Quote of the Day: Restraining Orders Edition

"Incident: Paramedics at the scene where Chris Parry shot dead his estranged wife Caroline next to their two cars with their boots open for a possession swap yesterday." (caption and photo courtesy dailymail.co.uk)

“It is ridiculous that he was left with guns in the house after the police knew there was trouble between them. Why didn’t they take his guns before it was too late?” – Neighbor quoted in Pictured: Moment paramedics deal with aftermath of double-shooting after estranged husband ‘killed wife with shotgun during meeting to exchange belongings’ before blasting himself in the face [via dailymail.co.uk]

comments

  1. avatar Mistereveready says:

    Neighbor of course, completely ignores that the gun was only a minor detail and could have easily be replaced with many other weapons. But of course to many, owning anything, especially a firearm, is a privilege not a right, and property as such is at the sole discretion of the state.

  2. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    Her quote is spoken like a true subject. On noes what if hed had a knife?!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Or a hammer. Or a screwdriver.

      “Wanna screwdriver?”

      “No thanks, ma’am; it’s my day off!”

  3. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Newsworthy because he used a gun. Had he used a knife, baseball bat, rock, or his fists you can bet this would not have made a splash.

    Oh, and the neighbors are lazy idiots; if I knew about the meeting I’d have the cops there to observe.

  4. avatar GRUMPY says:

    My question is why was she not armed?

    1. avatar Mistereveready says:

      Where they were, at least as far as I’ve seen, the government there demands people be unarmed. Essentially the government promising to punish people if you don’t submit to them and other criminals.
      Also being armed may not have helped much, if at all, depending on how it went down. In either scenario, people using firearms as the root of all evil is one of the many reasons the “sapien(t)” part of homo sapiens is incorrect.

  5. avatar Chip says:

    I have this argument/discussion/screaming match with more people than any other topic regarding firearms and their ownership…

    “But think of the number of wives killed by their husbands” is the bottom line of their point of view. The wife filed a restraining order so there is obviously something wrong in the home so why didn’t the cops take the mans guns? It could have saved her life! (tip… do not even try to go to flipping the gender roles of the discussion, you will loose every time)

    To which I reply Firearm ownership is Right that can only be removed by Due Process of Law. A restraining order does not qualify as Due Process. Just about anyone can file a restraining order against just about anyone else. In my State (Florida) the rules are so lax that you can request an order against that chick/guy you dated in High School all those years ago even if you are now past your 25th High School reunion.

    If you want to start removing peoples Rights when a restraining order is filed you are suggesting to open Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences….. Anyone from your past can now file a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and get your gun collection transferred to the possession of the local LEO. One slip down the proverbial slope and you have the situation where the accusation is ‘enough’ to limit/restrain/detain otherwise law abiding citizens which flips the whole legal system to prove yourself innocent which is just a bit up the slope from the end of civilized society as we know it.

    Which is the point I really need to back away from because when I get that far down the slippery slope the person I am arguing/discussing the concept with usually starts to backs away with that nervous look in their eye like I am a nut case.

    Sorry, it’s early for me and the coffee hasn’t made it into the brain.

    1. avatar TX says:

      Uh, it’s not a “right” in the UK, where this story originated. I’m surprised they hadn’t taken his shotgun, given their legal disposition towards firearms and firearms controls.

      Regardless, it’s a very sad situation.

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      When I have this argument in CT, I remind people of a case in CT where the Milford Police DID take the husbands guns. The husband simply went back to house at a later date and used a knife to kill his wife and then used a rope to hang himself. I end with “see, no gun required and a piece of paper means nothing. The law is not a magical force field that can prevent anything, it just defines what happens after you get caught if you get caught. It is a set of rules of which most people cheat the rules”

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      “you will loose every time”

      LOSE. Loose: a noun, denoting something that is not fastened down tight enough.

      LOOSE. Lose: a verb, meaning to misplace or be relieved of possession of this. Or that.

      Don’t blame the educational system, y’all. After all, you believe in personal responsibility.

      1. avatar Chip says:

        I don’t blame the educational system, I blame the early hour and the sobriety that accompanies it.

  6. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    “It is ridiculous that he was left with guns in the house after the police knew there was trouble between them. Why didn’t they take his guns before it was too late?”

    That’s just crazy talk. The Government would have to monitor all your purchases to see if you bought guns and ammo. Then they would have to monitor all your telephone conversations and emails to see if there’s “trouble”. We all know that’s impossible. But even if it were possible, the current administration would have to have an anti-gun bias to believe guns should be confiscated if there’s domestic trouble. The government would never infringe on our basic rights like that.

    1. avatar RobertD says:

      Rev:
      I sincerely hope that the last sentences in your post were posted with tongue-in-cheek. If not, you certainly have been leading a sheltered life.

      1. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

        Tongue firmly in cheek.

  7. avatar Craig says:

    The funny thing is, none of the people who commented realize that this article is British. I think people who have restraining orders against them have had their rights taken away, because if you want to be an asshole and get a restraining order put on you, you’re a ticking timebomb. You have to be a real dick to get a restraining order put on you.

    1. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

      Not true. I knew it was UK. I read the article and BTW there was no mention of a restraining order in it. Restraining orders are sometimes valid and sometimes just a vindictive spouse/girlfriend or whatever. The asshole time bomb comment is just wrong.

    2. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Or the woman could be a vindictive cunt, which is at the very least equally likely.

    3. avatar JPD says:

      One thing is obvious. You know very little about restraining orders. These are easily obtained with one person stating the other “may” be a threat, or an annoyance, or a stalker, or breathing. No proof is required.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      @Craig, American courts give away restraining orders like lollipops and lawyers use them for tactical reasons.

