It's all about the children, and the police will protect you.


PDA






LWGN
April 29, 2008, 10:35 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-29-murder-suicide_N.htm?csp=34



TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) Police say a man fatally shot his 5-year-old son and mother-in-law before turning the gun on himself in what is believed to be a murder-suicide near Los Angeles.

The Monday night shootings came some eight hours after Torrance police had served the man with a restraining order taken out by his wife.

Officer Dave Crespin says the man returned to the home after being served, then shot his son, his wife and mother-in-law, and himself. His son died at the scene and the older woman later died at a hospital.

Police have not released the names of the gunman or the victims.



**********************************************************

If one of the women at that home had had a gun to defend the family, this poor little child would still be alive. The police knew that this guy was a threat, because they had just served him with a restraining order.

Tragic.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's all about the children, and the police will protect you." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Majic
April 29, 2008, 10:38 AM
Just having a gun doesn't necessarily mean the outcome would have changed.

ChrisAHF
April 29, 2008, 10:41 AM
Im not sure whos team your batting for, but it sure would change the odds.

MechAg94
April 29, 2008, 10:43 AM
Restraining orders are just pieces of paper.

strat81
April 29, 2008, 11:00 AM
this poor little child would still be alive.

Not would. Could. A gun is not a magic talisman.

Majic
April 29, 2008, 11:01 AM
Im not sure whos team your batting for, but it sure would change the odds.
That is totally dependant on the user of the gun. Everyone is not an experienced shooter just because they have a gun. So the odds don't always change.

MakAttak
April 29, 2008, 11:03 AM
That is totally dependant on the user of the gun. Everyone is not an experienced shooter just because they have a gun. So the odds don't always change.

No, you're wrong.

Having a gun CERTAINLY changes the odds.

It may not change the outcome though.

ZeSpectre
April 29, 2008, 11:04 AM
Somehow I doubt this situation left much time for a defensive action.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I'm going to say is the same thing I say every time the phrase >restraining order< comes up. consider this a THR "Public Service Announcement".

A "restraining" order is a legal document that gives law enforcement legal grounds to arrest the violator after (note that word AFTER) they have ignored it.

A "restraining" order is NOT a magic shield that will prevent violence. Fully 80% of the time a restraining order actually serves to incite rage. The order needs to be filed as part of the progression of legal action but the period right after one is filed is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

Deanimator
April 29, 2008, 11:13 AM
Just having a gun doesn't necessarily mean the outcome would have changed.
NOT having a gun pretty much guaranteed it.

But some people prefer the CERTAINTY of extermination to the POSSIBILITY of survival.

Bill2e
April 29, 2008, 11:14 AM
Very Sad.

RiflemanTripleEight
April 29, 2008, 11:14 AM
There are millions of people that have restraining orders against them. How is anyone to know someone would do something like this? How about you blame the guy pulling the trigger instead of the police. A restraining order doesn't give police the authority to lock someone up.

Also, how do you know the women didn't have a gun in the house? What makes you think they didn't just get ambushed before they could do anything?

silverlance
April 29, 2008, 11:42 AM
A restraining order doesn't do jack except to sane individuals who care about their future and status as law abiding citizens.

A gun would certainly have changed the odds. Would it have prevented anything? That's undeterminable.

People ROUTINELY defend themselves with firearms despite have little to no training. As a matter of fact, having little to no (and in some cases never even held a gun before) training is the norm - having had training is the exception.

CountGlockula
April 29, 2008, 11:43 AM
Really, really sad.

What really could've of saved the lost lives was a loving, caring and devoted father.

MakAttak
April 29, 2008, 11:48 AM
Really, really sad.

What really could've of saved the lost lives was a loving, caring and devoted father.

Very true.

Unfortunately, there are less and less of them these days.

Bazooka Joe71
April 29, 2008, 12:09 PM
So sad.:(

There is nothing worse than a child's life being taken...What kind of human being could take a child's (especially his child's) life?


That is totally dependant on the user of the gun. Everyone is not an experienced shooter just because they have a gun. So the odds don't always change.

No, you're wrong.

Having a gun CERTAINLY changes the odds.

It may not change the outcome though.

Agreed. It may not have changed the outcome at all, but I definitely think it is going to change the odds in almost any situation.

mojohand
April 29, 2008, 12:56 PM
This is indeed a very sad case. I agree that the woman having a gun may not have saved her or her family, but it could have. But this speaks to the larger problem of society looking to others for protection. Like Zespector wrote, it allows the police to take action after it is violated, often too late. Having a gun for personal protection doesn't ensure safety, but it definately can help in many situations

Deanimator
April 29, 2008, 01:08 PM
There are millions of people that have restraining orders against them. How is anyone to know someone would do something like this?

"Know"? It's tough to know that another human being will or won't do anything.

On the other hand I know to a certainty that a restraining order has no physical power to restrain anyone.

How about you blame the guy pulling the trigger instead of the police.

Absent facts not in evidence, the police have no blame in this incident. On the other hand, nobody should have any illusions that the police have any ability or duty to intervene to prevent such crimes.

They probably won't be able to protect you.

They may or may not want to protect you.

They definitely have no duty to protect you.

A restraining order doesn't give police the authority to lock someone up.

Nor do they have any duty to do so.

Also, how do you know the women didn't have a gun in the house?

Because in these incidents where the assailant isn't shot, that's the way to bet. Women are LIED to and told that they don't need guns because the police will protect them. It isn't true... as this incident demonstrates yet one more time.

What makes you think they didn't just get ambushed before they could do anything?
It's possible, but that doesn't seem to be the way it usually happens, at least not that I've seen from news reports. As often as not, they're confronted directly in situations, where had they been armed, the attacker could either have been deterred or stopped. The victims usually seem to believe either that the restraining order alone will keep their assailant away or that the police will protect them. All too often, neither is the case.

merk
April 29, 2008, 01:51 PM
Ive never gotten the point of restraining orders. Wouldn't it just be easier to make harassment and murder illegal?

Sage of Seattle
April 29, 2008, 02:16 PM
Ive never gotten the point of restraining orders. Wouldn't it just be easier to make harassment and murder illegal?

RO's were supposed to be there as an intermediate step so that the police could do something before it got to the level of an assault or harrassment. "This gal is within 100 feet of you? Okay we can take her in for violating the RO."

Whether it is effective these days or not, is debatable.

SSN Vet
April 29, 2008, 02:20 PM
gun
+
ammo
+
ability to use both
+
will to use both
+
opportunity to use both
____________________
= possible different outcome

TX1911fan
April 29, 2008, 05:19 PM
I think the salient point here is that the police KNEW this guy was a threat--they have to know the statistics on how often restraining orders get violated--and yet the STILL could not protect this woman or her family. If they can't protect people they KNOW are in danger, how can they protect the rest of us who are in danger only occasionally or randomly?

Deanimator
April 29, 2008, 06:09 PM
If they can't protect people they KNOW are in danger, how can they protect the rest of us who are in danger only occasionally or randomly?
It's simple... they CAN'T.

That doesn't stop them and anti-gunners from lying about it.

Not all police departments lie about this, but ones like the Chicago PD do. Of course they're just handpuppets for thugs like Daley.

If you enjoyed reading about "It's all about the children, and the police will protect you." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!