Well, no. A man has negatively impacted his life by doing what he shouldn't have done. What that means to the course of his life is really up to him. People have done far worse and reformed both the course and impression of their lives. This man has had reason to see something ugly and wrong in his actions and nature. He can use that point as a beginning of a much better existence. Or he can wallow in misplaced anger and self-pity.
Up to him, really.
No, there doesn't. The problem isn't the law. The problem is with the law breaker. You don't and shouldn't get a pass on hurting someone or placing them in reasonable fear for their safety because you're married. The same rules and definitions apply to everyone. Mitigation is always possible, given a totality of circumstance, but that's for the trier of fact to determine and an appellate court to affirm or deny.
I have no idea what was in his heart. I know what he did. I know how the judge read it and I know what her response indicates. And no, no one is responsible for your behavior except you. He could have walked away or simply let her alone. Instead he followed her, forced a closed door and hurt her in the process.
I'll add it to the list of your irrational beliefs. Lawyers are no better or worse than any other human being. They're just better educated and more powerful.
Rather, I defend the reasonable and lawful against the emotional and ignorant presumption. That's the real difference between us.
Since you didn't specify which particular, I'll address them all. The general answer is they work all the time.
Status quo orders are routinely issued by judges, even in cases involving allegations of domestic violence. They accomplish two things. First, they keep either party from attempting to abuse their discretion relating to marital assets and secondly, they reaffirm the standard payments of bills due from the usual sources. To balance your example, many a man has cleaned out his bank account on the heels of being restrained from contact to entice the woman to allow him back into the home.
In cases where the judge rules with a clear disregard for the best interests of children those judgments have been and will be overturned more often than not. Again, most courts have trended in favor of joint custody absent exigent circumstances.
Everyone charged with something that shares both criminal and civil consequences should avail themselves of the services of an attorney and most do.
Lastly, misconduct relating to assets of a marriage is absolutely recoverable in the final judicial settlement of the marital estate. Happens all the time.
I'm disinterested in your bias and how it motivates anyone sharing it to not avail themselves of their legal rights. They're their own worst enemies.
Complete nonsense.
Rather, as is true with most reasonable human beings, they object to physical violence against anyone who isn't threatening violence themselves.
Everything we believe to be right serves our self-interest.
Only someone deep in the throes of delusion and/or denial could see defending women and children from violent men as immoral.
I've never met anyone who attempted to abuse scripture the way you just tried who didn't have something personal to gain by it. In this case, the silence that cannot accuse. This fellow, was he someone close to you? There has to be a reason for this degree of distorted insistence on your part.
Last edited:
