PDA

View Full Version : File this under Guilty until proven innocent!


KENTUCKYREDBONE
01-10-2010, 12:09 PM
Back to web version
Sunday, Jan 10, 2010 Posted on Sat, Jan. 09, 2010
Domestic violence bill would collect guns
By Valarie Honeycutt Spears and Beth Musgrave
vhoneycutt@herald-leader.com
FRANKFORT Kentucky sheriffs would have to collect the guns of people with domestic violence orders against them under a bill filed this week in the General Assembly.

The measure, which faces opposition from gun-ownership proponents, is another in a growing number of proposals to strengthen Kentucky's domestic violence laws after the shooting death of state worker Amanda Ross last year, allegedly by former state Rep. Steve Nunn.

House Bill 205 also creates a state law that allows judges to prohibit possession of firearms by the accused while a domestic violence order is in effect. There already is a federal law that prohibits someone who has a protective order against them from having a weapon, but that law doesn't require courts or law enforcement to confiscate a gun or other weapon.

The bill also allows those under domestic violence orders to transfer firearms to another person prior to the order being issued.

Democratic Rep. Joni Jenkins of Shively, the bill's sponsor, said Louisville already has a system that requires those with domestic violence orders to turn over their guns.

"We can do it now without this legislation," Jenkins said, but only a few jurisdictions actively collect the guns of those with domestic violence orders.

Rep. John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said there have been so many domestic-violence related bills filed this session that he's still trying to determine what bills will be heard. It's possible that some of the bills will be combined, he and Jenkins said.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, who is also a former attorney general, said he has some concerns about the bill because taking away a gun may violate someone's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"I've never seen evidence that shows that it is a deterrent," Stumbo said of requiring those with DVOs to turn over their guns. He is pushing a bill that would allow judges to order global positioning devices to track those accused in the most serious domestic violence cases.

Although Kentucky now has no state law regarding the possession of weapons by a person who has a domestic violence order against them, judges often address the issue specifically if an allegation includes information about weapons. In Nunn's case, Fayette Family Court Judge Tim Philpot specifically said Nunn could not have a gun.

Ross had gone to the courts to get first a protective order and then later a domestic violence order filed against Nunn, who has pleaded not guilty to the Sept. 11 shooting of Ross.

Other proposed bills now under consideration would allow dating couples to get domestic violence orders, require counseling for people convicted of domestic violence and make the act of strangulation a felony.

2010 Kentucky.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kentucky.com

Tyburn
01-10-2010, 12:23 PM
whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence :huh: surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven :huh:

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns?? :huh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
01-10-2010, 01:37 PM
whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence :huh: surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven :huh:

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns?? :huh:

They can have a PO slapped on them with just a request! If someone has actually had their day in court and been convicted by the evidence then that's different! But this is talking about losing your rights without even being convicted! It can cut both ways. Its not uncommon in a divorce case for both lawyers to request a protective order. From my understanding all that has to happen is for a spouse to ask for one and they shall receive. So meanwhile someone looses their property and their tools to self defense all because someone made an accusation! Now lets suppose the guy is a crazy vindictive sort. He can file for a Protective Order have the women's firearm taken making her easy prey whenever he shows up to slap her around. Then there's always the potential for a crazy Wife in a divorce case to file for a PO,get her husbands guns taken then get either a Brother or new Boy Friend to beat up the unarmed victim. You see it can hurt both Male and female. Then on top of that theirs the principal that they can do that before you even have your day in court! I am not trying to defend convicted criminals! Hope this clarifies the issue!

Tyburn
01-10-2010, 03:39 PM
So you dont have to go to court, to get a court order :huh:

:blink:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
01-10-2010, 03:58 PM
A protective order is basically an order to stay away from a certain person! In cases of domestic violence its theoretically suppose to protect someone. That is separate from any conviction and alot of times the PO is filed for before the trial date. If convicted of domestic violence now I think the convicted party usually goes to jail! Oh and some of the rules vary from state to state!

Tyburn
01-10-2010, 04:13 PM
A protective order is basically an order to stay away from a certain person! In cases of domestic violence its theoretically suppose to protect someone. That is separate from any conviction and alot of times the PO is filed for before the trial date. If convicted of domestic violence now I think the convicted party usually goes to jail! Oh and some of the rules vary from state to state!

