Iowa Domestic Violence Bill likely to be abused (pun intended) with impunity

[JRHawk2003]

From the Gazette:

"Senate file 395, which passed the Senate 46-0, would crack down on stalking by expanding the definition of “stalking” to include the use of surveillance technology and would modify the law such that a victim of stalking can report being stalked if they feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or threatened by another person, as opposed to previous law which required that a victim fear for their life or physical injury. This bill was originally sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Steve Sodders (D-Marshalltown)."

The part in bold is an open ended mess and would be used with impunity by the unscrupulous.

 

[naturalmwa]

This seems fine to me. So under the old law, if a peeper sets up a camera to watch you, it's not covered unless you fear personal injury. Now it is. It should be, so this is proper. Reporting a crime isn't a conviction. You want frightened people to have recourse.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I get the technology part its the other part that bothers me.

IF that became law, all a woman would have to do is tell a judge they just feel threatened and off the guy goes. Thats messed up.

 

[TJ8869]

I get the technology part its the other part that bothers me.

IF that became law, all a woman would have to do is tell a judge they just feel threatened and off the guy goes. Thats messed up.

Yeah, if there's one glaring problem with our current legal system, it's women getting restraining orders for no damn good reason.

 

[naturalmwa]

I get the technology part its the other part that bothers me.

IF that became law, all a woman would have to do is tell a judge they just feel threatened and off the guy goes. Thats messed up.

I think one of us is missing a step. Wouldn't feeling threatened simply open an investigation? Don't you want threatened people to report that? Frankly I'm shocked the standard was so high before. When I think stalker I usually think perv, not killer.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Yeah, if there's one glaring problem with our current legal system, it's women getting restraining orders for no damn good reason.

It is if you are a guy who has been through the family court system. Basically a woman can tell a judge that she "feels" threatened and he is bounced from his own house for at least 10 days. It does not matter if the guy has no history of violence or if she has any proof he is violent. Out he goes.

 

[TJ8869]

It is if you are a guy who has been through the family court system. Basically a woman can tell a judge that she "feels" threatened and he is bounced from his own house for at least 10 days. It does not matter if the guy has no history of violence or if she has any proof he is violent. Out he goes.

And would you reckon this scenario happens more often or less often than a guy beating the shit out of his wife/girlfriend after she was either unable or too afraid to get a restraining order?

 

[JRHawk2003]

Its pretty much a given a judge will give one if requested. There is no burden of proof basically.

Are you arguing for a wrong to make a right?

 

[TJ8869]

Are you arguing for a wrong to make a right?

Not at all. I'm saying it's a very difficult issue and no solution is perfect. We need to find a reasonable balance between preserving the man's rights and protecting battered women.

And since my sense of things is that battered women far outnumber guys who have been saddled with frivolous restraining orders, I'm not going to automatically dismiss an idea that seeks to balance things a little more.

 

[JRHawk2003]

There are a lot of men that have this happen. I have heard this straight from the police myself. I really wonder what the effectiveness is of those orders. I know in many cases the women go right back to the guy. Its not a good feeling wondering if your separated wife is going to have you booted knowing that all she has to do is ask. Thankfully it didn't happen to me, but I do know guys it did happen too. It does not seem to matter much for the serial abusers. I doubt the answer is to just loosen the law to total heresay with no burden

 

[naturalmwa]

There are a lot of men that have this happen. I have heard this straight from the police myself. I really wonder what the effectiveness is of those orders. I know in many cases the women go right back to the guy. Its not a good feeling wondering if your separated wife is going to have you booted knowing that all she has to do is ask. Thankfully it didn't happen to me, but I do know guys it did happen too. It does not seem to matter much for the serial abusers. I doubt the answer is to just loosen the law to total heresay with no burden

There is a simple solution. Claim she abuses you right out of the box and you get the order and kick her out. The law isn't gender specific. Gotta be quick and smart about these things.

 

[JRHawk2003]

There is a simple solution. Claim she abuses you right out of the box and you get the order and kick her out. The law isn't gender specific. Gotta be quick and smart about these things.

Never dealt with the system, have you?

 

[naturalmwa]

Never dealt with the system, have you?

Nope, never.

 

[DanL53]

Yeah, if there's one glaring problem with our current legal system, it's women getting restraining orders for no damn good reason.

