Woman’s Gun Stops Violent Ex When Restraining Order Fails

Oleg Volk image. Used with permission. http://blog.olegvolk.net/

A Jacksonville, Florida woman didn’t just rely on a temporary restraining order to keep her ex-boyfriend from coming around her residence. No, when her ex violated the order of protection and broke in a window just after midnight, the 25-year-old woman had both Smith and Wesson in her corner.

One thing led to another and the 24-year-old violence-prone man lay dead. The woman then called 9-1-1 and authorities found the intruder in the master bedroom chock full of holes.

Meanwhile, the woman and her children escaped the violent and tumultuous home intrusion without injury.

WJXT has the story

A woman shot and killed a man who broke into her Ortega Farms home on the Westside, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office said.

News4Jax has learned the woman had a temporary restraining order against him.

According to a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence, the 25-year-old woman and the 24-year-old man had two children together, but broke up in March. Since then, she said, he had threatened to kill her. There was a hearing on the injunction scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Just after midnight Wednesday, police said they received multiple 911 calls about gunfire on Catoma Street near Timuquana Road, including one from the woman who said she shot an intruder. She told arriving officers that the man was still inside her apartment.

Homicide detectives said officers found an unidentified man lying on the floor by the master bedroom with multiple gunshot wounds. Fire Rescue personnel said the man was dead.

Neighbors who live right across from the apartment where this happened also told News4Jax that the woman who lives in the apartment knew the intruder and said he was the father of her two children.

Lots of lessons here, not the least of which is that the only thing that stops a bad person with evil in their heart is a good guy (or in this case, gal) with a gun. The police can’t protect the individual. And restraining orders?

For the determined individual who doesn’t care about playing by the rules, a restraining order offers paper-thin protection. At best.

But when all else fails, Sam Colt makes men and women equals. Imagine if this woman listened to some radical Democrats who want to promote a gun-free society.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    And another fool is thinned from the herd. This is what vlad wants to stop. He wants the blood of the innocent to flow.

    1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

      Well, he couldn’t live without her, and now he isn’t.

      Both sides win…

      1. avatar George from Alaska says:

        Geoff, I applaud your new screen name!

    2. avatar Liberally Insane says:

      Allow me to do my happy dance.

  2. avatar Jr says:

    “An ounce of prevention beats a pound of restraining orders”
    I prefer 1-1/8 oz of prevention myself

  3. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Magic spells aren’t real? Go figure.

  4. avatar Fit2Btyed says:

    The ex is now a sieve.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Hope the young lady can be OK in her head, living with what she had to do.

    And I love a story with a happy ending!

    1. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

      Yes her and the children. When I read ” escaped with out injury” , I thought, well I don’t know about that..

  6. avatar billy-bob says:

    Well, there you go, another ‘Florida Man’. Is it something in the water down there?

    1. avatar will says:

      its water and radio waves and drugs and M TV its AMERICA Today

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      It’s Florida’s public records laws regarding law enforcement. As a Washingtonian, I’m sure if local media could quickly get their hands on all of the arrest reports here, we’d look just as crazy. Same in your home state.

  7. avatar FedUp says:

    Restraining orders are inherently useless.

    1. If somebody is going to perpetrate a violent felony against you, the penalty for violating an RO isn’t going to stop him if the thought of a felony conviction didn’t stop him.

    2. If he’ll obey the RO, he wasn’t a threat in the first place, so the RO didn’t protect you, it only violated his freedom.

    1. avatar Porkchop says:

      FedUp, I think your second point oversimplifies the issue. I have represented three dozen or so women seeking permanent protective orders, as we call them in Virginia. The range of abusive behavior was quite wide. With some there was the occasional shove or arm grab (which is a misdemeanor battery and a basis for a protective order). There were some thrown objects like phones and lamps; missiles launched with an intent to intimidate or injure. Others were assaulted with an intent to kill (which is pretty clear when you see the strangulation bruises — I had one that escaped when her husband stopped strangling her and went to get his pistol from another room). The first group contained some that might have changed their behavior with a good come-to- Jesus talk, Others, who were not quite at the violent felon stage, but still had problems with anger and impulse control, actually were dissuaded by the threat of arrest for violating a protective order. In my experience, the ones who had been arrested previously, were much less likely to pay attention to a protective order, so you are right to that extent, but the threat of arrest actually does effect the behavior of the ones in the middle. They pose real threats, but when they hear that talk from the judge about what will happen if the order is violated, they really think hard about their future — continue with a career or spend a year in prison. Facing that choice, a lot of them really do change their attitudes and behavior.

      1. avatar David Walters says:

        FINALLY, a response from someone who has something to teach us all.

        1. avatar Porkchop says:

          David Walters, do you live in Virginia? If so, do the letters WWCA mean anything to you? If the answer to both questions is “Yes,” we may know one another.

      2. avatar Mikial says:

        Great explanation and well put. Thank you.

      3. avatar GomeznSA says:

        “problem with anger and impulse control” – isn’t that what the antis always claim is only a problem with ‘gun nuts’? Actually those are ‘character’ traits of the left – how many times have we heard them say something like ‘if I had a gun I’d (fill in the blank)’ – they KNOW they lack impulse control and project that on everyone else

        1. avatar Porkchop says:

          No, problems with anger and impulse control are distributed evenly across pretty much all demographics. The abusers in my cases ran the gamut. The strangler I mentioned was a career military pilot (O-4) who was flying general/flag officers around. Presumably, he tended more to the conservative side. Many were completely apolitical working stiffs. Some were aliens (as were my clients).

          Sometimes it is a result of childhood conditioning. When I was in the Navy (before law school), I had to bring one of my sailors back to the ship from the brig in Subic Bay, Philippines. He had beaten up his pregnant fiancé. When I asked how he thought that could ever be justified, he said, “She is my fiancé, and she didn’t do what I told her to do.” I asked for an explanation, and he said “Well, my dad hits my mom when she doesn’t listen.”

        2. avatar AR15PS90 says:

          Domestic violence is normally about “Power and Control” on the part of the offender and seldom about anger or impulse control. When you add to the mix exacerbating factors such as Psychosis, Personality Disorders (Mostly Anti-Social Personality) and Substance Abuse that combination can be dangerous to the victim. As a matter of fact the majority of victims (About 75%) are murdered by the abuser after they leave him. That is why “Stay Away Orders and Restraining Orders” have to be follow up by an
          immediate/comprehensive security plan that limits accessibility to the victim. Sometimes the ability to defend oneself with a firearm like in this case can be the difference between life and death for the victim. I’m glad that she is OK!

      4. avatar George from Alaska says:

        A DV restraining order against the abusive husband of a long time female friend ( the one I should have married instead of I learned the psycho bitch from hell) I fired my wife and went on to help my old friend who I cared for very much many years ago. We got a temporary Emergency Restraining Order (Alaska) and a month later a Permanent DV Restraining Order. It didn’t even slow him down from hitting her so after i kicked his fucking ass to Saturn she filed an Assault 1 – intent to rape charge against him. He didn’t really seem to care until he got the Hollywood bag over his head and said he wanted to live (the guys and I were NOT going to kill him, we don’t do that). He has since died from systemic toxicity and liver cancer related to his constant over abuse of alcohol and drugs and she now owns the entire estate. Your assessment is pure fantasy and only works with sane people without huge substance abuse problems or mental issues, it does not worth a fuck with the totally deranged. Even his kids don’t miss him and I’m now with her as my partner.

        1. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

          DAMN ! ! ! Wanna come kill spiders with me sometime?

      5. avatar Big Bill says:

        Obviously, you, as a lawyer, see more ROs than I, a regular citizen, do.
        For myself, I know a few people (not all are women) who have ROs. The targets of those ROs are, as a general rule, assholes. Most tend to have anger management problems.
        Other of my friends may (and probably do) have ROs, but I don’t hear of them because they work. Maybe.
        Since the people I know who have ROs are in my circle of friends, they tend to have attitudes and opinions similar to mine. That means many of them have guns.
        Over the years, I have noticed that those who didn’t have guns tended to have more problems with the targets of their ROs than those who did, and those who went from the first group to the second tended to have fewer problems, once the targets learned of the changes.

        1. avatar Porkchop says:

          Big Bill, I have actually represented a man in a domestic abuse situation, so I understand that not all abusers are male, but, still, physical domestic abuse are more likely to be males, Your friends domestic violence restraining orders may have firearms, but if they do they are violating federal law. That is part of the information that the judge gives to the respondent when the order is issued. She will tell him that he cannot possess or even touch a firearm while the order is in effect; she will tell him that, if he has firearms, he has to get rid of them, but she does not tell him how to do it. The judicial system assumes that you will follow the terms of order while it is in effect. They don’t send the sheriff to see if you have firearms, but if you have contact with the police and they discover that you do have firearms, you will definitely be prosecuted

          I don’t know how it works in other states, but in Virginia the order expires after two years. After the expiration of the order, they could own firearms again. If you own firearms and don’t want to get rid of them, then you can park them with a third party for that two year period.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Porkchop, I think he meant that the people the ROs were issued *for*, not against, had guns. I had the same impression you did at first.

        3. avatar Porkchop says:

          Ing, after rereading the post, I think you are right. It’s a little vague, and I read it wrong.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          Porkchop: The ones who have firearms are the ones with the RO, not the targets of the RO.
          Sorry for the confusion.

      6. avatar Someone says:

        Sorry, I may be obtuse, but can you explain that again? How someone, who is not dissuaded by several years in slammer for beating, to life for killing his ex, changes his plans because he may get caught on violating the restraining order?

    2. avatar TommyJay says:

      Porkchop might know the answer, but I wondered if the real value of the restraining order in a case like this is in protecting the woman after she has blasted her ex. If the RO actually states a threat to her life prior to the final altercation, then its pretty clear she was just defending herself.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        TommyJay,

        True, although this also enables the flip side: a woman can request a bogus restraining order, invite the subject of the restraining order over to reconcile, murder the subject of the restraining order when he shows up, and then claim it was obvious self-defense since the subject of the restraining order violated the restraining order.

        1. avatar Mikial says:

          Possible, but mot all that probably.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          I retired early, with medical problems.
          Rather than bug the wife during my new free time, I decided to see just how the justice system works, so I spent more than a year watching the court system at work. (If you have the time, traffic court and small claims court can be very entertaining.)
          I learned that judges hearing pleas for ROs are pretty good at weeding out the fake ones (and there were always a few from people who were nurturing grudges for really trivial matters, and who were often more dangerous than the intended targets). I often wondered just how some people could manage to cling to people who are obviously more than a little “off” (meaning extremely controlling, with ideas that “punishing” those who don’t obey them is perfectly reasonable), even when in such a hearing, being completely oblivious to the judge’s saying that such behavior is what got them there. In such cases, I sincerely hoped the receiver of the RO was armed, because the target was coming back, more pissed than ever.

        3. avatar Porkchop says:

          Big Bill, your observation about judges is spot-on. The frivolous, petty, grudge-bearing respondents usually reveal themselves fairly early in the process. The judges that I have appeared before, though, always required the petitioner to prove her case.

          As to why women stay in an abusive situation — many volumes have been written on that subject. It’s not a simple thing to explain. But in many of my cases, one factor was isolation. I had a lot of clients who told me that their abusers tried, and in some cases succeeded, driving their female friends away. Then, even though the woman knows that she should get out, she has no one to turn to for help. Unless fleeing imminent physical violence, taking the first step out the door is really scary for those women. They often have nowhere to go, or think that they have nowhere to go. Or, if there are children, her choices are to take them out with no assurance that she can provide food and shelter or to leave them with the abusive partner.

          There may also have been threats about what might happen if she leaves. Another factor is that after isolating the woman, the male often attacks their self-confidence by pointing out perceived inadequacies in everything that he can think of. “You think you can leave me? Just look at you, you can hardly do [X}” In addition, in many cases, these guys look for women who are less self-assured. First, there is a lot of sweet-talking, then the relationship starts. Once the relationship is on, the process of isolation and denigration starts. Then the abuse begins. Another factor is economics. Sometimes the abuse is a guy acting out after losing his job. Some guys go shoot up the office, more of them go home and whack the wife.

          There is an element of comfort in predictability.

          “Well, he puts a roof over our heads and food on our table. If the price of that is a little abuse, then maybe I should just stay. Besides, he might change.” That is a fairly common train of thought among abused women, and is basically what they tell people who ask why they stayed.

      2. avatar Porkchop says:

        Well, it might help convince law enforcement in some cases where the circumstances are unclear, but here you have a guy who had a temporary order outstanding breaking in through a window. The order provides some context, but there had been no hearing or judicial finding yet.

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Good for this young lady. One less piece of trash around.

  9. avatar MaddMaxx says:

    I’ve always said a bullet will shred a piece of paper every time, sadly more often than not the outcome to these events is just the opposite.. Anyway, good for her, maybe this will empower more women to back up their “paper” with lethal force… The fewer “woman beating cowards” using up oxygen the better, and I do hope she was mentally prepared..

  10. avatar Dave Lewis says:

    List that one under “civic betterment:. A restraining order does help to provide justification and documentation of a chain of abuses when the victim ventilates the bad guy.

  11. avatar Thixotropic says:

    She did the right thing.

    Don’t stop shooting until they stop moving.

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Fake news ! FAKE NEWS ! F*A*k*E N*E*W*S !!

    Sheesh, folks. Evidence is right there in your face. Look at it.

    1. Restraining orders protect women from harm (read it on the internet)
    2. There is no such thing as a good person with a gun “stopping” a bad person with a gun (that’s a myth perpetrated by the gun manufacturers [and the NRA])
    3. If any of this were true, the woman would have ended up being killed with her own gun (women are not as strong as a man)

    You people need to get on a good news feed and understand how things really work.

    You sound like a bunch of gun nuts.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      (snicker)

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “(snicker)”

        Sometimes, “the force is strong”, and I can’t keep it in. Don’t know what comes over me.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      Now this is how sarcasm in print is supposed to be! More than a little over the top so it’s understood to be sarcasm.
      Well done!

  13. avatar Mad says:

    Maybe Vlad can get a restraining order on him that he can violate he seems to like blood

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      The Real Original Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler) was more of a sharpened stake fellow than a gun guy. A big league mass murderer. Which makes one wonder why a supposed peace lover would assume the name.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Original Impaler was exactly what our little Vlad likes – the government, mass murdering disarmed people. The cruel and unusual way he did it is just a cherry on top.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Good for her…bad for her kid’s. Baby daddies dead. Oh well😏

  15. avatar Ransom says:

    Dammit Baby! Alls I wanted was my Xbox and you gotta’ get all shooty?!?

  16. avatar Heywood says:

    It is also possible she got the RO then inflamed the situation
    so he would storm in and give her an excuse to shoot him.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The most likely scenario.

      1. avatar GomeznSA says:

        NOPE – there would be too much likelihood that the judge that issued that RO would be held to account. IOW – they will NOT issue one without sufficient cause.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I guess I should have put a sarcasm tag up.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          jwm: sarcasm in print has to be more over the top than when spoken.
          We can’t hear the inflection you intend when we read what you say.

  17. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Looks like she was able to enforce the restraining order for the court….good for her.

    Hope the post-shooting goes and she can deal with the trauma.

    Certainly the best outcome for a,bad situation.

  18. avatar Lorena Bobbit says:

    She should of nipped that one in the bud long before she had to resort that far.

  19. avatar Cory C. says:

    I don’t understand. A judge signed an order. That’s like an invisible force field that no bad guy can penetrate.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I don’t understand. A judge signed an order. That’s like an invisible force field that no bad guy can penetrate.”

      WHICH IS WHY I CALLED “F*A*K*E N*E*W*S !!

      (gasp, gurgle, wheeze)

  20. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    I doubt it was all cut and dried. After all, the lady had two kids with the deceased. I hope she is able to move forward with her life, without consequences. Hopefully, she’ll be a little choosier, when seeking her next mate.