Is it certain there will always be a Trial if a protective order is filed for?

if so, then fair enough, a while without a gun before the trial will do you no harm, because if you are then prooved innocent presumably they give it back, and then you can seek damages from the prosecution.

but if not...then...I can see your point :ninja:

NateR
01-10-2010, 05:21 PM
whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence :huh: surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven :huh:

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns?? :huh:

Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

Tyburn
01-10-2010, 05:53 PM
Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

Do all these claims lead to a criminal trial :huh: you CAN pennalize someone whilst investigations are in process. IF every one of these complaints lead to trial then there is no harm in suspending the persons access to firearms until the time of trial.

BUT if there is no Trial...then its a load of popycot because anyone can make a claim.

Afterall...if you are accused of missconduct wherever you work, its perfectly acceptable for the business to suspend you from active duty until the trial that proves your innocence or guilt one way or the other. So the legitamcy really is based on whether these things go to trial or not.

Bonnie
01-10-2010, 06:14 PM
There are women out there unfortunately who will, without conscience, vindictively accuse her boyfriend or husband of domestic violence. I think women who do that should face harsh consequences (jail time) for their false accusations and the harm they intentionally cause.

On the flip side, how many women have filed "protective orders" only to be killed. More often than not it is a useless piece of paper that does little to stop the man intent on harming or killing the woman. There have been countless cases such as this and even movies made of these real life stories. Just as in the case of POs, I doubt that any law will stop a man from getting a gun who is intent on shooting/killing his intended victim.

We had a case in our town where a wife had gone to court to file against her husband. She was coming down the court house steps (with law enforcement personnel all around) when her husband (a sheriff's deputy) shot and killed her with his service revolver. A guy went to a woman's shelter where his wife and kids had gone to hide from him and shot and killed her.

It would be great if they could put laws into place that actually did what they were intended to do without infringing on anyone's rights. I'm for our right to bear arms. I'm equally for a woman in a domestic violence situation not having to fear for her life in having those arms used against her. Seems a tall order for our legislators to find a way to protect both without doing harm to either. :wink:

Oh and by the way, have you ever heard of a "man's shelter"...

rockdawg21
01-10-2010, 06:23 PM
Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.
This is very true. In cases of husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. the male is almost always the one at fault regardless of evidence. Burden of proof tends to get thrown right out the window in accusations such as this.

Bonnie
01-10-2010, 06:43 PM
This is very true. In cases of husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. the male is almost always the one at fault regardless of evidence. Burden of proof tends to get thrown right out the window in accusations such as this.

Such is life in this man world where there is rarely "balance" or a "happy median".

Not too long ago, women were considered their husband's property and he could do whatever he wanted to do with no interference from the law. From that time 'til now, many women have paid dearly. So if you wonder why things are the way they are now, look back to how they were then.

NateR
01-10-2010, 07:28 PM
There are women out there unfortunately who will, without conscience, vindictively accuse her boyfriend or husband of domestic violence. I think women who do that should face harsh consequences (jail time) for their false accusations and the harm they intentionally cause.

On the flip side, how many women have filed "protective orders" only to be killed. More often than not it is a useless piece of paper that does little to stop the man intent on harming or killing the woman. There have been countless cases such as this and even movies made of these real life stories. Just as in the case of POs, I doubt that any law will stop a man from getting a gun who is intent on shooting/killing his intended victim.

We had a case in our town where a wife had gone to court to file against her husband. She was coming down the court house steps (with law enforcement personnel all around) when her husband (a sheriff's deputy) shot and killed her with his service revolver. A guy went to a woman's shelter where his wife and kids had gone to hide from him and shot and killed her.

It would be great if they could put laws into place that actually did what they were intended to do without infringing on anyone's rights. I'm for our right to bear arms. I'm equally for a woman in a domestic violence situation not having to fear for her life in having those arms used against her. Seems a tall order for our legislators to find a way to protect both without doing harm to either. :wink:

Oh and by the way, have you ever heard of a "man's shelter"...

This is why it's more important to not deny women the right to carry concealed firearms, instead of putting their safety in the hands of law enforcement officers who are under no legal obligation to protect them.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
01-11-2010, 01:30 PM
What if the male makes an allegation to get the female unarmed?

Oh on the Women being property thing!
1- It ain't right either way. Just becuase some women in the past were mistreated don't mean its modern woman's time for revenge!

2-I suspect alot of women,especially American women have always been pretty good at getting their way on most things.

NateR
01-11-2010, 05:21 PM
What if the male makes an allegation to get the female unarmed?

Well, that's part of the same argument. NO ONE should have their right to carry a firearm taken away until they've actually been convicted of a violent crime in a court of law.

Is that dangerous? Yes, it could be. However, no one said that freedom was safe; but freedom is important enough to accept any possible risks that it might bring.

Oh on the Women being property thing!
1- It ain't right either way. Just becuase some women in the past were mistreated don't mean its modern woman's time for revenge!

Exactly! People are responsible for their own actions. Our generation shouldn't be punished or lose freedoms for the mistakes of previous generations. That's not justice.

It's wrong for laws to favor men over women; but it's just as wrong to write laws that favor women over men.

2-I suspect alot of women,especially American women have always been pretty good at getting their way on most things.

Yeah, it's interesting how many women complain that men treat them like they are weak and helpless and at the same time support laws that reinforce the notion that women are weak and helpless.

Not allowing women to defend themselves, hiding them away somewhere "safe", and arresting men, who have committed no crimes, purely on suspicion and hearsay, only tells women that they aren't capable of taking care of themselves.

Tyburn
01-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Is that dangerous? Yes, it could be. However, no one said that freedom was safe. However, freedom is important enough to accept any possible risks that it might bring.

.

You might not think that if someone you love gets killed during that period of time. where a little restriction could have saved their lives. If a Trial is set, then I dont see why restrictions cant apply until after the Trial is over...after all, you guys have no problem locking up supposeded Terrorists without ever promising a Trial...and every country I know has the right to refuse bail on a person awaiting trial...thus possibly keeping an innocent man in prison before Trial.

Bonnie
01-11-2010, 07:05 PM
What if the male makes an allegation to get the female unarmed?

Oh on the Women being property thing!
1- It ain't right either way. Just becuase some women in the past were mistreated don't mean its modern woman's time for revenge!

2-I suspect alot of women,especially American women have always been pretty good at getting their way on most things.

Who is talking about revenge other than you guys? I acknowledged there are women out there who are low enough to make false allegations against a guy out of spite and what I thought should happen to them.

1) I was commenting on the fact (to RockD's post) that our system seems to go from one extreme to another and using the example of how women used to be considered the property of men with the law unwilling to interfere at all in "domestic" situations and how it has evolved over the years for "yes!" the protection of women who are in danger of being hurt or killed.

2) Sounds like your opinion and you have every right to it.

Bonnie
01-11-2010, 08:43 PM
Originally Posted by NateR
Well, that's part of the same argument. NO ONE should have their right to carry a firearm taken away until they've actually been convicted of a violent crime in a court of law.

I'm not opposed to "concealed weapons" for certain people/professions in society. I don't necessarily think that is the answer for women who find themselves in these nightmares. Any number of things could go wrong because of that "human" factor. What if she takes matters into her own hands and just kills him. It takes care of the threat she was facing but now she's the criminal. :wink: Not to mention the added concerns for law enforcement personnel.

Originally Posted by NateR
Is that dangerous? Yes, it could be. However, no one said that freedom was safe; but freedom is important enough to accept any possible risks that it might bring.

Sounds really great and patriotic, but it's cold comfort for people living these nightmares, Nate. To your comment above about waiting 'til they've been "convicted", that would really only be good in the cases where there are false alllegations made. It's not going to help the woman who files a complaint and the guy is arrested and makes bail and then gets his gun and shoots and kills her before the trial.


Originally Posted by NateR
Exactly! People are responsible for their own actions. Our generation shouldn't be punished or lose freedoms for the mistakes of previous generations. That's not justice.

It's wrong for laws to favor men over women; but it's just as wrong to write laws that favor women over men.