70+% of restraining orders are used as a tool during divorce.

 

[naturalmwa]

70+% of restraining orders are used as a tool during divorce.

There are a lot better tools for this.

 

[DanL53]

There are a lot better tools for this.

Don't know what you meant by that. But I'm waiting for the day you come to me and admit I was right about that marriage thing. As my Mom always said to me, "Would you jump off a cliff if your friends were doing it?"

 

[naturalmwa]

Don't know what you meant by that. But I'm waiting for the day you come to me and admit I was right about that marriage thing. As my Mom always said to me, "Would you jump off a cliff if your friends were doing it?"

It was a dildo joke.

I don't remember the conversation you're referencing. What were you right about?

 

[theIowaHawk]

This seems fine to me. So under the old law, if a peeper sets up a camera to watch you, it's not covered unless you fear personal injury. Now it is. It should be, so this is proper. Reporting a crime isn't a conviction. You want frightened people to have recourse.

Yes, but it also allows the victim to simply claim they are "frightened". Not frightened for their health/mental/physical safety, but just frightened. What does that mean? Does that actually extend anything? Does it lessen the burden? I don't know.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There are a lot better tools for this.

Sure there are, but if you don't have money, time, or often the children it is the cheapest, quickest, and often most effective way to get the ball rolling and get kids back.

 

[DanL53]

It was a dildo joke.

I don't remember the conversation you're referencing. What were you right about?

If I didn't make it memorable enough, maybe I should start over. natural, congrats on the SCOTUS ruling. It's nice to have the freedoms that others enjoy. Now, regarding that freedom. It amounts to the freedom to put your head on a train track. I would suggest giving it back.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, but it also allows the victim to simply claim they are "frightened". Not frightened for their health/mental/physical safety, but just frightened. What does that mean? Does that actually extend anything? Does it lessen the burden? I don't know.

I'm OK with frightened people turning to the law.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sure there are, but if you don't have money, time, or often the children it is the cheapest, quickest, and often most effective way to get the ball rolling and get kids back.

 

[naturalmwa]

If I didn't make it memorable enough, maybe I should start over. natural, congrats on the SCOTUS ruling. It's nice to have the freedoms that others enjoy. Now, regarding that freedom. It amounts to the freedom to put your head on a train track. I would suggest giving it back.

I only ever wanted the freedom, not the ring. Marriage is for child rearing.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Like I said...you have never dealt with the system.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm OK with frightened people turning to the law.

Thanks for the strawman, that is always fun. Can we just do all criminal stuff that way as well? Lower it from assault to just "afraid an assault might happen"?

 

[DanL53]

Sure there are, but if you don't have money, time, or often the children it is the cheapest, quickest, and often most effective way to get the ball rolling and get kids back.

Prevent future ex from entering the home to remove anything. And in fact, given the usual few minutes a judge will allow, can easily get the judge to rule what can and can't be removed when one finally does get the chance.

Determine which vehicle a future ex may use.

Determine who a future ex can and cannot contact.

Determine how the funds in the bank will be split for the short term. Understand, removing funds from your account may be stopped.

Prevent a future ex from entering the business or having a look at the books. Doesn't close the business, she can operate and take income. But inventory in your possession, that you could sell offsite? No, can't touch it.

Pets? Possession of determined by the order of protection.

All this is supposed to last all of a couple weeks. But with legal tricks it can last for months.

This Order of Protection, by the way? The future ex has already moved over thirty miles away and on the day he is filing for divorce she is filing a Petition for an Emergency Order of Protection. Thanks goodness that two months before I escaped she warned me of her plans if we divorced and I had prepared myself as best I could.

None of this, prevented any Domestic Violence, none ever occurred.

Alright, so much for the personal experience. Not saying anything men don't already know.....divorce is Hell.

 

[naturalmwa]

Like I said...you have never dealt with the system.

That's what I said too

 

[naturalmwa]

Thanks for the strawman, that is always fun. Can we just do all criminal stuff that way as well? Lower it from assault to just "afraid an assault might happen"?

Of course, isn't it already? If you are afraid of assault, don't you call 911?

 

[DanL53]

I only ever wanted the freedom, not the ring. Marriage is for child rearing.

