't ask you to make a judgement in his (Br549) case. Any judgement you (or I, or any of us) make is irrelevant. Since you were so quick to jump in with advice I was just asking you what advice you'd give him now.

8:13 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger JPinNJ said...

Extending on Rigel Kent:

and the overall Family Courts system's blanket acceptance without critical review or analysis "that women would not make false abuse accusations"

Absolute power corrupt absolutely and that is what the family court system has handed to women that choose to manipulate the system for their own personal gain.
The preconception that NO women would ever do that by the family court and that every man is an "evil perpetrator of the patriarchy" is the problem.

Judge's need to be Judges not politically correct hacks handing out an RO to any women that asks for it because it is the politically correct thing to do.

No family court judge will end up in the newspaper headlines by throwing a thousand men out in the street.

Yet the fear by judges of being criticized publicly by a Feminist media for not ordering an RO is overwhelming.

8:17 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

Part of the reason judges tend to side with the plaintiff is the CYA principle (you probably already know CYA stands for "cover your ass").

As a security professional, I frequently see wasted resources on CYA. No one wants to be on the hot seat.

In the case of domestic violence, as much as I see false accusations as a very troublesome epidemic, I can see where a judge would err on the side of the plantiff. It's not fair, but it is reasonable for them to worry that if they decline it and the plantiff ends up hurt or dead, that women's groups may form a lynch mob that the judge refused to help her when she asked for it. (The way groups like NOW are these days, the lynch mob might form even if nothing happens.)

Some sleeze divorce "counselors" and lawyers often coach wives to call 911 too quickly and see counselors about psychological abuse because it gives an advantage in divorce court. One way to reduce frivilous accusations is to make them less beneficial to the accuser.

No easy answers.

8:25 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

"Those pesky women simply won't behave right to make men happy."

This always gives me a chuckle since feminists are huge proponents of making a man "behave right," often through abusing the legal system, to make them "happy." (an impossible feat. making them happy that is.)

8:32 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

Cham, sadly, that is a really poorly designed study that does not tell us anything. Here are some of the problems:

- there are no validity or reliability measures.

- there is precious little data at all, it is based on self reports and filed protective order requests rather than any verified data!

- it is more opinion and reporting than it is science.

Just a for instance, a woman (the study only included women victims) files a false protective order against a man whom she says was attacking her. He was not, she just filed it to annoy the man or as a legal maneuver to keep him from his children. There is nothing to keep a case like that from being included in the study. So this woman, who was never attacked, is not attacked after the order of protection. This would be included in the data that "shows" that protective order's reduce violence.

Garbage study. It would never pass peer review in a decent journal that was interested in science.

Trey

10:09 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

linguista wrote: "but as far as I can see, restraining orders are a necessary tool in some cases. (snip)

Can you ignore a restraining order? I thought this would imply severe consequences (prison, etc.)"

It is my experience that people can ignore amazingly bad consequences. Hell, I can too! I used to smoke cigarettes!

Necessary tools work. I am not sure that these work, but I agree that people deserve protection. Maybe they should invest in a 38 caliber restraining order.

Trey

10:13 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

One can't legally kill someone for following a person, yelling at a person, or threatening a person through phone calls, emails or voicemails. The 38 caliber restraining order would have some serious ramifications for the stalking victim.

10:45 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Wayne said...

cham - your question to jpinnj about having been stalked is irrelevant to the issue here.

The issue here is the unjustifiable deprivation of men from their property and especially association with their children MERELY because women can get away with it. Also, the title of the original post makes the point that ACTUAL abusers don't often let little things like restraining orders bother them.

So I will ask it differently than I have seen it above:

WHAT should be done when a man can be forced out of his house for the heinous crime of throwing a cat toy and knocking his wife's glasses askew (happened to a former coworker)? Or, more to the point, when ALL accusations of DV by the accuser are known to be LIES? Or when the only violence going on is AGAINST THE MAN?

10:55 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

cham --

I'm not criticizing anyone. All I have done here is ask one question which has generated a rather interesting set of responses.