Goes back to what I said to RockD about how things are rarely "balanced" in our world. Our lawmakers seem to go from one extreme to the other when trying to fix one injustice only to create others. :wink:

Originally Posted by NateR
Yeah, it's interesting how many women complain that men treat them like they are weak and helpless and at the same time support laws that reinforce the notion that women are weak and helpless.

This isn't about women's lib and a guy opening the door for a woman, Nathan. I know you know that! It's about women being safe. I'm not saying they've found a happy "balance" in doing that and preserving our "freedoms", but that's what this is about. As always, they could be doing a better job. :wink:

Originally Posted by NateR
Not allowing women to defend themselves, hiding them away somewhere "safe", and arresting men, who have committed no crimes, purely on suspicion and hearsay, only tells women that they aren't capable of taking care of themselves.

Again, you're argument is for men who are falsely accused. It is a terrible thing to be falsely accused. It is wrong.

You just talked about our "freedom being worth any possible risk that it might bring". If I understood you correctly, you're saying it's okay to risk a woman's life in order to preserve our freedom to bear arms. It's just the price she has to pay, right. :wink: Well, with that freedom comes responsibility. Don't blame women for men who ABuse that right/freedom in the pursuit of harming them. Because that's why these laws came about. Because of these men, the freedom of other men is being infringed upon.

Tyburn
01-11-2010, 10:01 PM
WAR BONNIE

rockdawg21
01-12-2010, 01:13 AM
Such is life in this man world where there is rarely "balance" or a "happy median".

Not too long ago, women were considered their husband's property and he could do whatever he wanted to do with no interference from the law. From that time 'til now, many women have paid dearly. So if you wonder why things are the way they are now, look back to how they were then.
Those women were fighting for "equal rights", but is it really equal?

Bonnie
01-12-2010, 02:13 AM
Those women were fighting for "equal rights", but is it really equal?

Kentucky's original post is about a new domestic violence bill being proposed in Kentucky that might affect a man and his guns.

My response to your post is about how in the past women had no protection from the law if their husbands wanted to beat them or whatever... The law considered it to be a "domestic" issue not a "legal" one for them to handle. I was just saying we need to look to the past to see how these things have come about.

Nothing in life is equal, but don't worry it's still a man's world.

rockdawg21
01-12-2010, 02:25 AM
Kentucky's original post is about a new domestic violence bill being proposed in Kentucky that might affect a man and his guns.

My response to your post is about how in the past women had no protection from the law if their husbands wanted to beat them or whatever... The law considered it to be a "domestic" issue not a "legal" one for them to handle. I was just saying we need to look to the past to see how these things have come about.

Nothing in life is equal, but don't worry it's still a man's world.
I understand that, but the fact is the person with the least amount of equal treatment in the U.S. is the Caucasian male.

Don't worry, women are pussifying men more and more with each generation. Women will take over soon enough, they're just doing it silently :laugh:

J.B.
01-12-2010, 04:42 AM
Kentucky's original post is about a new domestic violence bill being proposed in Kentucky that might affect a man and his guns.

My response to your post is about how in the past women had no protection from the law if their husbands wanted to beat them or whatever... The law considered it to be a "domestic" issue not a "legal" one for them to handle. I was just saying we need to look to the past to see how these things have come about.

Nothing in life is equal, but don't worry it's still a man's world.

Bonnie, I think you are right that we do tend to create more little messes in the process of cleaning up the big ones. However, the bottom line is that we cannot ever justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

This is about more than just a man and his guns. The law would affect all people, and their subsequent right to bear arms. The problem with the legislation is that it basically allows a system that is already heavily abused (yes, mostly by women) to not only continue, but to get worse. The sad but true fact is that women are able to abuse this system here for ONE main reason. Because NOBODY likes a scumbag that beats up women. I'm not even sure the scumbags who do that actually like themselves, unless they live in some country like Whateverstan that takes pride in degrading women. So, when a woman makes those claims in modern-day civilized society, people will take the claims very seriously.