I gotcha. Broken glass on the floor can look pretty when the sun hits it. Just like a prism. And maybe one is smart enough to never step on it. Me, I wouldn't even want the glass on the floor just in case one night I got drunk and...........

 

[naturalmwa]

I gotcha. Broken glass on the floor can look pretty when the sun hits it. Just like a prism. And maybe one is smart enough to never step on it. Me, I wouldn't even want the glass on the floor just in case one night I got drunk and...........

You could probably sell yourself into slavery if you don't think you can trust yourself with civil rights. I know some fetish communities I could put you in contact with. Bring knee pads.

 

[DanL53]

You could probably sell yourself into slavery if you don't think you can trust yourself with civil rights. I know some fetish communities I could put you in contact with. Bring knee pads.

Spoken like the guy who celebrates his right to dive headfirst into a pond of water, only to learn it was only a foot deep. You don't have to believe me, but marriage? Sometimes it might as well be that "fetish community", only without all the creative fun.

 

[naturalmwa]

Spoken like the guy who celebrates his right to dive headfirst into a pond of water, only to learn it was only a foot deep. You don't have to believe me, but marriage? Sometimes it might as well be that "fetish community", only without all the creative fun.

I feel like you're crying out for help here.

 

[DanL53]

I feel like you're crying out for help here.

Oh, it's too late for me.

I got out alive but clearly I'm still a nervous wreck.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I won't get married again. Granted, when kids are not involved its not nearly as bad, but I would not wish the experience of divorce and the system and child support, etc. on anyone.

I have a GF who does not want to be either. It works great.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Prevent future ex from entering the home to remove anything. And in fact, given the usual few minutes a judge will allow, can easily get the judge to rule what can and can't be removed when one finally does get the chance.

Determine which vehicle a future ex may use.

Determine who a future ex can and cannot contact.

Determine how the funds in the bank will be split for the short term. Understand, removing funds from your account may be stopped.

Prevent a future ex from entering the business or having a look at the books. Doesn't close the business, she can operate and take income. But inventory in your possession, that you could sell offsite? No, can't touch it.

Pets? Possession of determined by the order of protection.

All this is supposed to last all of a couple weeks. But with legal tricks it can last for months.

This Order of Protection, by the way? The future ex has already moved over thirty miles away and on the day he is filing for divorce she is filing a Petition for an Emergency Order of Protection. Thanks goodness that two months before I escaped she warned me of her plans if we divorced and I had prepared myself as best I could.

None of this, prevented any Domestic Violence, none ever occurred.

Alright, so much for the personal experience. Not saying anything men don't already know.....divorce is Hell.

This is overblown, but the general gist can certainly be true.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "supposed to last a couple weeks"....but I presume you mean the order without hearing lasts until there is a hearing, where everything can change at the hearing. After that they last for a year (or more).

 

[theIowaHawk]

Of course, isn't it already? If you are afraid of assault, don't you call 911?

I'm sure you do, but if you are just "frightened" there isn't much to do. Frightened is an extremely subjective, and almost entirely unprovable, feeling.

Saying, "I am frightened of someone therefore ____________________________" is a pretty shitty standard. That would mean the Judge just needs to find the person is frightened, not necessarily that acts by the other person reasonably cause that fear.

Hopefully one would always include reasonableness in this.

How about this Nat? Should a police officer be able to just cite "frightened" and act however they choose? Of course not, it should be reasonable fear.

Try calling 911 and saying you are afraid that StevenPatrick is going to assault you....see how far it gets.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm sure you do, but if you are just "frightened" there isn't much to do. Frightened is an extremely subjective, and almost entirely unprovable, feeling.

Saying, "I am frightened of someone therefore ____________________________" is a pretty shitty standard. That would mean the Judge just needs to find the person is frightened, not necessarily that acts by the other person reasonably cause that fear.

Hopefully one would always include reasonableness in this.

How about this Nat? Should a police officer be able to just cite "frightened" and act however they choose? Of course not, it should be reasonable fear.

Try calling 911 and saying you are afraid that StevenPatrick is going to assault you....see how far it gets.

