5 ms·

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood

by Joeboy 13y ago

It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The problem here seems to be that the man was held accountable for a breach of such an order that was both minimal and unintentional. I would guess that the law takes this possibility into account, and the police involved probably should have rejected the woman's complaint as vexatious, if that was the entire basis of her complaint.

adekok 13y ago
> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. "My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the accusation is dropped. In the mean time you've lost your house, kids, and likely your job. DoS attacks aren't limited to computers. When we make it easier to do something... we get more of that behavior. Both good and bad.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  > The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. And that is terrible, but I am not necessarily sure it is net terrible. To decide that, we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse when you reasonably fear a partner might harass, assault or kill you. I've no doubt the implementation details suck though. Ninja edit: Words.
  - adekok 13y ago
    > we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse ... We largely have this data. Historically there were no TROs, and domestic violence was higher than it is today. However, there is no evidence that domestic violence is lower as a result of the "easy TRO" process. Instead, we see that incidence of all violent crimes have plunged in the past 30 years. I would wager that domestic violence rates fell in conjunction with overall violence rates. And that TROs had little, if any, impact on them. This would mean that TROs are likely to be net negative, because they add a new negative of false accusations.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Completely agree. I'm astonished that somebody got a restraining order against sending normal (as oposed to threatening or something like that) email. If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail?
- mcv 13y ago
  > If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail? I doubt it. The radio is a public forum that has nothing to do with her. As long as he doesn't mention her at all, it should be fine. (I assume; I'm no lawyer.) Similarly, he can have a blog, and her accidentally stumbling upon it should not count as a violation. Sending any kind of email directly to her, however, is direct contact and probably a violation of the restraining order.
leephillips 13y ago
In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  I'm not from the US, so that concern sounds bizarre to me.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    I am from the US, and that's just a normal gun nut asshole opinion.
- king_jester 13y ago
  The reason for this is that there is a strong possibility that person could be acquiring a firearm to assault or murder to the person who filed the restraining order. A temporary halt to your ability to purchase firearms in sensible in that circumstance.
- timje1 13y ago
  Haha, I can imagine the argument. "I've just broken up with my girlfriend, it was a pretty messy event and now she's got a temporary restraining order on me... And this really pissed me off. So as an obvious next step, I went to go exercise my rights via purchasing a handgun... only to find my 2nd amendment rights had been taken away! What's become of blessed 'merica?"

by Joeboy 13y ago

adekok 13y ago

> It seems reasonable to me that courts should be able to issue temporary restraining orders without requiring much evidence, as long as it's generally understood that that's what happened. The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. "My partner hit me!" And he's out. The courts are required to have a hearing within 30 days. Call the court and ask for that, and you'll be laughed at. 6 months later, the accusation is dropped. In the mean time you've lost your house, kids, and likely your job. DoS attacks aren't limited to computers. When we make it easier to do something... we get more of that behavior. Both good and bad.

Joeboy 13y ago
> The potential for abuse is high. The actual abuse is high. And that is terrible, but I am not necessarily sure it is net terrible. To decide that, we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse when you reasonably fear a partner might harass, assault or kill you. I've no doubt the implementation details suck though. Ninja edit: Words.
- adekok 13y ago
  > we would need to compare it with the terribleness of having no expedient legal recourse ... We largely have this data. Historically there were no TROs, and domestic violence was higher than it is today. However, there is no evidence that domestic violence is lower as a result of the "easy TRO" process. Instead, we see that incidence of all violent crimes have plunged in the past 30 years. I would wager that domestic violence rates fell in conjunction with overall violence rates. And that TROs had little, if any, impact on them. This would mean that TROs are likely to be net negative, because they add a new negative of false accusations.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Completely agree. I'm astonished that somebody got a restraining order against sending normal (as oposed to threatening or something like that) email. If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail?

mcv 13y ago
> If he phoned a radio station while she was listenning it, would he also go to jail? I doubt it. The radio is a public forum that has nothing to do with her. As long as he doesn't mention her at all, it should be fine. (I assume; I'm no lawyer.) Similarly, he can have a blog, and her accidentally stumbling upon it should not count as a violation. Sending any kind of email directly to her, however, is direct contact and probably a violation of the restraining order.

leephillips 13y ago

In some states the order will curtail your right to purchase a firearm or, possibly, to exercise other 2nd amendment rights. Depending on your circumstances, this might endanger your life. That the courts can eliminate some of a citizen's rights based on an unsupported complaint with no due process might not be considered reasonable by everybody.

Joeboy 13y ago
I'm not from the US, so that concern sounds bizarre to me.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  I am from the US, and that's just a normal gun nut asshole opinion.
king_jester 13y ago
The reason for this is that there is a strong possibility that person could be acquiring a firearm to assault or murder to the person who filed the restraining order. A temporary halt to your ability to purchase firearms in sensible in that circumstance.
timje1 13y ago
Haha, I can imagine the argument. "I've just broken up with my girlfriend, it was a pretty messy event and now she's got a temporary restraining order on me... And this really pissed me off. So as an obvious next step, I went to go exercise my rights via purchasing a handgun... only to find my 2nd amendment rights had been taken away! What's become of blessed 'merica?"