5 ms·

Yes. Assuming you're willing to purjure yourself, this is basically the full time job of a family court judge and they're much more practiced at figuring it out

Yes. Assuming you're willing to purjure yourself, this is basically the full time job of a family court judge and they're much more practiced at figuring it out than a normal person would be. You'd be hard pressed to find a person with less confidence in our "justice" system than I have. And as I mentioned in another comment, I have, unlike almost everyone else here, actually been on the receiving end of a misuse of this system. I still find it overall pretty reliable and the best mechanism we currently have for reducing intimate partner violence, one of the most common ways for women to be murdered.

15155 3y ago
It's civil court: can you please give me some Lexis cites on any case you are aware of for someone being prosecuted for perjury incident to evidence forged in a PPO hearing? I've witnessed 100+ of these hearings: they are a disgrace to our justice system. Evidentiary standards are a joke, and thankfully, get absolutely smoked upon appeal 9/10 times - instant suppression. It's wonderful that they may have helped you at one point. You keep citing this "intimate spousal murder" schtick with zero non-anecdotal citations (try proving a negative.) Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent?
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  > an you please give me some Lexis cites on any case Why are you holding other people to higher standards than yourself, when making equal if not stronger claims?
- bscphil 3y ago
  > It's wonderful that they may have helped you at one point. That's not what they said, you're misreading. > Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent? I did a very quick search using neutral terms for studies on this. Here are the first three I found. > PO victims had police incident rates that were more than double the matched group prior to the PO, but dropped to the level of the matched group during and after the order. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151113/ > Results showed significant reductions in threats of assault, physical assault, stalking, and worksite harassment over time among all women, regardless of receipt or nonreceipt of a protection order. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448307/ > Permanent, but not temporary, protection orders are associated with a significant decrease in risk of police-reported violence against women by their male intimate partners. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195163 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195163 That last one had a pretty good study size - 2691 women. I don't think it's incredible that a protective order could stop an expanding pattern of abuse and violence before it becomes severe enough for a murder to occur. You say "someone willing to commit murder", and it's probably true that if the culprit is already very willing or actively intending to commit a murder, a protective order is useless. Abusers cannot be placed into permanent "murderous" and "non-murderous" groups, though.
- openasocket 3y ago
  https://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376 https://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376 . I also note that in your comments on this article you have asked people multiple times for sources, but don't provide anything other than your own anecdotal experience as contrary evidence. > Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent? Others have talked about how abusers don't always intend to commit murder, but there's also something to say about enforce-ability. Suppose someone yells and screams at you and threatens to hurt you. You call the police. Unless you've got injuries or recordings, what are the police going to do? Without hard evidence it's just a he said/she said and is unlikely to even end up with charges. Even if you have recordings, unless it's a specific threat that isn't a crime. But you then go to a court for a TPO. This person shows up again, screaming and yelling and threatening you. You call the police and they show up. Now all you have to do it point to the person standing in your front yard, and point to the TPO, and that's the case.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> this is basically the full time job of a family court judge > You'd be hard pressed to find a person with less confidence in our "justice" system than I have. I was "mandated" into "optional" pretrial mediation by a District Court when my stepdaughter was in a car accident. The mediator, who said she was a Family Court judge when introducing herself, among several other problematic things, attempted to write a mediation agreement where -I- was purportedly binding not just myself but my insurance carrier to several things, with language like "FireBeyond agrees that Insurer or himself will pay X by date Y. He agrees that he and insurer will be in default if they do not", etc. And when I stated that I had no authority to agree on behalf my insurance carrier to binding agreements, she was frustrated and exasperated that I was correcting her/objecting to her language. I've also lived in a place where it was settled Family Court precedent that men could be (and were often found to be) liable for child support for children that were not theirs, in marriage or out, by virtue of the fact that they were in a relationship with the mother at the time of birth and beyond (regardless of awareness of progeny). Please do not mistake this for a lack of sympathy for what I see as unacceptable levels of intimate partner violence and our poor handling of it, because as a paramedic who sees far more of it than I should, I am not. It is difficult at times to find a nuance with which to criticize the family court without coming across MRA/incel/redpilly.
jahewson 3y ago
I'm sure they're trying to do a good job but it's concerning that only the false negatives are visible, what's the false positive rate?