Police should never be able to act however they choose. But if I call the cops and say I'm frightened by this creepy guy standing on the sidewalk outside my home, they should be able to come and deal with him. All this law does is say if you are frightened, you can now go an pursue a restraining order. Are restraining orders automatically granted? Isn't there a process for determining if they are reasonable? Can't they be challenged? Can't both parties be put under restraint? I'm assuming all normal legal recourse applies to restraining orders so reasonableness is already built into the system. I think fear is a reasonable standard to order a person to stay away from another. No one is going to jail based on fear, they just can't mess with the other.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Police should never be able to act however they choose. But if I call the cops and say I'm frightened by this creepy guy standing on the sidewalk outside my home, they should be able to come and deal with him. All this law does is say if you are frightened, you can now go an pursue a restraining order. Are restraining orders automatically granted? Isn't there a process for determining if they are reasonable? Can't they be challenged? Can't both parties be put under restraint? I'm assuming all normal legal recourse applies to restraining orders so reasonableness is already built into the system. I think fear is a reasonable standard to order a person to stay away from another. No one is going to jail based on fear, they just can't mess with the other.

And what do you mean by "come and deal with him"? I presume you mean leave him alone because he isn't, you know, breaking the law.

I'm not sure what you mean by you can now go, but are they automatically granted. Of course you can "go", you can always "go", even under the prior law. The only applaud of the law would be if "Frightened" actually results in it being granted. So, if you begin with that basis, yes, you believe it should be granted.

Should a person who is "frightened" be able to remove a "creepy guy" from standing in a public space? Sure sounds like a 4th Amendment violation. So what level should there be to encroach on his fourth? Previously it was evidence that you were in fear for your life or physical harm. Now it appears to cancel out the last parts and just be "fear". Extremely subjective and differs from person to person.

Can they be challenged? Sure, after the person's 4th rights have been violated. You ok with that....because someone is in generic "fear"?

Of course reasonableness is built in to the system, Judge's use their discretion all of the time....which they did previous to this. This seems to want to make Judges use less discretion and more rubber-stamping.

No one is going to jail? Ok, live in your naive world. But, again, we aren't actually discussing the law nor the proposed law, neither of which has really applied to our discussion. But, it has been fun.

Let's expand on my earlier: StevenPatrick says he is in "Fear" of Natural, not for his life or physical well-being....but just in fear. You think you should now be stopped from being outside of his house, in public? Have to walk away from the store you randomly encountered him at? Leave the lunchline because he is four spots ahead of you? Because he claims "fear"?

 

[naturalmwa]

And what do you mean by "come and deal with him"? I presume you mean leave him alone because he isn't, you know, breaking the law.

I'm not sure what you mean by you can now go, but are they automatically granted. Of course you can "go", you can always "go", even under the prior law. The only applaud of the law would be if "Frightened" actually results in it being granted. So, if you begin with that basis, yes, you believe it should be granted.

Should a person who is "frightened" be able to remove a "creepy guy" from standing in a public space? Sure sounds like a 4th Amendment violation. So what level should there be to encroach on his fourth? Previously it was evidence that you were in fear for your life or physical harm. Now it appears to cancel out the last parts and just be "fear". Extremely subjective and differs from person to person.

Can they be challenged? Sure, after the person's 4th rights have been violated. You ok with that....because someone is in generic "fear"?

Of course reasonableness is built in to the system, Judge's use their discretion all of the time....which they did previous to this. This seems to want to make Judges use less discretion and more rubber-stamping.

No one is going to jail? Ok, live in your naive world. But, again, we aren't actually discussing the law nor the proposed law, neither of which has really applied to our discussion. But, it has been fun.

Let's expand on my earlier: StevenPatrick says he is in "Fear" of Natural, not for his life or physical well-being....but just in fear. You think you should now be stopped from being outside of his house, in public? Have to walk away from the store you randomly encountered him at? Leave the lunchline because he is four spots ahead of you? Because he claims "fear"?

I do think if a guy is standing on the sidewalk staring into your home for a time long enough that I can call the cops and have him still there when they show, I should be able to get a restraining order against him. I support this law.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I do think if a guy is standing on the sidewalk staring into your home for a time long enough that I can call the cops and have him still there when they show, I should be able to get a restraining order against him. I support this law.

Well, how very Unconstitutional and Authoritarian of you. Property rights above all. My house, you can't look in to it, now go away.