    1. avatar Vern says:

      Isn’t Florida the recruiting ground for Gerry Springer’s (subject) guests.
      Could this just be another fine moment in American White Trash?
      Sure they had their problems, but they where gooood people.
      Seems like a lot of assumptions being made over such very little fact.
      Oh but hey, we can spin it to support the radical right.

      1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

        Hey Vern go fuck yourself, where do you live? No one needs to “assume” that YOU’RE an asshole your post makes that obvious, If this woman had lived in Ill or Ca she would probably be dead instead of him. Women stay with abusive men for all kinds of reasons much like the Stockholm Syndrome and it’s not up to us to try to psychoanalyze her or any other woman that finds herself in that position. Your “Jerry Springer” bullshit is unnecessary and actually rather disparaging to the people of Cincinnati (that’s in Ohio) whom actually elected him mayor.. But of course no other woman in any other state has ever defended herself against an abusive man. If you feel the need for another snarky comment about Fl just refer to the first five words of this post and I won’t need to repeat myself…

        1. avatar Vern says:

          Ya, I am an asshole so get in the back of the line if you want to tell me. Who the fuck you think you are when a lot of people come before you on that one. This article contains absolutely no facts to support your remarks either Mr. self righteous prick. There are no heroes in these situations and a 25 year old female can have her head up her ass just as much as you do! So piss off you narrow minded imbecile, I get the first amendment as much as the next guy.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I get the first amendment as much as the next guy.”

          Well….not exactly.

          The first amendment protects only legitimate speech. SJW determine what/which speech is legitimate. So, if you say anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable, that is not legitimate speech.

          I know, I know…but, we all gotta get with the program.

        3. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          Damn Vlad this Vern thing works for you… As for narrow minded, you admit your an asshole, but my main issue is that you chose to not only disparage an entire state over something I can assure you that you know way less about than I do and then bad mouth a great entertainer like former mayor Jerry Springer.. I did not call anyone a hero (all the heroes I know are dead) I did not say the 25 year old was an intellectual mountain what I did say and will reiterate this once more since you apparently missed my main point You are an A-S-S-H-O-L-E and you can GO F-U-C-K YOURSELF.. I only reply to obvious TROLLS like you when I have the time and it amuses me, but you are going to be one of those same old shit over and over types that tries to skew every word to make it appear like you are saying something and I get bored quickly with that so go ahead talk your shit, show everyone how awesome you think you are (it’s okay you can’t help it) and I’ll let you have the last word on the asshole issue.. bless your little heart..

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    It took two kids for her to figure out that her baby daddy was a POS? Fortunately, she could shoot better than she could think.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      “It took two kids for her to figure out that her baby daddy was a POS”? Jesus, what does that say about HER cognitive skills? I know a stiff pecker ain’t got no conscience but what about the flip side of that equation?

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      We know next to nothing about what happened between the wedding and the shooting (assuming there was a wedding, of course).
      Since he was the aggressor, I am thinking that during that time, he may well have had a life changing event (lost a job, death in the family, injury or illness) and turned to drugs or alcohol. In such a case, the wife’s ability to understand her mate’s problems at the time of their meeting/wedding has nothing to do with it. People change, often for the worse.
      Let’s not be too quick to blame the victim.

  22. avatar Marcus says:

    Heres a good one, father is afraid of his own daughter cause she owns a 40S&W with shockingly hollow points!

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/13/ask-amy-dad-horrified-learn-gun-house/

    1. avatar Rick3 says:

      OMG, such a ton of stupid in one small piece. I encourage everyone to do a quick read of this “Dumbfounded Father” and “Amy’s” response. I’m going to send “Amy” some facts instead of the drivel she writes about this.

  23. avatar Ark says:

    In the meantime, the UK is giving women blunt-tipped knives in the hopes that their abusers will be slightly delayed in murdering them.

  24. avatar Tangent_ says:

    I wish Oleg Volk still made this type of posters. Any know where he’s at these days?

  25. avatar Old Lawyer says:

    Although it is ineffective in providing physical safety. ALWAYS GET ONE for the legal protection it provides if you have to shoot in self-defense.

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