View Single Post
Old January 17, 2020, 02:28 AM   #14
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,339
Legal eagles correct me if I'm wrong, (please!) but isn't the difference between the red flag enhanced protection order and the regular protection order just a matter of process and eligibility to apply?

Doesn't the petitioner have to (honestly, "in good faith") have to state they believe there is a threat to themselves or others from the person they are filing against??

Seems in this case, the Judge decided her definition of "child in common" did not meet the necessary legal standard, and so tossed the application.

Therefore it never even got to the point of her stating there was a threat, did it??

The woman's son was killed in 2017. Since there is no other mention, we must assume she waited until 2020 to file for protection. Seems unlikely to me that any 'threat" from the officer only just materialized recently, and if not, why did she not file for a regular protection order before??

This seems to be a very clear case of someone trying to use a law to exact vengeance. Quite possibly deliberately perjuring themselves in order to do so.

For that, there SHOULD be legal punishment, bereaved, grieving mother, or not. Waiting 2+ years to take legal action against the officer who you feel killed your son wrongly just doesn't look like lashing out in immediate grief, it looks like a cold, calculated attempt at revenge via the legal system.

Not getting into the right or wrong of the law, but in this case it seems the system worked properly. An apparently spurious application was made, the Judge ruled it without merit, and it was dismissed. That is actually one of the ways the system is supposed to work.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Page generated in 0.02762 seconds with 8 queries