Current Events > Battered wife turns in hubby's guns after he's arrested. She's charged w/ theft!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Roxborough4Ever posted...

nemu posted...

......

i reported this post why the fuck is it still up??

One of us has a poor grasp of the ToS, and I don't think it's me.

What exactly about that post should make it worthy of removal?

The blatant disregard for human life.

But it's "subtle" enough so mods will do nothing.
---

So he rammed her car after a heated divorce hearing and spent the night in jail, and her response is breaking and entering. Sounds like they both have issues.
---

Umbreon posted...

The blatant disregard for human life.

But it's "subtle" enough so mods will do nothing.

Congratulations to nemu on being the first person to manage to be both blatant and subtle at the same time!
---

Umbreon posted...

The blatant disregard for human life.

But it's "subtle" enough so mods will do nothing.

You mean being realistic that she has done nothing that can reasonably be called self protection? She has removed firearms from him temporarily. He can still stab her, choke her, run her down, beat her to death, or just buy another gun legally/illegally depending on his current status in being able to purchase them. This is completely ineffectual, and it seems like people are filled with emotion to the point of not seeing the big picture. The only way to make sure she cannot be hurt by him is to make sure he goes to jail or get far out of his reach.

nemu posted...

The only way to make sure she cannot be hurt by him is to make sure he goes to jail or get far out of his reach.

Or arm herself, and be ready to take him down permanently should he pull anything on her and/or her kids.

In fact, the Police should be training her in self defense and arming her with a gun.
---

Him being arrested for only a day for attempted murder is crazy enough. But it makes sense to get rid of the easiest to use weapon. Stabbing someone to death takes longer than shooting them does.
---

Balrog0 posted...

She did commit a crime, the issue I have with your take is that you framed it as him "being an asshole" as though a totally reasonable fear for her life is nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience to her. That combined with the follow-up post about applying the law equally seem to be missing the point.

My sister has had multiple abusive boyfriends. Two in fact that pulled guns on her. Both were absolutely dangers to my sister. Using you logic, I should should have been able to murder them because it would be for the sake of protecting my sister and when it comes to protecting people from dangerous abusers laws don't matter I guess. I certainly wanted to kill those guys but I didn't. Why? Because I'd go to fucking prison and that was the last thing my sister would have wanted. Sorry but you can't go around playing the Punisher in the real world. Vigilantism is a crime and you can't just let people get away with it.

Sackgurl posted...

there is no legal definition for 'estranged'

if they're legally married, the guns would fall under martial property laws

ie they are hers to surrender

i see no reason to ignore the legal technicalities of one set of property laws just to emphasize the legal technicalities of another

So to be clear, if a woman breaks up with her husband but hasn't gotten divorced yet and moves to her own apartment, the husband can just enter her new locked apartment and take whatever he wants and she can't do shit to stop him? Because I'm pretty that's not how it works but I've never been divorced so I can't say for sure.

manmouse posted...

Ok, I wont call you an abuse apologist.
Ill call you a boot licker instead.

Good one.

Amen! What an awful petty woman, I pray she is punished by the most the law will allow.
---

Also, your "solutions".

"Make sure he goes to jail".

He did
For a day. Clearly the police aren't interested in her safety if that's all the time he spent. How many people die because they waited for the police to take action?

As for getting away... That requires time and money, and we don't know who has the kids. Removing the guns would be the most effective protective method out of the three, because it is actually doing something.
---

Only one proven method to stop abusers before they kill. And considering this man in the story attempted to kill her, well. The only ones who should kill are those willing to be killed.
---

Umbreon posted...

Also, your "solutions".

"Make sure he goes to jail".

He did
For a day. Clearly the police aren't interested in her safety if that's all the time he spent. How many people die because they waited for the police to take action?

As for getting away... That requires time and money, and we don't know who has the kids. Removing the guns would be the most effective protective method out of the three, because it is actually doing something.

OK, then he goes same day to buy a new gun and murders her. What did she prevent in the end? There are so many avenues you can use with this preventative logic that it's pointless to even think about. The only way this line of logic makes sense is her doing something illegal that guarantees protection of her family without crossing any moral lines. Like, if she broke into his apartment to get proof he was committing some illegal act that would get him jailed, this would make much more sense.

I believe it takes a few days to buy a gun, you can't just get one. Unless it's one of the states where you can.

But yeah, 100% guaranteed way to prevent it is to kill him first. Any other solution has a failure condition.

Cause if she tries to get him arrested and there's "not enough evidence" and he kills her for trying, you'd probably just shrug and go "Why didn't she move out?".
---

Umbreon posted...

I believe it takes a few days to buy a gun, you can't just get one. Unless it's one of the states where you can.

But yeah, 100% guaranteed way to prevent it is to kill him first. Any other solution has a failure condition.

Cause if she tries to get him arrested and there's "not enough evidence" and he kills her for trying, you'd probably just shrug and go "Why didn't she move out?".

That's why she should be bumped up on the processing priority list should she show evidence of Domestic Abuse and have a Police Report.

The Police themselves or certified local instructors should be put on priority training her and arming herself effective immediately of Documented Proof of abuse from their Spouse / Significant Other.

Also putting them into a semi-Witness Protection service where she modifies all of her Official Documents, change her Accounts, close old accounts and move the funds to new ones.

All that should get special priority so she can become a new person in the eyes of the government while moving up her Divorce Proceedings in the Docket along with a restraining order.

They should also have a tracking ankle bracelet on the Abuser and Abusee with a simple app to warn the Abusee approximately how close the person is on a GPS level. A simple (Distance Away in Km/Mi) would be sufficient without exposing exact details to the Abusee should she want to go "Kill them first" mentality.
---

We all fucking know that if this woman was your daughter, and her husband or boyfriend had already raped her, abused her, and tried to run her over wit his car, you'd go over and do a lot more to him than just take his guns.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

We all fucking know that if this woman was your daughter, and her husband or boyfriend had already raped her, abused her, and tried to run her over wit his car, you'd go over and do a lot more to him than just take his guns.

So you're advocating for vigiliantism / murder?
---

Philoktetes posted...

if she was scared of him having guns she should have told the cops to confiscate his guns

She did.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Umbreon posted...

I believe it takes a few days to buy a gun, you can't just get one. Unless it's one of the states where you can.

But yeah, 100% guaranteed way to prevent it is to kill him first. Any other solution has a failure condition.

Cause if she tries to get him arrested and there's "not enough evidence" and he kills her for trying, you'd probably just shrug and go "Why didn't she move out?".

That's why she should be bumped up on the processing priority list should she show evidence of Domestic Abuse and have a Police Report.

The Police themselves or certified local instructors should be put on priority training her and arming herself effective immediately of Documented Proof of abuse from their Spouse / Significant Other.

Also putting them into a semi-Witness Protection service where she modifies all of her Official Documents, change her Accounts, close old accounts and move the funds to new ones.

All that should get special priority so she can become a new person in the eyes of the government while moving up her Divorce Proceedings in the Docket along with a restraining order.

They should also have a tracking ankle bracelet on the Abuser and Abusee with a simple app to warn the Abusee approximately how close the person is on a GPS level. A simple (Distance Away in Km/Mi) would be sufficient without exposing exact details to the Abusee should she want to go "Kill them first" mentality.

lmao
Dude just pulled this out of his ass, and thought it was genius.
---

The timeline on this is crazy. It all happened in a day.

He was arrested, she filed for the restraining order after he was arrested, then went to his apartment and broke in. He was only in jail for a day, and was still in jail when she broke in.
---

Grischnak posted...

So to be clear, if a woman breaks up with her husband but hasn't gotten divorced yet and moves to her own apartment, the husband can just enter her new locked apartment and take whatever he wants and she can't do s*** to stop him? Because I'm pretty that's not how it works but I've never been divorced so I can't say for sure.

yes, because that property is martial property and its final distribution settled by the courts

in this case the court's decision was premade: surrendered to police
---

@LordRazziel posted...

lmao
Dude just pulled this out of his ass, and thought it was genius.