A lot of women take advantage of that, and I have personally seen it happen to two good friends of mine. In one case, the woman was just drunk and pissed off so she lied to the cops, and in the other the woman just wanted to get custody of their child. Both girls ended up having to admit they were full of crap, and what's even funnier is both of my friends are still with those women. :laugh:

J.B.
01-12-2010, 04:44 AM
I understand that, but the fact is the person with the least amount of equal treatment in the U.S. is the Caucasian male.

Don't worry, women are pussifying men more and more with each generation. Women will take over soon enough, they're just doing it silently :laugh:

I'm gonna start calling you Stretch Armstrong, remember that toy? :laugh:

Seriously though, that is a stretch.

The last part is hilarious though :cool:

Bonnie
01-12-2010, 05:21 PM
Hey, all I'm saying is there is a reason these laws exist and it is NOT because of those women who file false reports.

I went back and read the case/story. I remember seeing this on the news when it happened. She was a state worker and he was the son of a former govenor of Kentucky. I think that might have something to do with them trying to pass this motion/proposition.

The police have to investigate when a DV complaint is reported and it is only common sense to make sure the two are separated from each other while this is going on. After reading about the domino-effect of what happens or could happen to the person being accused, it makes me feel that much stronger about what should happen to the accuser if she/he is lying. They not only cause harm to the falsely accused but to true victims of domestic violence (this goes for rape too).

I agree they need to rethink this proposition or drop it altogether because there are too many holes in it right now.

Kentucky, why don't you send them a big slice of swiss cheese. :laugh:

CAVEMAN
01-12-2010, 05:26 PM
I understand that, but the fact is the person with the least amount of equal treatment in the U.S. is the Caucasian male.

Don't worry, women are pussifying men more and more with each generation. Women will take over soon enough, they're just doing it silently :laugh:


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I'll have to remember that one.

Bonnie
01-12-2010, 08:19 PM
:rolleyes:

I guess that rib GOD took from Adam was just too much for you guys. :tongue0011:

:laugh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
01-13-2010, 11:04 AM
Kentucky, why don't you send them a big slice of swiss cheese. :laugh:

Cuase that would deprive the world of at least on Mushroom and Swiss Burger!:)

On a side note I have nothing against issuing an order for someone to stay away from someone else if one of the parties ask for it! I just don't want to see that used as an excuse to pre convict someone and deny them of their 2A rights!

rockdawg21
01-15-2010, 01:07 AM
I'm gonna start calling you Stretch Armstrong, remember that toy? :laugh:

Seriously though, that is a stretch.

The last part is hilarious though :cool:
How is it a stretch? If a white guy commits a crime against a non-white, it's usually a "hate crime" immediately. The other way around, I can only think of 1 time in recent memory where a white was beaten and it was considered a hate crime. Of course, it's probably less publicized if there's crime against the white than if it's a white committing the crime. On a side note, I really dislike the term "hate crime" because it supports the idea that all races aren't the same :sad:

Nate's statement certainly supports the idea that men have less rights than women when it comes to certain cases:
Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

LOL, as for the last part, it's true. There's so many times when I have to tell my friends, "The reason why she acts that way is because you're being a pussy." They hate it when you say that. :laugh:

J.B.
01-15-2010, 01:20 AM
How is it a stretch? If a white guy commits a crime against a non-white, it's usually a "hate crime" immediately. The other way around, I can only think of 1 time in recent memory where a white was beaten and it was considered a hate crime. Of course, it's probably less publicized if there's crime against the white than if it's a white committing the crime. On a side note, I really dislike the term "hate crime" because it supports the idea that all races aren't the same :sad:

Nate's statement certainly supports the idea that men have less rights than women when it comes to certain cases:


LOL, as for the last part, it's true. There's so many times when I have to tell my friends, "The reason why she acts that way is because you're being a pussy." They hate it when you say that. :laugh:

I am not denying a single thing that you or Nate have said in regards to those respective issues.

However, I just think that a statement that says the people getting the "least amount of equal treatment in the U.S.A" are white guys, is not only a stretch, but a bit absurd. There are all sorts of ways that discrimination manifests in our society, and to act like white men have it the hardest is ridiculous. People in this country who are minorities still have to deal with it on a daily basis in many respects, and as long as there is more of one race than another in this country, that's how it will always be.

It's just like what I say about Boxing, all the characters are different but the problems are the same. :wink: