2 STOOPID FOR GUVENAH

7/23/2009 3:27:11 PM

I would like to say the same thing to you. If some of these people are beating their ex or s.o. bad enough to get kicked out of their home they obviously have anger issues -- don't even act like that rage isn't going to come back 10 fold when they step foot back into their house, apartment, wherever and they know they can't be arrested. Yall are acting like the ex parte time period is no big deal when it's a huge deal in the process of getting a DVPO.

It's not just my opinion that this law could lead to numbers going up -- it's a shared opinion from people who have worked in the domestic violence field for years and years.

7/23/2009 3:29:00 PM

so if they want to beat ass, what currently stops them from doing so?

7/23/2009 3:29:40 PM

They can't just waltz up to the property.. the victim would be able to call the cops immediately, all they would have to say is they have an ex parte and they haul ass over there, then the abuser would be taken into custody. With this going into effect, they can walk up and get in without the police being able to do anything to them.

In other words, it's harder for them to achieve their goal.. It's like a barrier for the victim, as small as you might think it may be.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 3:31:18 PM

Quote :

"From what I've seen, the people who get it are the types that have been told "if you do anything about it I'll kill you" and then they're shown the weapon."

If that's the case then you don't need to be going home and hopping in bed at a place where your abuser has a key. Go to your parents' house, go to your girlfriend's house, or pay cash for a hotel room (so it can't be tracked via the credit card company); but don't, under any circumstance, think you can go home and be safe. That's what I mean by taking responsibility for your own safety. The police can't protect you. By the time you'd know he was there it would be too late.

7/23/2009 3:35:33 PM

meh, it may give them a little safety net. but let's face it. cops are reactionary. they take time. if someone is really that pissed off, they'll get to you long before the cops do. thus in the end, I think this law changes very little. like I said before, if you want protection, then get it. don't expect the government to be your personal security force.

7/23/2009 3:35:35 PM

can you post something other than your opinion of this new law or whatever? (samwise)

from my understanding, the orders of a dvpo are based on what the victim asks the court to do, or what the court orders the offender to do based on a hearing which only the victim is present.

Quote :

"Once qualified the victim may ask the Court for an order which may: order the offender to refrain from the acts, grant possession of the home and keep the offender from the home, require the offender to provide the victim and the victim's children a suitable place to stay away from the home, award temporary custody of minor children to the victim and establish visitation rights, order the eviction of the party from the home and order assistance to the victim in returning to the home, order child support payments by either party, order spousal support payments (if the law provides for it), order that either party be given possession of personal property The court may also order an offender to refrain from doing any or all of the following acts: threatening, abusing or following the other party harassing the other party by telephone, visiting the home or workplace or other means, or otherwise interfering with the other party award costs and attorney's fees to either party, prohibit a party from purchasing a firearm for a specified period of time, order the party who is committing the domestic violence to attend an abuser treatment program, order anything else the judge feels is necessary to assure the safety of a minor child or any party. "

notice the use of the word "may" up there. sounds like the parameters of the order are all up to the judge.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : 666]

7/23/2009 3:37:25 PM

^^I don't know about that. One of government's legitimate purposes is protecting your rights from others who want to take them away.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2009 3:37:49 PM

Quote :

"If that's the case then you don't need to be going home and hopping in bed at a place where your abuser has a key. Go to your parents' house, go to your girlfriend's house, or pay cash for a hotel room (so it can't be tracked via the credit card company); but don't, under any circumstance, think you can go home and be safe. That's what I mean by taking responsibility for your own safety. The police can't protect you. By the time you'd know he was there it would be too late."

Do you not realize that some people can't do anything that you listed? Some of these people have been dragged states away and then started being abused. I'm not going to go into how many of them don't have jobs because they're "not allowed to have one."



^3 There's a special DV unit for RPD, so I would hope they would be faster

^2 I'm talking about the ex parte time period. Not the DVPO...

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : Regardless, this is one reason I'm not a fan of Bev Perdue -- if yall don't like it, tough cookies.]

7/23/2009 3:38:47 PM

ex parte time period is 10 days "with any provisions the judge feels is needed to protect the victim."

7/23/2009 3:43:38 PM

Quote :

"^^I don't know about that. One of government's legitimate purposes is protecting your rights from others who want to take them away."

that's a nice theory and may work on a large scale. however, if an ex-whatever or thug is kicking down your door and plans on seriously injuring or murdering you, you shouldn't bet on the police to be your security. it doesn't work that way. you are responsible for your immediate, day-to-day safety. My point is that the government/cops are reactionary, they can't protect YOU personally, whenever you need it.

7/23/2009 3:44:20 PM

Exactly, and in the cases of ex parte's, it usually entails the abuser not being able to go back to that residence.

It's funny because you think I'm just talking out of my ass, when I go to a place every week that has court advocates who trained us on what each order does, what is usually requested, what's being changed, etc.

Also, you're leaving stuff out:

Quote :

"If a judge finds that there is danger to the victim or a minor child, the judge can issue an emergency ex parte order of protection with any provisions the judge feels is needed to protect the victim or the minor child.""

The provisions are extra things. An emergency order would be pointless if the judge was like "yeah whatever they can go back to your residence."

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 3:45:30 PM

Quote :

"Do you not realize that some people can't do anything that you listed? Some of these people have been dragged states away and then started being abused. I'm not going to go into how many of them don't have jobs because they're "not allowed to have one.""

You can always find somewhere to stay. There is help for abused women.

