One incredible case

To serve and protect, to serve and protect.

Yeah.

Right.

To clean up afterwards and pat themselves on the back for capturing such a savage criminal.

It sounds like the cops were way negligent. I think the cops only have a minimal responsibility to protect people from non imminent threats, but it sounds like they were obligated to do a lot more than they did here.

But the real responsibility for the girls death rests with the mother. The mother should have gotten a concealed carry permit and protected the girl. Concealed carry isn't just about protecting yourself. It's unethical to adopt a non violent policy in a situation like this. You're supposed to get a gun and protect your family, and/or find a good hiding place if the risk is high enough. Guns aren't bad when used to protect people and save innocent lives.

I wonder if the reason the police didn't enforce the restraining order was because she allowed him to violate the order on occasion. I think that if you get a restraining order and then let the person in anyway, the cops loose interest and leave you to deal with it on your own.

I didn't see anywhere in the article that indicated she allowed her ex to violate the PO. The only mention is that HE violated the order numerous times while the police did nothing. I don't think you can place any percentage of blame on this woman, as least based on what I read in the article.

If the police had done more this tradegy might have been prevented. The sad fact is that the police can do little to protect any individual. Their primary positive infulence on crime is based on bad guys thinking they'll get caught after the fact, not that the police will stop them mid-crime.

I said "I wonder" to indicate that it was a guess not based on what was in the article, but when I go back to read what I wrote I see that I didn't make clear the fact that I was speculating. In fact there was a comment in the article that she did everything by the book, so maybe she wasn't at fault in that respect.

Still she should have gotten a gun to protect her child and herself. Because she didn't, she was much more negligent than the police. I hate to be insensitive like this after the horror she went through, but she makes for a perfect lesson to other women to compliment the story the other day were a gun saved the woman and her children.

A similar incident is happening in my little local town. Wife gets restraining order against abusive husband, moves out and the guy violates on a DAILY basis against her consent. She logs all violations, goes to the local cops with over 100 violations. The soon-to-be-ex-hubby convinces the prosecutor that no one could accumulate such a staggering amount of violations, therefore she's crazy, lying to get him in trouble, or both. Bottom line: Cops stop responding to her complaints, hubby ratchets up and she has to move anonymously to a new community where the Sheriff's Dept. actually pays attention to her retraining order.

A while back I heard about a guy who couldn't get the police to respond, so he called back and told them to take their time since he had taken care of the problem by shooting the thief dead. He said a bunch of cops and even a helicopter arrived real quick. You might get in trouble saying something like that but maybe some variation of it would be usable. The problem is with saying something that isn't true. Maybe the woman could just say that if the cops don't get there quick she'll have to stab him with a spear, and then hang up real quick. This way when the cops arrive she can say she really was preparing to stab him. She can show them a broomstick with a knife taped on as evidence she was serious.

Maybe another option would be to get someone to help her make a citizens arrest, preferably after getting some video evidence of the violation.

"Still she should have gotten a gun to protect her child and herself...."

Lots of people have been noting that, but a minor detail from someone who's been talking through email with the author of that article:

"This woman was disarmed by the police. Seems she HAD bought a gun for self-protection, was attacked earlier by the perp, clobbered him with the gun, and had it taken away from her by the cops, who charged both with assault. The gun was returned to her a week AFTER the perp killed her daughter and almost killed her."

And once you've been charged, isn't it illegal to possess for the duration?

Sometimes the state works really hard to ensure you and yours lose.

(Could be worse, we could live in the U.K. where even a theoretical right to effective self-defense has been removed by the courts.)

- Harold

I am sorry. She broke a rule. If you have to use a gun DON'T USE IT AS A CLUB!

Wife gets restraining order.
SOB violates restraining order.
Wife calls when he violates the order.
Wife goes to COPs with list of times he violated order.

Wife has records of threats etc.

SOB violates restraining order.

Wife SHOOTS SOB. She uses violations, threats, and no help from COPs as evidence that she had no other option. She had done everthing she could.

If the COPs take the Wife's gun she should get another. BUT she should not have used it as a club. She should have blown his ass off.

Don: we weren't there, we don't know how it went down and if she had a chance to shoot vs. club---although we can surmise from her survival in that incident that she had control of the situation when the police arrived---but we certainly know she (and we and the police) are not allowed to execute perps (only the judicial system can do that to those convicted of capital crimes).

Plus I'm not exactly getting the feeling that the police would have been very supportive if she'd shot him....

Shoot does not equal shoot to kill, only shoot to stop. In your above list you should at minimum add the paths:

Wife SHOOTS SOB.

SOB recovers.

1) SOB, now duly warned of wife's willingness to use lethal force, takes no chances the next time. Note that she's definitely lost her gun by now (how often is a gun used in such a situation ever returned?), and it sure sounds like there would have been a next time.

2) SOB, with wife locked up on charges for something a lot more serious than that level of assault, has a clear shot (so to speak) at the daughter, who dies anyway.

Also note that creating an incident in which the victim is completely disarmed by the police for using a gun in self-defense is SOP for making them defenseless for the real try. See e.g. Polly Przybyl.

- Harold

I've been teaching use of force classes to police and county correctional officers for several years. All citizens should become totally familiar with the justification for the use of force and use of deadly force in their respective states.

Hopefully, the information will never be needed, but if it becomes necessary to use whatever degree of force that may be appropriate in a given situation, the user will at least know the guidelines for the justifiable use of force in his/her state. And, understand the consequences for stepping outside the guidelines.

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six. Especially if one keeps the use of force within the guidelines the state legislature deems reasonable.

She should have killed the sonofabitch and anybody who can't buy into that is less than smart.

After Castle Rock v. Gonzales does anybody think she's going to win this case?

A man who's recently been a police officer in another state (and may still be a reserve officer), who knows this sort of law in general pretty well and has personably enforced messy protective orders, dug up the following applicable law, and commented that he'd never heard of a law that required arrest; only e.g. "may" and "allow", not "shall".

NC statute:

ß 50B-4.1. Violation of valid protective order .

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a person who knowingly violates a valid protective order entered pursuant to this Chapter or who knowingly violates a valid protective order entered by the courts of another state or the courts of an Indian tribe shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.

(b) A law enforcement officer shall arrest and take a person into custody without a warrant or other process if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person knowingly has violated a valid protective order excluding the person from the residence or household occupied by a victim of domestic violence or directing the person to refrain from doing any or all of the acts specified in G.S. 50B 3(a)(9).

This could be part of the picture for this case.

- Harold