Pull the other one, cham. Your questions are crafted to attempt to make the recipient look like they had neglected some important variable.

"Have you ever been stalked?"

Which has what to do with an RO obtained under false pretenses?

If you didn't get an order of restraint...

I'll give you the benefit of ignorance. ROs work on both parties, not just one. The fact BR549s ex broke the RO struck you as copacetic?

We don't know enough about BR549's case to make a judgment.

Really? It fits with all his previous posts and provided quite enough information to judge that his ex was abusing the system to harass him and his kids. How is it you didn't get that?

The 38 caliber restraining order would have some serious ramifications for the stalking victim.

He's talking about the knowledge that you are not defenseless deterring to a greater degree than a piece of paper and to when the perp shows up at your house threatening violence. But, you knew that.

10:57 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Wayne:

If you look at the data you will find that a significant percentage of stalkers, rapists, physical and verbal abusers get the message quite clearly through a temporary restraining order to stay away from the object of their rage. (Anyone is free to cite a study that says otherwise)

Again, we don't know enough about the situation with your coworker to make a judgment on his particular case.

11:01 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Olig is making assumptions about where I was going with my question. The question was just a question.

BR549 and Wayne are explaining situations from their point of view, which is within their right. However, I am not going to comment because we have no idea whether what they say is fact or there is more information. I'm not accusing either one of lying or providing false information, just opting not make a judgment.

11:20 AM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Wayne said...

And again, cham, you don't address the issue. What is to be done if there is a significant number of these restraining orders that are either predicated on lies, or without need for any actual violence or credible threat of violence in order to get it?

Olig is making assumptions about where I was going with my question. The question was just a question.

Your questions, and some of your comments, have been asked in such a way as to imply that the other person is lying (directly or by omission), disclaimers to the contrary.

12:51 PM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Joe said...

I removed my comment about a man I know who got an apparently unjustified restraining order against him during a divorce. He was just arrested for trying to kill her. In this case, the restraining order was apparently justified. I suspect he was lying to me about its reasons.

Yes, I still think they are too easy to get in too many jurisdictions, but that doesn't mean they aren't always justified. Of course, it also means that having a gun to enforce it when it is justified would be helpful.

12:54 PM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger br549 said...

Logic gets its butt kicked by emotion every day. That's why there are the problems there are in this world.

My ex is mentally ill. Not her fault, but impossible to deal with none the less. The professionals did not (do not) want to deal with her. Nor do the police. As she has not actually shot, stabbed, or run over me or any of my kids, she remains at large. In order for her to be incarcerated in any way, someone would have to be seriously injured - or killed. Were it the other way round, with the same powers that be, I'd have been jailed a long time ago. I have a penis. And white skin. I have been told as much. Say what you want. But there it is. By the way, I am not blaming anyone without a penis, or with other than white skin. It is the embedded powers that be that need to be removed. The ones who have jobs for life. Not so much the elected officials, who come and go.

I'm not here to pick on cham. But what I have been through, and continue to a lesser degree to go through still, would not wish on anyone. It has ruined a major portion of my life. It is beyond my ability to fully explain it.

4:15 PM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger MarkyMark said...

Guys,

Why do you keep responding to this man hating, feminazi troll Cham?! Why do you do that?! It's obvious that she doesn't want to be confused with the facts or the truth, as this would ruin her feminazi world view.

I haven't been married; after having been pulled through the family court meatgrinder (courtesy of a false accusation here in NJ), I realized that I, as a man, have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. DV is whatever Wifey says it is, folks.

In my case, I was stalked by a girl who I dated briefly, but she then blew me off. She would follow me home from work; show up at my hangouts; drive by my house, etc. She then went to the cops, and accused ME of doing all the above to HER! I got hauled out of my domicile one night in handcuffs, a la Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany; I got arrested & cuffed based SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SOMEONE'S WORD...