And what's your solution to all this without having to infringe on a person's rights?
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

@LordRazziel posted...

lmao
Dude just pulled this out of his ass, and thought it was genius.

And what's your solution to all this without having to infringe on a person's rights?

Seize his guns.
---

LordRazziel posted...

Seize his guns.

You better follow all the proper legal proceedings first for that to happen.
---

The officer is one hell of a douche. There's enforcing the law, and then there's interpreting the situation. She was nearly killed by her husband. She's not going to want to take chances as she is in fact fearing for her life. The officer should have explained to her that they couldn't take the guns under those pretenses would be illegal and jeopardize her case against her husband and put them all under fire. Then he should have her send the guns back, but also make it clear to her that they would see it through that he would obey the law.

You gotta remember the reason why we have laws in the first place. They are there to protect the people. But you also need to recognize when following the law contradicts the motive. Don't just follow the law, interpret the law.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Seize his guns.

You better follow all the proper legal proceedings first for that to happen.

Well, yeah.
---

She didn't give the police a chance to do their jobs and she didn't give her husband a chance to willfully surrender the weapons. She went and did this the same day he was arrested, which I'm sorry but you can't just go around the law like that. You want the law to protect you but don't think you have to follow it?
---

eston posted...

She didn't give the police a chance to do their jobs and she didn't give her husband a chance to willfully surrender the weapons.

If you were this woman's father, would you take that chance ?
---

If I were this woman's father I would buy her a gun
---

@Sad_Face posted...

The officer is one hell of a douche. There's enforcing the law, and then there's interpreting the situation. She was nearly killed by her husband. She's not going to want to take chances as she is in fact fearing for her life. The officer should have explained to her that they couldn't take the guns under those pretenses would be illegal and jeopardize her case against her husband and put them all under fire. Then he should have her send the guns back, but also make it clear to her that they would see it through that he would obey the law.

You gotta remember the reason why we have laws in the first place. They are there to protect the people. But you also need to recognize when following the law contradicts the motive. Don't just follow the law, interpret the law.

You don't seem to understand, when you have a restraining order placed against someone, that restraining order goes both ways. Her going to his house alone was a violation, on top of breaking and entering which was already a crime.

So yeah, when your ex-wife starts harassing you the cops will arrest her for violating the restraining order.
---

So yeah, when your ex-wife starts harassing you the cops will arrest her for violating the restraining order.

I have first hand experience that says otherwise
---

@Tropicalwood posted...

You don't seem to understand, when you have a restraining order placed against someone, that restraining order goes both ways. Her going to his house alone was a violation, on top of breaking and entering which was already a crime.

So yeah, when your ex-wife starts harassing you the cops will arrest her for violating the restraining order.

You're falling into the exact same trap the cop fell into here that I'm talking about. There's enforcing the law and there's interpreting the situation. There's no need to arrest her over this because it's clear she's doing this out of fear and she's not a threat to society. She needs to know that if she does it her way, she'll ruin everything but she also needs to be assured if that the officers will protect her.
---

Grischnak posted...

Just because someone is an asshole doesn't mean it's not theft if you steal their stuff.

This. The state was going to take his guns. She didn't need to steal them.
---

Sad_Face posted...

@Tropicalwood posted...

You don't seem to understand, when you have a restraining order placed against someone, that restraining order goes both ways. Her going to his house alone was a violation, on top of breaking and entering which was already a crime.

So yeah, when your ex-wife starts harassing you the cops will arrest her for violating the restraining order.

You're falling into the exact same trap the cop fell into here that I'm talking about. There's enforcing the law and there's interpreting the situation. There's no need to arrest her over this because it's clear she's doing this out of fear and she's not a threat to society. She needs to know that if she does it her way, she'll ruin everything but she also needs to be assured if that the officers will protect her.

So, theft is okay. Gotcha.
---

Now a Florida lawmaker

stopped reading there

If the guns arent registered to you, then...

Sad_Face posted...

You're falling into the exact same trap the cop fell into here that I'm talking about. There's enforcing the law and there's interpreting the situation. There's no need to arrest her over this because it's clear she's doing this out of fear and she's not a threat to society. She needs to know that if she does it her way, she'll ruin everything but she also needs to be assured if that the officers will protect her.

LordRazziel posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

LordRazziel posted...

Seize his guns.

You better follow all the proper legal proceedings first for that to happen.

Well, yeah.

She literally didn't, though.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So, theft is okay. Gotcha.

When I just explained looking at context, why are you replying like this?

And you know what? Yes. Theft is okay. Breaking the law is absolutely fine. But my point is that endangering the safety of the community is not okay and enforcing laws is supposed to prevent the endangerment of the safety of the community. So when you enforce the law, you need to keep in mind of the main goal, "am I protecting the community?", when making decisions.

Does this make sense to you and do you still feel that the punishment is fair because she broke the law? If the latter, then we have to agree to disagree because whole point of Following the Law versus Interpreting the Law is that the latter looks at each scenario to determine if it's fitting to enforce the law and allows for exceptions while the former has no exceptions.
---

Sad_Face posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

You don't seem to understand, when you have a restraining order placed against someone, that restraining order goes both ways. Her going to his house alone was a violation, on top of breaking and entering which was already a crime.

So yeah, when your ex-wife starts harassing you the cops will arrest her for violating the restraining order.

You're falling into the exact same trap the cop fell into here that I'm talking about. There's enforcing the law and there's interpreting the situation. There's no need to arrest her over this because it's clear she's doing this out of fear and she's not a threat to society. She needs to know that if she does it her way, she'll ruin everything but she also needs to be assured if that the officers will protect her.

That doesn't mean shit to the law, she broke into her estranged husband's home, violated the restraining order and stole multiple firearms, which is a serious felony. A sob story doesn't make you an exception.
---

Sad_Face posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So, theft is okay. Gotcha.

When I just explained looking at context, why are you replying like this?

And you know what? Yes. Theft is okay. Breaking the law is absolutely fine. But my point is that endangering the safety of the community is not okay and enforcing laws is supposed to prevent the endangerment of the safety of the community. So when you enforce the law, you need to keep in mind of the main goal, "am I protecting the community?", when making decisions.

Does this make sense to you and do you still feel that the punishment is fair because she broke the law? If the latter, then we have to agree to disagree because whole point of Following the Law versus Interpreting the Law is that the latter looks at each scenario to determine if it's fitting to enforce the law and allows for exceptions while the former has no exceptions.

You have a very fucked up view of law enforcement.

His guns were going away. She wasn't in danger of him shooting her when he was in a fucking jail cell.

Every excuse you made for her then applies to literally anyone who claims they committed felonies in the name of fear, no matter how irrational.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

That doesn't mean s*** to the law, she broke into her estranged husband's home, violated the restraining order and stole multiple firearms, which is a serious felony. A sob story doesn't make you an exception.

Agree to disagree.

darkjedilink posted...

Every excuse you made for her then applies to literally anyone who claims they committed felonies in the name of fear, no matter how irrational.

And you missed the point again. You keep trying to apply my logic in a general sense when my point is to apply the law in a contextual sense. As in everything is a case by case basis.

If you see a guy pitch a brick at a restaurant storefront. He does it in anger, should you charge him for it? Yes. How about if he did it to trigger the alarm to disrupt a dispute that could have left the store owner killed? Iffy. This is my point. Look at the purpose of the law, look at why and how the law was broken and make decisions accordingly.
---

Sad_Face posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

That doesn't mean s*** to the law, she broke into her estranged husband's home, violated the restraining order and stole multiple firearms, which is a serious felony. A sob story doesn't make you an exception.

Agree to disagree.

darkjedilink posted...

Every excuse you made for her then applies to literally anyone who claims they committed felonies in the name of fear, no matter how irrational.

And you missed the point again. You keep trying to apply my logic in a general sense when my point is to apply the law in a contextual sense. As in everything is a case by case basis.

