2 dead. What good is a domestic-violence protection order?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Gun free zone didn't seem to help either!

2 shot dead at UW campus

By Seattle Times staff
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003647571_webuwshooting02m.html

The woman shot dead on the campus of the University of Washington this morning had a protection order against the man who shot her and then himself in what police are saying was an apparent murder-suicide.

At about 9:30 a.m., police received reports of six shots fired, said Ray Wittmier, assistant chief of the University of Washington Police.

When police arrived at the fourth-floor office in Gould Hall, they found two people dead: a woman, identified by family members as Rebecca Jane Griego, and Jonathan Rowan. A six-shot revolver was found in the office.

Witnesses said Griego, a 26-year-old program coordinator in the Department of Urban Design & Planning, had taken out a domestic-violence protection order against Rowan, 41, in King County Superior Court on March 6.

While not immediately revealing the motive for the killing, police said they were not looking for any other suspects.

A witness saw the man fumbling with something in a bag before he entered the woman's office.

Wittmier said Rowan made telephone threats to woman at her campus office on March 7 and March 14. Officers were told about this, but she was not placed under surveillance or escort.

Griego did not want to press charges at the time, but if she had, police might have been able to arrest the guy and charge him with violating a protection order, Wittmier said.

In the protection-order documents, Griego said Rowan threatened to always be in contact with her.

In January this year, she came home and he was drunk, according to court documents. The two were living together at the time. Griego said Rowan threw candlestick holders at her, tackled her to the floor and punched her.

"I forgave him because he was drunk, but now I see that he was wrong and he threatened to hurt me again," she said according to the court papers.

Griego said that in February, Rowan called her and threatened suicide because he couldn't see her.

In early March, she said in the court papers that "I cannot find him, but he can find me and knows my place of work."

Co-workers said Griego had taken steps to avoid Rowan, who called the office so much she would no longer answer the phone. He then left messages including threats to kill her, one co-worker said.

Authorities had been unable to serve the protection order because they couldn't find him. The paperwork was left at Griego's office in case he showed up there.

Griego described Rowan as a former boyfriend — "a psycho from the past," said Lance Nguyen, who worked in the office.

She was so frightened he might attack her that she moved a couple of times, changed her home phone number and worked from home for a month so he couldn't find her at work, Nguyen said.

Nguyen said he was in the building at the time of the shooting, in a first-floor class. He heard the shots but didn't realize it was gunfire at first. When he heard someone had been killed, he said, "I pretty much knew right away. I feel terrible."

Marika Vanderlinden, Griego's landlady, said Griego had just moved into a basement apartment in Vanderlinden's home last month.

"We're very shocked," Vanderlinden said of the shooting. "She was very sweet, nice and considerate."

Vanderlinden, who said she was aware of the protection order, said that the suspect didn't know where Griego was living.

"She made it sound like she was dealing with it," Vanderlinden said. "We talked with her about it and told her if there were any problems, we would be there to help her out."

Megan Pinch, a graduate student in the Urban Planning department, had heard that Griego had been having relationship troubles. But, she said, Griego always maintained a smile and cheerful demeanor.

"She didn't have a mean bone in her body," Pinch said. "She had a lot of friends, she was well-liked."

Griego helped students understand the technical details of mortgages and finance in real-estate courses, Pinch said. She said Griego would sometimes be a guest lecturer.

The shooting occurred during spring quarter classes, and some students in the building were locked into their classrooms after the shootings.

Monica Le, a junior at the UW, was in a fourth floor classroom when she heard the shots. She said no one was sure it was gunfire at first since loud noises sometimes come from a wood shop in the building. Her class continued for a few minutes until police arrived and told everyone to leave.

Assistant Police Chief Wittmier said that the UW has 65,000 total students, faculty and staff on campus and about 200 buildings with only four or five officers on patrol on a given weekday.

He also said police receive numerous reports of death threats on campus. With a number of students are moving in and out of relationships, it can be very emotional, so such threats and emotional situations are not uncommon.

There have only been a handful of shootings on the campus:

On June 28, 2000, UW pathologist Rodger Haggitt, 57, was shot in his office by medical resident Jian Chen, 42, who turned the gun on himself. Chen was on the verge of flunking UW's pathology program.

In July, 1989, a California man, Azizolla Mazooni, shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Marjan Mohseninia, and her friend, Abraham Sharif-Kashani, in a UW parking lot. Mazooni had hired a private detective to locate Mohseninia, who was a summer student at the university. Mazooni was later convicted on two counts of second-degree murder.

In December, 1979, Roger Cutsinger, 21, fatally shot his roommate and lover, Larry Duerkson, for a $500,000 insurance policy in which Cutsinger was named beneficiary. Duerkson, a University of Washington library employee, was walking between Parrington Hall and the Henry Art Gallery when Cutsinger shot him. Cutsinger was later convicted of first-degree murder.