15155 3y ago

It's civil court: can you please give me some Lexis cites on any case you are aware of for someone being prosecuted for perjury incident to evidence forged in a PPO hearing? I've witnessed 100+ of these hearings: they are a disgrace to our justice system. Evidentiary standards are a joke, and thankfully, get absolutely smoked upon appeal 9/10 times - instant suppression. It's wonderful that they may have helped you at one point. You keep citing this "intimate spousal murder" schtick with zero non-anecdotal citations (try proving a negative.) Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent?

fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
> an you please give me some Lexis cites on any case Why are you holding other people to higher standards than yourself, when making equal if not stronger claims?
bscphil 3y ago
> It's wonderful that they may have helped you at one point. That's not what they said, you're misreading. > Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent? I did a very quick search using neutral terms for studies on this. Here are the first three I found. > PO victims had police incident rates that were more than double the matched group prior to the PO, but dropped to the level of the matched group during and after the order. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151113/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151113/ > Results showed significant reductions in threats of assault, physical assault, stalking, and worksite harassment over time among all women, regardless of receipt or nonreceipt of a protection order. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448307/ > Permanent, but not temporary, protection orders are associated with a significant decrease in risk of police-reported violence against women by their male intimate partners. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195163 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195163 That last one had a pretty good study size - 2691 women. I don't think it's incredible that a protective order could stop an expanding pattern of abuse and violence before it becomes severe enough for a murder to occur. You say "someone willing to commit murder", and it's probably true that if the culprit is already very willing or actively intending to commit a murder, a protective order is useless. Abusers cannot be placed into permanent "murderous" and "non-murderous" groups, though.
openasocket 3y ago
https://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376 https://jaapl.org/content/38/3/376 . I also note that in your comments on this article you have asked people multiple times for sources, but don't provide anything other than your own anecdotal experience as contrary evidence. > Can we please see some formal, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that someone willing to commit murder is going to be deterred by a DUI-equivalent? Others have talked about how abusers don't always intend to commit murder, but there's also something to say about enforce-ability. Suppose someone yells and screams at you and threatens to hurt you. You call the police. Unless you've got injuries or recordings, what are the police going to do? Without hard evidence it's just a he said/she said and is unlikely to even end up with charges. Even if you have recordings, unless it's a specific threat that isn't a crime. But you then go to a court for a TPO. This person shows up again, screaming and yelling and threatening you. You call the police and they show up. Now all you have to do it point to the person standing in your front yard, and point to the TPO, and that's the case.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> this is basically the full time job of a family court judge > You'd be hard pressed to find a person with less confidence in our "justice" system than I have. I was "mandated" into "optional" pretrial mediation by a District Court when my stepdaughter was in a car accident. The mediator, who said she was a Family Court judge when introducing herself, among several other problematic things, attempted to write a mediation agreement where -I- was purportedly binding not just myself but my insurance carrier to several things, with language like "FireBeyond agrees that Insurer or himself will pay X by date Y. He agrees that he and insurer will be in default if they do not", etc. And when I stated that I had no authority to agree on behalf my insurance carrier to binding agreements, she was frustrated and exasperated that I was correcting her/objecting to her language. I've also lived in a place where it was settled Family Court precedent that men could be (and were often found to be) liable for child support for children that were not theirs, in marriage or out, by virtue of the fact that they were in a relationship with the mother at the time of birth and beyond (regardless of awareness of progeny). Please do not mistake this for a lack of sympathy for what I see as unacceptable levels of intimate partner violence and our poor handling of it, because as a paramedic who sees far more of it than I should, I am not. It is difficult at times to find a nuance with which to criticize the family court without coming across MRA/incel/redpilly.

jahewson 3y ago

I'm sure they're trying to do a good job but it's concerning that only the false negatives are visible, what's the false positive rate?