If you see a guy pitch a brick at a restaurant storefront. He does it in anger, should you charge him for it? Yes. How about if he did it to trigger the alarm to disrupt a dispute that could have left the store owner killed? Iffy. This is my point. Look at the purpose of the law, look at why and how the law was broken and make decisions accordingly.

She didn't violate the law to save anyone. Not even herself.
---

darkjedilink posted...

She didn't violate the law to save anyone. Not even herself.

But would you consider her a threat to society? She brought the guns directly to law enforcers' office after committing the crime.
---

Sad_Face posted...

darkjedilink posted...

She didn't violate the law to save anyone. Not even herself.

But would you consider her a threat to society? She brought the guns directly to law enforcers' office after committing the crime.

That's beside the point. She's literally a felon now, for absolutely no good reason.

There isn't a single leg to stand on here in her defense. This wasn't about protection - he was already in jail. This wasn't about disarming him - that was already going to happen.

The law isn't supposed to protect 'society.' It's supposed to protect the individual. It was already protecting her by locking up her husband. That ALSO means protecting her husband by locking her up for theft.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The law isn't supposed to protect 'society.' It's supposed to protect the individual. It was already protecting her by locking up her husband. That ALSO means protecting her husband by locking her up for theft.

Yes the law is supposed to protect society. Protect the individuals and you protect society as a whole.

And yes it was about protection and disarming him, that's why she illegally moved his stash directly to the police office. He wasn't going to stay in jail for long, that's why she made the first move.

Realize we're going in circles at this point and it boils down to "If someone breaks the law, should they be arrested go through the typical process or should there be exceptions?" I say that every instance of a broken law should be a case by case basis and thus there will be occasions where it's okay to not arrest the culprit.
---

darkjedilink posted...

That's beside the point. She's literally a felon now, for absolutely no good reason.

Fuck off. Being afraid for your life is a really good fucking reason.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

darkjedilink posted...

That's beside the point. She's literally a felon now, for absolutely no good reason.

Fuck off. Being afraid for your life is a really good fucking reason.

Afraid of what? That a man in jail is going to use a Starfleet transporter and beam his guns to him in his cell?
---

Sad_Face posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The law isn't supposed to protect 'society.' It's supposed to protect the individual. It was already protecting her by locking up her husband. That ALSO means protecting her husband by locking her up for theft.

Yes the law is supposed to protect society. Protect the individuals and you protect society as a whole.

And yes it was about protection and disarming him, that's why she illegally moved his stash directly to the police office. He wasn't going to stay in jail for long, that's why she made the first move.

Realize we're going in circles at this point and it boils down to "If someone breaks the law, should they be arrested go through the typical process or should there be exceptions?" I say that every instance of a broken law should be a case by case basis and thus there will be occasions where it's okay to not arrest the culprit.

No, it boils down to you being full of shit.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Sad_Face posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

That doesn't mean s*** to the law, she broke into her estranged husband's home, violated the restraining order and stole multiple firearms, which is a serious felony. A sob story doesn't make you an exception.

Agree to disagree.

darkjedilink posted...

Every excuse you made for her then applies to literally anyone who claims they committed felonies in the name of fear, no matter how irrational.

And you missed the point again. You keep trying to apply my logic in a general sense when my point is to apply the law in a contextual sense. As in everything is a case by case basis.

If you see a guy pitch a brick at a restaurant storefront. He does it in anger, should you charge him for it? Yes. How about if he did it to trigger the alarm to disrupt a dispute that could have left the store owner killed? Iffy. This is my point. Look at the purpose of the law, look at why and how the law was broken and make decisions accordingly.

She didn't violate the law to save anyone. Not even herself.

While I agree the question of whether she what she did is theft still remains to be determined, how can you know what she was thinking? If the husband really was going to be released the next day, she might think (reasonably) that he would use the guns on her (as has happened in many past domestic abuse & restraining order cases).

If you're at the point of turning in your husband's guns because you fear he might kill you, it's probably time to move out and leave him.
---

The Admiral posted...

If you're at the point of turning in your husband's guns because you fear he might kill you, it's probably time to move out and leave him.

She already did. He tried to kill her for it.
---