Seattle Times staff reporters Nick Perry, Jonathan Martin, Mike Lindblom, Jim Brunner Susan Gilmore, Jennifer Sullivan, Alex Fryer, Natalie Singer and news researchers Miyoko Wolf and Gene Balk contributed to this report.
 
Feel-goodism the bureaucrats can use to 'protect' everyone right into the grave.
 
His body will be eligble for the death penalty once the DA reviews the circumstances.
 
Not to worry. I'm sure the court will issue a sternly worded contempt citation for this infraction.

When I've done DVRO's in the past, I generally advise clients to either be armed or stay with someone who is armed. In practice though the bigger problem is the women going to meet the abusive boyfriends/husbands in violation of their own restraining orders. Either way, the whole system is something of a joke. Esp. since the stupid things are handed out like candy by magistrates too scared of a career-ending decision if they deny a DVRO and someone does get killed. As if the paper would have stopped anyone. Some couples just need to be preemptively put in jail until the whole thing is settled. Frankly some couples need to be banned from every seeing each other again for the good of society.
 
Paper Tiger

A restraining order is only as good as the subject's willingness to comply.

Saw a "Gun Free" zone sign proudly displayed at the local high school activity bus parking lot this afternoon. My first reaction was: "Yeah. Until somebody with a gun decides to walk in and take over the place because they've just announced that it's gun-free. :rolleyes:

Just made me feel all warm and fuzzy...
 
Saw a "Gun Free" zone sign proudly displayed at the local high school activity bus parking lot this afternoon. My first reaction was: "Yeah. Until somebody with a gun decides to walk in and take over the place because they've just announced that it's gun-free.
I wonder if the principle/superintendent would be swayed by a swarm of stories like this thread.
 
A Restraining Order, Or VPO, Is Like A Constitution ---

--- It's a worthless piece of prose without the hardware to back it up.

  • "Firepower: Don't Leave Home Without It."
  • "Firepower: Don't Stay Home Without It."
  • "Firepower: Don't Constitute Without It."
Go ahead and make up some additions to the list.

Woody

"The United States of America is not up for grabs. Keep your hands off and steer clear. Free people live here - Free people who are determined to stay free. Our rights and freedom will be defended with extreme prejudice." B.E.Wood
 
Pay attention, please

Now, pay attention to what the Times story says, as it is important to your understanding of this case, and your opinions.


Wittmier said Rowan made telephone threats to woman at her campus office on March 7 and March 14. Officers were told about this, but she was not placed under surveillance or escort.

Griego did not want to press charges at the time, but if she had, police might have been able to arrest the guy and charge him with violating a protection order, Wittmier said.

(snip)

In early March, she said in the court papers that "I cannot find him, but he can find me and knows my place of work."

(snip)

Authorities had been unable to serve the protection order because they couldn't find him. The paperwork was left at Griego's office in case he showed up there.

Bottom line; it appears he had not been served with the protection order, and it may be a legal technicality, but until it is served, it really can't be enforced.

Griego had reported the threats, but apparently did not press charges. The cops knew she had been threatened, but did not place her under surveillance...or give her an escort, and it is pretty common knowledge that police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to any person.

I'm not trying to blame the lady for what happened to her, but there are some oddball circumstances with this story, and you're getting the early version. It's got to be fleshed out more.
 
Usless unless backed by a 12 gauge pump and training upon issue of order.:banghead:
 
While this isn't directly touch on the topic, it does raise a point. Just wish all the gun ban politicals out there would take the time to learn that....

it is pretty common knowledge that police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to any person
by Dave Workman

It's true, just wish more people understood that, that and the fact that their rights are fought for by the people that wear uniforms....</rant>

It's a sad story, but it's on the news because it happened on campus and a gun was involved. Of course anything with guns and violence is on the news.

Was curious about the six shots....seems like a lot. But then I don't know all the facts.
 
A restraining order is only as good as the subject's willingness to comply.

Seems to me that if someone is willing to comply with a restraining order then you probably didn't need one anyway.



Several years ago the cousin of a girl I was seeing and his girlfriend had a messy breakup. He had a temper and she was afraid so she got a restraining order. The day after he was served the papers stating there was a restraining order he went to her apartment, broke the door down and beat her bad enough to put her in the hospital. When questioned he flatly told the cop he wouldn't have done it if she wouldn't have "involved the authorities in their private business".

So, no, I don't believe restraining orders are good for anything other than maybe supplementing a case for self defense should you need to shoot the bastard.
 
Dave Workman said:
Bottom line; it appears he had not been served with the protection order, and it may be a legal technicality, but until it is served, it really can't be enforced.

