I Must Be Missing Something

If anyone knows the answer to this or can give me some insight, please feel free. I'm at a complete loss right now. Woman is battered by her husband, he is arrested; minor charge but never the less, arrested. She is issued a stay away order of protection at his arraignment. Of course, the case goes on and on and ends in the usual "stay out of trouble for 1 year and this never happened" scenario. But, out of the goodness of their hearts, the court keeps the stay away order in place. Except, there's one minor problem; the order does NOT prohibit the abuser from being at the business they own together.

Now I know there are many, many people that will give me the "you cannot take away his business", nonsense as the reason for this. My argument however is this. The court obviously felt this person posed a very real threat to the victim and therefore ordered him to remain away from her. So how is it that he's a danger to her everywhere but the place of business? How is it that our justice system, which is viewed as the best in the world, is compelled to continuously make sure the "rights" of the abuser are protected and leave the victims virtually unprotected?

Anyone that wants to argue that the victims are protected will not likely get anywhere with me on this issue as the victim in the scenario I am talking about was brutally murdered by her abuser a few days ago. Shot in cold blood, multiple time. Where? You guessed it, at the place of business.

This woman did not stand a chance. It must be noted that the abuser did not chose to go to her home to do this, he went to the one place he was allowed to be and therefore knew the victim was without protection. She could not call 911 because he was ALLOWED to be there. Had he shown up at her home, she'd have had the opporunity to call for help and possibly keep him out while waiting for the police to arrive. He KNEW he would be able to pull this off because the court, in all their infinite wisdom did no want to take away his means of support and prohibit him from entering a business he co-owned.

So bascially this is how I see it right now. Protect his right to own and participate in the business but do not protect her right to be SAFE at the business.

Disgusting, simply disgusting.

That's What I'm Talkin About!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, so I'm not as consistent with my blog as I'd hoped to be and at times, life gets in the way and I almost forget I even started one. The past few months have been that way and then some. Until tonight when an email rolls in that someone posted a comment on my blog. I check it out and was excited, to say the least. Alright, I know, I'm quite the dork but whatever, let me get back to my point.

I'm going to make this short and sweet. The person that commented on my blog is a gentleman who, while listening to an NPR broadcast pertainig to domestic violence got to thinking and did some research. Quite to his dismay, it was not easy to locate resources for a victim who might want to leave their abusive partner but is reluctant to because they fear the abuser will in turn harm or kill the family pet. The broadcast he listened to is indeed very accurate an many, many victims are not aware that help is available not only for them and their children but for the most helpless family member that many forget about; the family pet.

In my area, pets are now permitted to be named as protected parties on an Order of Protection and through a collaborative effort, the local SPCA will house the pets of victims that need to leave the home for safety reasons. The SPCA locates the most appropriate shelter for the animal based on breed, needs, etc. and will house the animal for as long as the victim needs. Problem is, this information is not readily available to a victim in crisis and unless they reach out to a hotline, they will not come to learn of this option.

Here's where the poster on my blog comes in. After realizing the problem, he did not complain about it for a bit then move on with other things. He's DOING something about it. Not only is he doing something about it, he's doing it in a responsible manner, not claiming to be able to provide a counseling type of site but rather a site comprised of resources for victims to access when their family pet is in need of protection.

Now that's what I"m talking about!!!!!