Yet Another Homicide Provoked by a Protection Order
We have long predicted that protection orders will increase risk for applicants, and there have now been numerous examples of partner homicides that probably would never have occurred if there had been no protection order.
If the guilty verdict against Michael Preston this week was the correct one (even though it appeared to be based on circumstantial evidence and the dangerous reasoning that “It couldn’t realistically have been anyone else so it must have been the accused”), then his case is yet another example of a partner killing provoked by a protection order. She was killed within hours of a protection order being served on her ex-husband Mr Preston, against whom the Family Court was collaborating with her regarding care of their children.
When will we start to get real about the implications of threatening fathers’ relationships with their children? When will we get real about the true risk-increasing effects of protection orders, at least in situations where the respondent posed any signficant risk at all. The feminists and white knights of course live in denial and hope that by making the Domestic Violence Act even more unjust and draconian, that will somehow magically make protection orders more effective. However, the only way to do that would be a ‘final solution’, putting to death or imprisoning for life every male accused by a female of presenting a risk. Anything short of that will increase risk. For example, even if all protection order respondents, or those said to have breached protection orders, are immediately sent to jail, you can expect that when they are released they will be much more bitter and twisted, feeling abandoned and very threatened by their own country, and some will lose hope and/or seek revenge.
Let’s consider for a moment that most of the movers and shakers in the ‘govt’ (mafia) are actually psychopaths and they make statutes for two reasons: For power and for mayhem. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense out of most statutes.
Comment by [email protected] — Thu 26th November 2015 @ 8:02 pm
I wish same rules should be applied in famCrt.
Female teacher jailed for 10 years for sexually violating boy
the prosecutor said:
Gender “shouldn’t be a factor”
The starting point for Reriti’s punishment should be 14-15 years in jail, the prosecutor said.
He suggested Reriti’s gender shouldn’t mean she should escape the sort of punishment a male teacher found guilty of child sex offences would face.”
Comment by kumar — Fri 27th November 2015 @ 10:02 am
yes it’s not rocket science. you push someone into a corner and they react.
Comment by senna — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 11:42 am
Yes, when there are fair and reasonable outcomes, you can avoid violence.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 30th November 2015 @ 4:17 pm
Here’s a statement by Labour’s rising star Jacinda Ardern
Comment by Downunder — Tue 1st December 2015 @ 6:19 am