Griego had reported the threats, but apparently did not press charges. The cops knew she had been threatened, but did not place her under surveillance...or give her an escort, and it is pretty common knowledge that police are under no legal obligation to provide protection to any person.
The article is less than crystal clear on this point, IMHO. The way I read it, the PO was served and in place, but the guy was violating it at will and the young woman declined to press charges to the effect that he had violated it. I'm not from Washington so I don't know how the law is written. I find it strange that there needs to be a person pressing charges before a violator of a court order can be arrested.

Once again, the victim was too kind for her own good. And, of course, once again the PO was worth less than the paper on which it was printed.
 
There is an uncertainty regarding if it was served. I have never heard of DVRO being "left" in the hopes the recepiant will find it.

IMO, the fact that he broke the order twice (assuming he did find it) was just him testing the resolve of her. She got the order, but refused to press charges after it was violated. All that did was empower him to believe he could walk in and harm her.
 
A friend of a friend just went through he11 with her ex-boyfriend and a RO.

He had gotten abusive, but wouldn't leave (they lived in HER house), so she got an RO (and I think some kind of "eviction notice")...They served the guy, and made HER and her 13 yr. old daughter leave HER house for 2 weeks, while the guy supposedly cleared out. He harrassed her (mostly by telephone) for several weeks, threatened to kill her dogs, etc.. She reported it to the cops EVERY time (often 7-8 times a day). Cops did nothing UNTIL he called while a cop was sitting next to her, when he called. she handed the phone to the cop, who listened to his rants/threats for several minutes. THEN they put his ass in jail.
 
Don't know about the state where the previous poster is from, but in PA, each violation of a PFA is an arrestable offense "if" the person reports it. All the holder of the PFA has to do is come in and fill out and sign a form and the police have an immediate arrest warrant for the other person. Violation of a PFA normally gets the person 6 months in the county jail.

And yes, the PFA has to be served to the person, not left somewhere. Finding the person to serve the PFA, or arrest him for a violation can be very difficult.

Is a PFA a bullet proof shield? No, but neither is obtaining a gun. Sure the person can defend themselves "if" they have the time and opportunity. But, if the person is bent on doing harm to the other person, nothing short of locking yourself in a vault is going to prevent that person from getting to you.

The vast majority of people served with a PFA will adhere to it.
 
An order of protection does exactly ONE thing. It says IN WRITING, "This is why my ex-boyfriend/ex-husband/stalker is lying dead on my kitchen floor with a .38 caliber bullet hole in his abdomen."
 
We are finding now that the ex-boyfriend/stalker had at least two other aliases (supported by british passports), been moving with great irregularity, and was armed with a STOLEN revolver. the only bright spot in this whole mess is that he took himself out with the last bullet.

The victim did not arm herself, though it would not have done much good with the ex-bf coming with the revolver in the ready position. She did not have much security in her place of work, and though her co-workers knew of the ex-bf and his tendencies, they could do not much more than offer moral support.

My question is: Where did he acquire the revolver? I am sure that the last legal owner will be contacted, and offered his firearm back, but that does no good for the young lady.
 
One this is for certain...an "Order", a "LAW" a BAN will do nothing to stop someone bent on killing you. He is going to do it if he has his mind made up..Regardless of any other Penalties (He don't care about penalties for violating a restraining order, he will be dead in an hour)...This is why "Gun Control" does nothing...Neither do laws against guns on School campuses, or anywhere else...no workie...
 
an emergency protective order cannot stop anyone from carrying out an act of violence any more than anyone can stop someone from committing suicide.

the order only dictates a punishment for violating it. a piece of paper, i.e. a written order from a judge, will not stop someone who chooses to disregard it. especially someone who is going to commit a murder-suicide.

the problem is, what else can a a judge do, except put the person in jail (the one who the protective order is issued against)? wouldn't that violate that person's rights, if he hadn't even been given a chance to abide by the order?

it's a no-win situation..... :confused:
 
The problem is that our society is so legalistic that there is an irrational belief that a restraining order is supposed to make the offending party play nice. We can find instances of exes violating restraining orders with boring regularity. Does anyone know of a study linking restraining orders with an increased risk of violence?
 
I am a Political Science student here at the UW, and so far have heard quite a lot of talk about this case (In class as well as informally). What is dissapointing to me is the overwhelming consensus that this somehow wouldn't have happened if this man didn't have a handgun, noting such pipe-dream laws and bans that could have prevented this. They of course ignore the fact that the gun was stolen from a private individual, thus showing (as has been countless times) that gun control laws are not going to stop a determined person or criminal willing to bypass them.

It is sad for me to think that most the people here consider themselves Washington's cream of the crop, too smart for their own damn good. I have a year left and I can't wait to say good riddance to this bastion of backwards thinking. Why just yetsterday there were communist agitators on bikes with loudspeakers, disrupting my classes with their drivel.

Displeasure with this school aside, I would have to agree that in the end a restraining order is just a piece of paper, and although it can be usefull, serves no purpose in cases like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top