Woman Killed While Protected by Protective Order

[Saticon3]

I just can't believe that he did that when there was a protective order in place. Perhaps we need a new law stating that you have to obey the law,that will protect us about as much as new gun laws.

A bit of practicality is in order. Everyone knows a protective order will not prevent a determined individual from doing what he wants to do- the level of determination being the critical factor-- what a PO does do is allow the police to arrest the subject of the PO if they are lucky enough to encounter him while he is within a certain distance of the victim, or violates any of the other terms that might be in it. Before PO's, often officers could do nothing even if they found the guy on the victim's property, or otherwise in the victim's proximinity. It is a good tool for the police to have but no one thinks its the be-all solution.

Just like guns-- apparently the legislature can, will and does ban certain people from owning firearms- the criterai for banning subject to debate always- but like a PO it gives chance for the police to arrest a potential offender before he strikes, again, if he is encountered in possession of a firearm. If personal protection is important to one via a firearm, then one should learn the criterai and not committ any of the specified crimes.

There are also second chances for those that can demonstrate that they have truly reformed, such as pardons and expungement, which if I'm not mistaken, would also restore an offender's gun rights. Not easy to get, but they shouldn't be.

[Brian]

A bit of practicality is in order. Everyone knows a protective order will not prevent a determined individual from doing what he wants to do- the level of determination being the critical factor-- what a PO does do is allow the police to arrest the subject of the PO if they are lucky enough to encounter him while he is within a certain distance of the victim, or violates any of the other terms that might be in it. Before PO's, often officers could do nothing even if they found the guy on the victim's property, or otherwise in the victim's proximinity. It is a good tool for the police to have but no one thinks its the be-all solution.

Just like guns-- apparently the legislature can, will and does ban certain people from owning firearms- the criterai for banning subject to debate always- but like a PO it gives chance for the police to arrest a potential offender before he strikes, again, if he is encountered in possession of a firearm. If personal protection is important to one via a firearm, then one should learn the criterai and not committ any of the specified crimes.

There are also second chances for those that can demonstrate that they have truly reformed, such as pardons and expungement, which if I'm not mistaken, would also restore an offender's gun rights. Not easy to get, but they shouldn't be.

Obama and Biden want to ban a .22 Ruger because it's black,completely senseless just like them. I understand what a protective order is for,I also understand that a criminal could careless about them. What would you rather have if someone was coming to kill you,a protective order or a gun? I choose the gun and I don't want any politicians changing the constitution to allow the government to change that. I don't have much trust in our government especially with a communist muslim as president. BTW if you are waiting on the police to protect you that is foolish,they will write a nice report for you,take some pictures and call the FD to hose off what is left behind.

[Cameron]

This thread isn't about an embezzler

It's about a robber.

This lady was a robber and so does not have the RKBA.

She has lost the right to defend her life.

She's dead.

If she were an embezzler, she'd be in the same position.

[musicmd]

It's about a robber.

This lady was a robber and so does not have the RKBA.

She has lost the right to defend her life.

She's dead.

If she were an embezzler, she'd be in the same position.

Guess what, she was not an embezzler.

[Saticon3]

Obama and Biden want to ban a .22 Ruger because it's black,completely senseless just like them. I understand what a protective order is for,I also understand that a criminal could careless about them. What would you rather have if someone was coming to kill you,a protective order or a gun? I choose the gun and I don't want any politicians changing the constitution to allow the government to change that. I don't have much trust in our government especially with a communist muslim as president. BTW if you are waiting on the police to protect you that is foolish,they will write a nice report for you,take some pictures and call the FD to hose off what is left behind.

Actually, in my experience, I have seen protective orders be effective. Not all, but some, as I said, they do have value.

As for me, yes, I'd rather have a gun too, but would understand that should I committ an armed robbery, I would lose that right. But, actually, my first preference for personal home security is a properly trained attack/protection dog, backed up by a gun. If I could only have one or the other, I'd choose the dog. ( the gun won't wake me up in the middle of the night if the need arises) The dog can also distinguish, say between a late arriving family member in pitch drakness from an intruder. And if you think an armed intruder can shoot the dog, well, maybe, but its not as easy to do that as it might seem.

While I do think at times the police can and do protect us, I absolutely agree with you that our best, first line of defense is ourselves.

[Cameron]

Guess what, she was not an embezzler.

Do you have a point?

[bmore_ken]

Do you have a point?

My 3rd grader would get his point

[Eastside Terp]

regardless of whether you believe this murder victims previous crimes disqualified her from owning a gun ......

you have to admit this is a pretty good argument against the ability of the police and he government to protect you and keep the citizens safe.....

I mean, geez, this wasn't a random act that occurred without warning .....

[bmore_ken]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that

[Cameron]

My 3rd grader would get his point

Since I'm not in the 3rd grade, explain it to me, please.

Use small words.

[Cameron]

regardless of whether you believe this murder victims previous crimes disqualified her from owning a gun ......

you have to admit this is a pretty good argument against the ability of the police and he government to protect you and keep the citizens safe.....

I mean, geez, this wasn't a random act that occurred without warning .....

Protect us???

Keep us safe???

Out in California, the cops are ambushing innocent, unarmed citizens.

I remember when we had guns to protect us from the government.

[bmore_ken]

Since I'm not in the 3rd grade, explain it to me, please.

Use small words.

I don't think I can break it down in small enough words for you if you don't already get it

[Cameron]

I don't think I can break it down in small enough words for you if you don't already get it

I never thought ya could.

[Jeebus]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that

You would think, but no.

Based on previous posts, slapshot would.

He has stated that his preferred course of action is to run to the closet, lock the door, call 911, and wait 6-8 minutes for someone else with a gun to save his family.

[Jeebus]

Out in California, the cops are ambushing innocent, unarmed citizens.

Link?

[bmore_ken]

I never thought ya could.

Sorry but I don't speak toddler language. If you can't understand a post that a 3rd grader would understand I simply can't help you

[Cameron]

Sorry but I don't speak toddler language. If you can't understand a post that a 3rd grader would understand I simply can't help you

At the risk of repeating myself.

I'm not sure what part of "I never thought you could." you are having trouble comprehending.

[Cameron]

Link?

HUH!?

Isn't it your thread on Nationals?

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb...oting-20130209

[Jeebus]

HUH!?

Isn't it your thread on Nationals?

You said "cops are ambushing..."

1. He isn't a cop.

2. He is not plural.

You lied.

[Cameron]

You said "cops are ambushing..."

1. He isn't a cop.

2. He is not plural.

You lied.

I'm gonna suspect that reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

You're being stupid.

Your post is too dumb to call it a lie.