I had to go to family court for an RO hearing. It was worse than a kangaroo court; that would have been halfway honest! How biased was it? One, the judge ruled in favor of the women ALL DAY LONG. It didn't matter what she did, or if it was worse than what the man had done; the women got favorable rulings. Two, when my attorney stood to argue a SALIENT & RELEVANT LEGAL POINT pertaining to my case, the judge cut him off in midsentence-just cut him off! That black robed SOB did NOT want to hear it! It would have been one thing to over rule my attorney after he argued my point; but, he wasn't allowed to even do THAT much! Finally, Judge Richard Russell must have trained my judge, since my Constitutional rights were not respected at all during this whole thing...

MarkyMark

9:54 PM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Some of the commenters aren't exactly supporting their POV about unjustified orders of protection when they use copious amounts of capital letters and name calling. ;)

11:56 PM, July 30, 2008  
Blogger Rigel Kent said...

A little lesson in proper usage cham, when one person does something you use the singular. In this case it would be commenter, not commenters.

Secondly either the facts we present are accurate or they are not. How we present them does not alter that. Would it be nice if everybody were polite? Certainly.

But considering what a horrible experience it can be, I can understand how someone might not be interested in social nicieties.

Human nature is such that when an oppurtunity presents itself to abuse power it will eventually be abused. Even a casual knowledge of history will confirm that.

Does that mean everybody who files for a po is abusing the power the state has folloishly given them? No. It doesn't even mean that most of them do. But when you give that kinf of power out, it will be abused.

The problem with the po is that when a woman asks for one, she soesn't have to prove that a man did anything. As the judge says himself, they are violating the man's constitutional rights when they grant one.

Is domestic violence horrible? Should a person doing it be stopped? Should they be punished? A resounding yes to all three. But you should have to prove that the man committed the crime before you punish him.

Why do you believe that's an unreasonable expectation cham?

1:17 AM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger br549 said...

Sorry you dated a loon, markymark.

You found what I have stated many times in this blog, and will repeat again now, and as often as it takes.

Anyone, everyone: take a week off work. Go sit in the back row of a local divorce court for that entire week. Listen, and watch. You simply will not believe what goes on. When one considers it is a single court, in one town, for one week, it's incredible. It's crazy. If you have a friend considering marriage, send him there. Then give him a case of beer and a one way bus ticket to the opposite corner of the country from where he lives. That'll give him at least a couple days to think it over. With a one way bus ticket, should he decide he still wants to go through with it, he'll have to pay his own way back.

6:28 AM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger br549 said...

You do not know me, cham. I do not know you. I am very happy that is the case.

7:15 AM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

Please cite where I have written an opposing view, rigel.

9:40 AM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

Hey, I sometimes agree with Cham and sometimes disagree, but I have never thought of cham as a bigot and I have read lot's of cham's posts.

Cham, I appreciate your asking for a study that says that protective orders don't work, so I looked for one. In the time I looked, I found that there are not many studies that have been done on the matter that I could find! There are two that are widely quoted, the one you mentioned that was flawed and another that I have not been able to track down yet.

Of the others, I found some interesting patterns. One study that was very positive on the helpfullness of protective orders stated that over 50% of women (all the studies I found were about women filing protective orders on "criminals," I mean men) reported assaults after the order. One study claimed 3 in 5 women were assaulted.

Another study I found talked about a service offered where the woman who filed the order can call anumber to see if the order has been served. The article said that the first 48 hours after the order is served (it takes from 2 weeks to 3 months to actually SERVE the order) is quite dangerous for hte woman as the chances of violent acting out are much higher during those two days.

So I was left with questions about how and why the studies claim that the orders work! Over 50% of the women are assaulted after it is served, serving the order immediatley escalates the chances of violence, and it takes between two weeks and three months to have one served! None of that sounds acceptable to me, and that is not even addressing protective order abuse.

So I remain concerned about the problem and how to get people some safety, but more skeptical about protective orders being worth a damn.

Trey (still looking for a good study on them)

10:03 AM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger pockosmum said...

