Stealing his guns means that he doesn’t have those guns, which does in fact make it much easier for her to defend herself. It would be easier yet on her if the law required a background check in order to buy a new gun, but obviously that’s impossible because America.
Federal law does require a background check to buy a new gun. And apparently Florida law prohibits people with active restraining orders against them from purchasing guns? (I don’t know about that, I’m just going by what people in this thread have said.) But there are many other ways to obtain guns, probably the easiest of which is to just ask your friends. And gun people almost always have friends with guns, too.
So stealing his guns offers at most a slight speed bump to him killing her with a gun, and no hurdle at all to killing her by any other method. Not being anywhere he can find her to shoot, stab, or beat her is a much surer thing.
So is it your premise that if she cannot make herself 100% safe she should make any effort at all? Your posts seem to be the perfect example of “perfect is the enemy of good”.
If I understand:
-He’d already tried to kill her.
-The police locked him up, and said, “Hey, when you get out of jail, you gotta bring us your guns.”
-The woman worried instead he was thinking, “Hey, when I get out of jail, I go murder my ex-wife with my guns.”
-The woman took the guns to the police, saving the dude a trip.
The only harm he suffered through her actions was that he was unable to experience either the legal pleasure of delivering his guns to the police himself, or the illegal pleasure of murdering his ex-wife with his guns.
It is obscene that she is being held for this crime.
Don’t shoot me bro. The cops are coming. :rolleyes:
And to forestall any dumb gotcha analogies, let’s keep it in line:
-If his porn collection comprised a collection of sex tapes of his ex-wife, and he’d just been arrested for uploading revenge porn of her, and the police had ordered him to turn over his porn collection, and she worried that instead he’d mass-release it including sending it to her family and workplace, I’d support her stealing his porn collection.
-There’s no analogy that makes the WHAT IF SHE MURDERED HIM IN HIS SLEEP thing even remotely the same, so I’ll say that I oppose her murdering him in his sleep, and similarly oppose her kicking his puppy, setting fire to his motorboat, or logging into his Twitter account and following Trump. Not that any of those things are relevant.
Whence this magical place she can whisk her kids off to and never have to worry about the evil abuser? Seriously, it’s not that easy. If it were, the number of abusers attacking their exes would be much, much lower. About 75% of domestic violence homicides occur when the victim is leaving or has left the relationship. Someone determined to get at his ex has innumerable ways to find out where she is. Wasn’t there just a creepy thread in IMHO about a guy who “surprised” an acquaintance by getting her address online and mowing her lawn?
It takes considerable money to get away and establish a household elsewhere. Not everyone has family far away to take them in. And exes have access to planes and cars, too.
Well, it also gives her guns to possibly shoot him with, castle style.
But mostly what it gives her is time and hope. Instead of going straight from jail to home to pick up his shotty and redecorate her ceiling in red right away, he now has to jump through hoops to get a weapon - be it waiting periods at the gun store, or going to a friend, or looking up Shady Weapon Trenchcoat Guy (which Resident Evil 4 has taught me is always lurking around somewhere) - the point is it takes time and a whole series of deliberate actions instead of just the spur of anger ; and time dulls emotions. And maybe the friend will talk him down, and maybe he’ll balk at Shady Weapon Trenchcoat Guy’s prices, and maybe, maybe…
Maybe she still winds up a Jackson Pollock. But she did (or felt she did) something to prevent that.
Quite the opposite. Read my posts again. I’m suggesting concrete efforts she could have, and still can make to improve her safety, as opposed to what she did, which it is arguable made her any safer at all, and if so only minimally.
Where’s the magical place where stealing his guns prevents her from ever having to worry about her evil abuser? He could go to jail for ten years, get out, and then kill her. With or without a weapon. Perfect safety does not exist.
Nevertheless, staying away from people who are both bigger and stronger than you, and also trying to kill you, is far safer than not staying away from them, and only preventing them from using a certain type of weapon temporarily.
Sure. But also not being around gives her time and hope, too. Time dulls emotions, his friend might talk him down, etc. You said it yourself. I did mention earlier that having his guns means she can use them to protect herself, but she could also buy her own gun, so it’s a wash on that count.
And to reiterate, it’s not that I don’t sympathize with her and wish her the best, I just think she made the wrong decision here. I hope she gets the charges dropped. But if I were in her situation, I know what I would do, and further enraging my abuser while staying right where he could find me in his rage isn’t it. However, I hope I am never in that situation, and I’m willing to give pretty wide latitude to those who are.
I half expected this post to conclude with, “Someone should ask the guns how they feel about all this! They are the real victims here!”
No. Ya don’t. You know what you think would be the best idea. That’s on par with saying “well I know if I’d been a German in 33, I know I would have/wouldn’t have…” and just… no.
Tell you what : I’m unemployed right now and my only plans for the future are late July, so for a limited time I’m available to fly to wherever you live, put a capricious gun to your head that I may or may not fire for any reason whatsoever (including “no reason”), and we can play “make rational decisions” together. Just say the word . And pay my flight, and gun, because you know. Unemployed. Oh, and the beer, I’ll need some to properly play the game.
Ah, OK. I misread. Let me state then that the law *should *be able to take a reasonable view on this and though some custody may be required for, e.g. the female protagonist in this case, it should be minimised and only act as statement to say “yeah, we understand why, but we can’t pretend this didn’t happen” a judicial slap on the wrist and no more.
Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute if they feel they have little chance of winning in court, so it doesn’t even have to get to a judge.
How much “Special Knowledge” does she need after he attempted to kill her with his car? Her fear did not come out of left field.
This. Good luck finding a jury that’s going to convict her after hearing about Hubby playing Demolition Derby. The DA can try to object on “relevance,” but there’s no guarantee the judge will sustain it, and even then you can’t unring that bell in the jury’s heads.
Plea bargain down to B&E, slap her wrist, go home and catch up on season 4 of Supergirl on Netflix.
Meh, charge her with the crime, which she confessed to. But her punishment should be probation. It’s not like she’s a B&E specialist that’s going around and robbing homes for profit.
No, I’d still call that breaking and entering and theft, but unless they put bullets in the guns and then threatened someone, it’s not armed burglary to me. Now if someone came in while this was occurring, and they used the guns, then the acquisition of the weapons vs. bringing them becomes irrelevant. But if no one is threatened/shot, or even present, then it’s not armed burglary to me. But I’m not a lawyer and Florida law is what it is.
Uh, she’s his wife, and knows he owns guns, and knows where he lives, and probably has been there to drop off/pick up the kids or something. That’s a serious question you have?
I disagree. My opinion is she had perfect right to turn in his guns that he legally was required to turn in but probably wouldn’t on his own, because 2nd Amendment gun owner freak blah blah blah. And how long would the police give him to turn them in on his own before they bother to go collect them? Ever?
The mouseover caption for the photo says
Bolding added.
No word on if he was released or made bail, probably the latter. Doesn’t change the fact he got out and if she weren’t in jail, would have potentially been in danger.
Me, I’d ding her for trespassing or some such misdemeanor and let her off light, if not drop charges completely. I think she’s fully justified.
She also goofed admitting to armed breaking and entering when the cop asked that question. She should have said “No. Here are the guns he’s not allowed to have.” Admitting to breaking in was sloppy on her part.
So now this soon-to-be single mother of three should have a felony conviction, which can prevent her from obtaining housing and employment, because she was desperate to save her own life? That seems like “justice” to you?
This coming from the guy that repeatedly posts about police having no duty to protect. Two examples:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17792260&postcount=198
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6656133&postcount=22
I was thinking more of dropping all charges. The Times quotes the prosecutor in the district next to this one saying that in his district they support survivors over abusers.
BTW, the same article notes that Florida does have a law allowing or requiring (not sure which) police to confiscate guns in this case. Clearly the police didn’t. Would they have before the guy was released? They haven’t claimed that they were about to. So she was just doing the police’s job for them.
So what?
It still doesn’t give her the right to commit a burglary.