    5. avatar NevadaSmith says:

      Nope. In a ‘domestic dispute’, if the woman tells the judge “I’m afraid of him”, that is all the justification necessary for the judge to issue a restraining order against him. And they all say that. There need be no basis in history, no tangible cause. Simply “her word against you”. They are often issued ‘ex parte’, meaning without the parties present, not at a formal hearing but in chambers based on the woman’s lawyer filing a motion, so the man never has a chance to respond, never hears about it until after the order is issued. It’s not “her word against your word”, because the man is never given a chance to respond! You are treated as guilty, and have to prove you are innocent. Which you cannot, due to the logical hurdle of trying to “prove a negative”. Anyway, I’m always sad at how naïve most men are about “family justice court” anti-male tyranny.

    6. avatar John in AK says:

      Double Plus UNTrue, my friend. Very often, a woman seeking to clean out her soon-to-be-ex-husband and lay claim to all of their ‘joint’ property in a pre-emptive strike will be told by her (either female or Liberal) attorney to hasten rapidly in the direction of an understanding (either female or Liberal) magistrate to seek a TRO on any grounds whatsoever–such as, “He was SOOOOO angry when he found my dear friend Bob (or Babs) in our bedroom, I thought he’d kill us both!” With TRO in hand, she can then proceed busily to change the locks, shift bank accounts, package up ‘his’ meagre belongings for him to deal with somewhere else, and get a quick head start on her New, NEW Life with Bob, or Babs, or whoever. And don’t forget the children–THEY, of course, go with the house and its contents, sort of a package deal. Comes the divorce ‘trial,’ she can already ‘prove’ what a bastidge her beastly hubby was, because SHE has a TRO. . .

      And so it goes.

  8. avatar Chris Hazelton says:

    Wow. I thought there WERE no gun crimes there because they have such AMAZING gun control.

  9. avatar Jeff says:

    Yeah, in the world’s knife-murder capital, I’m sure he could’ve made due without that shotgun.

  10. avatar ST says:

    Perhaps she shouldn’t have tried to take half his stuff via a divorce court.

    1. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

      Blame the victim, good thinking…

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        There ARE times, unfortunately, when the ‘victim’ is the instrument of their own demise. For all of the sad tales of woe wherein the male half of a couple is an absolute bastidge that tortures puppies and votes Democrat, there are women who, frankly, royally deserve what they get. I’m sure that you have met one, but you possibly didn’t recognize it for what it was because of the carefully-constructed facade. With the false front stripped away by time, the inner harpy is often revealed in all of its vindictive nastiness.

        You can probably name some in our current government, if you think about it.

        There are, of course, a great number of women who do not bring destruction upon themselves, but many of those who end up dead could’ve seen the coming catastrophe from miles away if they had merely opened their eyes and minds. The same goes for men–sometimes, if they’re thinking with their smaller brains, they fail to see the incipient train wreck-airplane crash-nuclear holocaust until it’s far too late.

        Ain’t life grand?

    2. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Indeed, if he wasn’t so pissed off, he could have calmly planned for her to have a “tragic accident”..

  11. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    If you file a restraining order against a person, why would you meet them on the side of the road alone to exchange items? I was think you could arrange to meet the person at a police station or request the police assist you.

  12. avatar Anon says:

    Craig,
    You don’t have to be an asshole to get a restraining order against you. They really don’t do any real investigations (for the most part in the US) to determine if the requirement for a restraining order is legitimate.

    Just run down to the local court and act terrified. No discussions until after the fact. I’ve never had one against me but a friend did. Just a vindictive asshole partner who wanted to turn the knife in his back a little further.

    If someone needs a restraining order, they need to be alert, armed and always with plenty of people. A restraining order means nothing to someone who intends to break the law and kill someone. . . . a legitimate restraining order is dumber than dirt, just like gun free zones.

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      In Tennessee all you need for a restraining order is to get divorced. Statutory injunctions are mandatory here for all divorces, even a simple uncontested divorce for $300. I know this first hand.

  13. avatar In Memphis says:

    They didnt take it because Joe said shotguns are okay.

  14. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Worst of all, the guy’s a “Suicide Chump”.

  15. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Unrelated note: I guess it’s just a cultural thing, but that photo of their home reminded me that for some reason I find those British row houses that so many people live in across the pond to be unbelievably depressing, in a way that doesn’t hit me the same with row houses in New York or Chicago. I understand that those are not necessarily “depressed area” housing, and that often they are occupied by solidly middle-class families, but they still just have an air of sadness about them anytime I see them. I’ve seen mud huts in the middle east and slum shanties in India that didn’t depress me as much as those row houses do.

    1. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

      I get the same feeling Matt. I think, for me, it’s rural vs urban culture. Add to that my mindset that says “Europe = Socialism” and the UK row house looks extra depressing. If you were in the market for one of those econo-boxes, the price tag would really depress you.

  16. avatar Rank Hank says:

    So, I read this site every day, the Zappa clip made me post this note. Thanks for the Sunday smile!

  17. avatar jwm says:

    In California I think it’s called a civil standby. If you arrange in advance the cops will be there to watch over this type of exchange between partners breaking up. I very recently witnessed this at a neighbers. While the woman was loading her possesions in her vehicle the cop simply stayed there and watched the proceedings. When she left, the cop left.

    On a side note. Kinda puts pistol stopping power into perspective when dude takes a face full of 12 bore at contact range and is still alive.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email