My husband was stalked. For years. The police to this day have done squat...he's a big strong man and his stalker is a 98-pound fairly pretty girl. 98-pound girls can still set your house on fire (as she has threatened on occasion), but it's seen as funny when a man asks for help with a problem like this. She still pops up once a year of so, drives us crazy for a week or two with calls in the wee hours, and then she disappears again till the next time. I'm hoping that one day she'll forget about us.

8:55 PM, July 31, 2008  
Blogger look said...

情趣用品,
性感睡衣,
免費視訊聊天,
視訊交友網,
美姬圖影,
情境坊歡愉用品,
花美姬情趣用品,
成人圖片,
臺灣情色網,
嘟嘟情人色網,
色情網站,
情境坊歡愉用品,
徵信,
徵信公司,
徵信,
外遇,
徵信,
徵信,
抓姦,
徵信,
外遇,
徵信,
徵信社,
徵信社,
抓姦,
徵信社,
徵信社,
徵信社,
,
,
整型,
視訊聊天,
視訊交友,
AV女優,
色情,
A片,
A片,
情趣用品,
情色,
A片,
色情影片,
情趣用品,
A片,
AV女優,
視訊聊天室,
聊天,
情趣用品,
情惑用品性易購,
情侶歡愉用品,
A片,
情趣,
情惑用品性易購,
辣妹視訊,
自慰套,
情侶歡愉用品,
寄情築園小遊戲,
aio交友愛情館,
美女視訊,
色情A片,
情趣用品,
徵信社,
情趣用品,
A片,
美女視訊,
色情A片,
AV女優,
A片,
辣妹視訊,
自慰套,
情侶歡愉用品,

3:45 PM, March 15, 2009  
Blogger nini said...

85cc免費影城 愛情公寓正妹牆川藏第一美女 成人影片 情色交友網 美女視訊 美女視訊 視訊情人高雄網 JP成人影城 383成人影城 aa片免費a片下載 a片線上看aa片免費看 ※a片線上試看※sex520免費影片※ aa片免費看 BT成人論壇 金瓶影片交流區 自拍美女聊天室 aa片免費a片下載 SEX520免費影片 免費a片 日本美女寫真集 sex520aa免費影片 sex520aa免費影片 BT成人網 Hotsee免費視訊交友 百分百貼影片區 SEX520免費影片 免費視訊聊天室 情人視訊高雄網 星光情色討論版 正妹牆 383成人影城 線上85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 85cc免費影城 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 免費視訊聊天室 85cc免費影片 85cc免費影片 080苗栗人聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 080中部人聊天室 免費a片下載 免費a片 AA片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 aa片免費看 日本av女優影片 av女優 av女優無碼影城 av女優 av女優 百分百成人圖片 百分百成人圖片 視訊情人高雄網 電話交友 影音電話交友 絕色影城 絕色影城 夜未眠成人影城 夜未眠成人影城 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 色咪咪影片網 免費色咪咪貼影片 免費色咪咪貼影片 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 色情遊戲 影音視訊交友網 視訊交友網 080視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊聊天室 成人影音視訊聊天室 ut影音視訊聊天室 ※免費視訊聊天室※ 視訊ukiss聊天室視訊ukiss聊天室 視訊交友90739 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 168視訊美女 視訊美女館 視訊美女館 免費視訊美女網 小高聊天室 小高聊天室 aio交友聊天室 aio交友聊天室 交友聊天室 交友聊天室 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 線上a片 免費線上a片 免費線上a片 嘟嘟成人網站 成人漫畫 情色文學 嘟嘟成人網 成人貼圖區 情色文學成人小說 微風成人區 情色貼圖區 免費視訊聊天 免費成人圖片區 愛情公寓 愛情公寓聊天室 寄情築園小遊戲 免費aa片線上看 aa片免費看 情色SXE聊天室 SEX情色遊戲 色情A片 免費下載 av女優 俱樂部 情色論壇 辣妹視訊 情色貼圖網 免費色情 聊天室 情人視訊聊天室 免費a片成人影城 免費a片-aa片免費看 0204貼圖區 SEX情色 交友聊天-線上免費 女優天堂 成人交友網 成人情色貼圖區 18禁 -女優王國 080視訊美女聊天室 080視訊聊天室 視訊交友90739 免費a片 aio 視訊交友網 成人影城-免費a片※免費視訊聊天※85cc免費影片日本線上免費a片 免費色咪咪影片免費色咪咪影片aaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看成人影城免費色咪咪影片