Quote :

"^3 There's a special DV unit for RPD, so I would hope they would be faster"

They're probably going to be the last people to get there simply because they're probably the furthest from the scene. The first will be the officers who are out on patrol in your area.

7/23/2009 3:47:25 PM

hahaha...

your first post says "they can't go back...blah blah"

now you're saying "they usually..blah blah blah"

i don't see how anything has changed. it's all up to the judge.

7/23/2009 3:49:53 PM

^2 You would be amazed at how full the shelters are. Don't assume there's always openings.. Because there's not. I'd say when I go there each week the board 9 out of 10 times says "shelter full." Not to mention, some of the situations involve both parties being on the lease, what have you.. So why should the victim have to leave??

^ No as of right now that's the whole point of the emergency protective order -- they can't go back to where the victim is staying. What's the point of an f'n emergency order when the person can go right back to where that person is at???

And when I say usually I'm regarding cases where the victim leaves (such as going to a shelter).

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 3:50:31 PM

you seem to have a great misunderstanding of the words "can" and "may".

an emergency protective order CAN...

there are a lot of variables in a domestic violence case, which is why the orders are left up to the judge.

7/23/2009 4:03:36 PM

Quote :

"So why should the victim have to leave??"

I'm not saying she "has" to leave. I'm just saying she should want to if things are as bad as you would lead me to believe they have to be to get this court order. Why should a victim want to leave?
Because she's a damn fool if she doesn't.
To show that she places some value on her safety and well being.
Because she values her life maybe?

You're just looking for excuses. You sound like you are the type who would stay in an unsafe situation just for revenge (sending the guy to jail if he shows up) or to show you hold some minor power over him. That's trite and dangerous.

What makes you think the abuser should leave? What makes you think he/she has somewhere to go? There are several battered womens shelters and homeless shelters in nearly every city for women who don't have family, friends, or money. It's not like there is a shelter for batterers who got kicked out of the house.

I already know the answer...You don't care about the abuser. You don't care if he has nowhere to go. But guess what, you should care; because the guy who has nowhere to go is the same one who will get frustrated and go back to the one place he feels he deserves to be.

7/23/2009 4:04:16 PM

Wow Skack, try to be less obvious when trolling. Now you're defending people who beat women.

7/23/2009 4:07:18 PM

No I'm not. I'm berating people who have been abused.

7/23/2009 4:09:23 PM

Quote :

"you seem to have a great misunderstanding of the words "can" and "may". an emergency protective order CAN... there are a lot of variables in a domestic violence case, which is why the orders are left up to the judge."

No, I don't. If a victim is staying at a certain place (that their abuser also happens to inhabit) and they receive the ex parte they can call the cops on their abuser. Now, with the new bill, they can't. I don't understand why you're even arguing in the first place because no matter which way you look at it, the protective order would protect the victim and where they were staying for those 10 days.


^ I'm not even going to bother with you.. because Peter is right:

Quote :

"Wow Skack, try to be less obvious when trolling. Now you're defending people who beat women victims."

I will say one thing to you though - I really don't understand why you kept using "she" when this order protects both sexes.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : left something out]

7/23/2009 4:13:23 PM

Quote :

"I will say one thing to you though - I really don't understand why you kept using "she" when this order protects both sexes."

Because the vast majority of these cases involve an abused female and it was just easier than saying "he/she" or "the victim" each time. Obviously my statements have the same meaning regardless of whether we're talking about a male or female victim. You're just trying to argue side points because you lost the real argument a long time ago.

7/23/2009 4:19:55 PM

Nah, I didn't lose anything. By the way.. I see what you're trying to do, and I hate to disappoint you but you're not going to rope me into it. Sorry to ruin your fun!

7/23/2009 4:22:52 PM

What exactly am I trying to do? Dropping some knowledge on you devil's advocate style?

7/23/2009 4:40:15 PM

It seems like a good day to bump this one.

8/11/2009 9:33:37 AM

Yeah maybe this time we can talk about some thing Bev Perdue is doing that actually pisses most people off, like raising our taxes again.

8/11/2009 9:54:37 AM

i totally dislike her representing us as well

but i gotta say one thing on her behalf... i know that she's supposely totally raided the lottery money and not used it for school

but i do have friends who are still in school who got NC education lottery grants for about 1200 a semester or so.

back when i was in school, the only thing NC offered me was a "student incentive grant" for about 200 a semester

so theres more money going to the students now, even if all of it isnt going where it should

in other words, she robbed us... just not blind

8/11/2009 10:05:30 AM

she's only gonna be around for one term

8/11/2009 11:30:46 AM

crazy people out there, yo

8/11/2009 11:48:00 AM

Bonus points for his hat bearing the Spartan challenge, "Come and get 'em!"

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : In response to the Persians' demand that they surrender their weapons.]

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 11:50 AM. Reason : THE "COLD, DEAD HANDS" LINE OF THE ANCIENT WORLD]

8/11/2009 11:49:05 AM

OH I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST SOME OLE JIHAD BULLSHIT

8/11/2009 11:56:36 AM

lol stupid governor

8/11/2009 11:59:36 AM

fucking bitch

Quote :

"Hello Senators, Please distribute the following information to your constituents. Thank you, Nancy Phillips The Governor signed into law Senate Bill 202, The Appropriations Act of 2009 (Session Law 2009-451). A provision of the Act reduces the number of free courses full-time faculty and staff may enroll in per academic year from three to two courses, effective July 1, 2009."

8/13/2009 12:40:20 PM