3:39 PM, April 06, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 吉澤明步QQ美女視訊秀 85cc免費影片aa影片下載城sex免費成人影片aaa片免費看短片美女視訊 sex383線上娛樂場av969 免費短片日本免費視訊aa影片下載城視訊網愛聊天室影音視訊交友 咆哮小老鼠分享論壇sex520免費影片aa免費影片下載城aio辣妺視訊 aio辣妹交友愛情館 jp成人影片aio交友愛情館馬子免費影片免費線上a片18成人85cc影城0204movie免費色咪咪視訊網pc交友s383視訊玩美女人34c高雄視訊聊天jp成人免費視訊辣妹 kk777視訊俱樂部xxxpandalive173影音視訊聊天室 sex520-卡通影片成人免費視訊 完美女人13060 免費視訊聊天sexy girl video movie辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室UT視訊美女交友視訊情色網百事無碼a片dvd線上aa片免費看18禁成人網ut聊天室kk俱樂部視訊激情網愛聊天 情人小魔女自拍卡通aa片免費看夜未眠成人影城aio性愛dvd辣妹影片直播拓網視訊交友視訊聊天室ggoo168論壇視訊辣妹love104影音live秀 美女show-live視訊情色yam交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室s383情色大網咖視訊aaa俱樂部台灣情色網無碼avdvdsexy diamond sex888入口Show-live視訊聊天室

5:00 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

免費 a 片aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部dodo豆豆聊天室sex520網路自拍美女聊天室天堂免費線上avdvd援交av080影片aa影片下載城aaa片免費看短片成人圖片區18成人avooogo2av免費影片sexdiy影城免費線上成人影片bonbonsex0951影片下載日本av女優sex888免費看影片免費視訊78論壇辣妹有約辣妹no31314視訊dudu sex免費影片avdvd情色影片免費色咪咪影片網av080免費試看日本美女寫真集辣妹脫衣麻將視訊聊天室性福免費影片分享日本美女寫真集,kk視訊aio交友愛情館免費成人美女視訊bt論壇色情自拍免費a片卡通tw 18 net卡通18美少女圖色情漫畫777美女小護士免費 aa 片試看百分百成人情色圖片a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fuckedsexy girl video movie情色文學成人小說sex888免費看eyny 伊莉論壇sexdiy影城自拍情色0204movie免費影片aio免費aa片試看s383情色大網咖sexy girl video movie草莓牛奶AV論壇台灣論壇18禁遊戲區環球辣妹聊天室 90691拓網aio交友愛情館拓網學生族視訊777美女 sex888影片分享區hi5 tv免費影片aa的滿18歲卡通影片sex383線上娛樂場sexdiy影城免費a片線上觀看真人美女辣妹鋼管脫衣秀比基尼辣妹一夜情視訊aio交友愛情館

5:00 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger 天天看正妹 said...

視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片

5:00 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger 徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信公會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 徵信協會 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿

11:28 PM, April 21, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

smiling,face.Not,only,can,answer,good,intentions,by,form.Can,also,shorten,distance,between,human,relationses!Happiness-not-is-getting-much.And-is-accounting-less~wish-happy-delectation....

10:36 AM, May 05, 2009  
Blogger 1798 said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

6:15 AM, May 20, 2009  
Blogger 1122 said...

85cc免費影城85cc免費影城831成人831成人777美女dvd777美女dvd777成人777成人視訊交友9073977p2p影片網77p2p影片網77p2p77p2p735聊天室735聊天室711成人711成人707網愛聊天室707網愛聊天室視訊聊天室

5:05 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home