Slain woman predicted her own death

[n2doc]

By Bill Torpy
Donna Kristofak was terrified and letting the court know it. John S. Kristofak, who was her husband for 19 years, had been arrested six months earlier as he chased her in a Wal-Mart parking lot. In his car were a butcher’s knife and what police called “a suicide note.”

During a court hearing Oct. 12, Mrs. Kristofak begged a Cobb County judge not to release him from jail. “I fear for my life,” she told Superior Court Judge Adele Grubbs, telling the judge that a court-issued order of protection would not stop her crazed ex-spouse.

Early Thursday, fugitive squads arrested Kristofak, 58, after a short struggle at a Motel 6 in Union City, ending a publicized five-day manhunt. He was charged with doing exactly what he’d promised earlier this year: murder.

Late Saturday morning, Kristofak allegedly entered the garage of his 48-year-old ex-wife’s East Cobb home and stabbed her once in the upper torso, according to a warrant. She died later at a hospital.

more
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/slain-woman-predicted-her-own-death/nTgj4/

[PeaceNikki]

1. That's terrible, DV is not taken seriously.

The target of the spa shooting here in WI this year also told the court she "didn't want to die".

[TheDebbieDee]

6. Short of keeping the abuser in jail, what did you expect the judge or police to do?

[PeaceNikki]

7. uh... keep him in jail

[TheDebbieDee]

12. I asked you what you think the victim should do if they don't keep the abuser in jail.....

"uh...keep him in jail" wasn't an option.....

[PeaceNikki]

14. Yes, it was an option, FOR GOD'S SAKE.

[malz]

26. You're a Lena Dunham fan, aren't you?

[TheDebbieDee]

41. Who the phuck is Lena Dunham?

[EOTE]

27. Why the fuck would keeping him in jail not be an option?

The ENTIRE point of jail is keeping dangerous people off the streets. This man was obviously dangerous and he shouldn't have been released until they were confident he was no longer a threat.

[pnwmom]

28. They never should have cut the plea deal that allowed him to spend most of his

5 year sentence on probation.

[PeaceNikki]

29. He didn't even serve 7 months.

Had they kept him in jail, she could have developed a safety plan.

But they didn't.

[TheDebbieDee]

42. BUT they didn't keep him in jail, did they? So she needed to take steps to DEFEND herself......

That's what I've been saying. Protective orders protect the victim when he/she takes steps to defend him/herself!

[lapislzi]

80. Wrong, wrong, wrong

The law exists to PROTECT people. The onus should not be on me to defend myself. That's the law's job.

Taking steps to defend yourself might be a smart move, but it's not required, nor should it ever be.

[TheDebbieDee]

82. "The onus should not be on me to defend myself. That's the law's job."

I promise you I'm not trying to be rude or a smartass, but you sound SO young/naive.

To me it sounds as if you're saying that a victim should stay a victim til somebody comes to help them. But an abuser makes it a point, usually, to isolate their victim. That is - an abuser tries to keep their victim a victim.

When a person is in an abusive situation, that person shouldn't count on anyone to help them. In fact, unless the person you turn to help is in law enforcement, the victim is putting the helper in danger as well.

[Warpy]

89. BULLSHIT!

At some point, the court has to do its fucking job and protect life. Since this joker was a clear threat to her, he should never been allowed out until steps had been taken to insure her safety.

This bastard should never have been allowed a plea bargain and he should never have been allowed parole.

But hey, they needed the room for a nonviolent pot smoker.

[arely staircase]

47. i think some want to blame the victim

for not ruggedly and individually buying a bushmaster and standing her ground. as opposd to blaiming the authorities who let the pshycho out.

[PeaceNikki]

48. or the psycho himself.

I know. It's shameful.

[TheDebbieDee]

53. I don't think any is blaming the victim, but if one begs the judge to keep their abuser locked up...

And the judge lets the abuser out of jail, then the victim should do WHATEVER he/she can to protect themself.

Trust me, this is complicated by a magnitude of 1,000 or more if there are small children involved, if the victim has no resources or money......this is a terrifying, nerve-fraying time for all involved.

[arely staircase]

54. i see your point eom

[Paladin]

60. Yeah, Actually, You ARE Blaming The Victim. (nt)

[TheDebbieDee]

66. No, actually, I'm NOT blaming the victim. (nt)

I just HATE it when someone tells ME what I'm doing............

[PeaceNikki]

73. you are blaming the victim

[PeaceNikki]

65. you are blaming the victim

You rode into this thread on your high horse with your Bushmaster slung over your shoulder and spoke only of what the victim should have done differently.

Not the judge, social services, or the perp.

it was pretty clear.

[TheDebbieDee]

74. No, really I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming you!

You masters of the keyboard that live on Fantasy Island and have all the answers to everyone's problem......you hang out at an anonymous forum and blame the judge for this and blame the police for that. Constantly pointing fingers.

What good are you doing for any victim of abuse anywhere? Write your congressperson. Donate time at a battered women's shelter. Stand up for more resources to provide better social services, counselors, therapists. Do something other than freak out everytime you're reminded that guns still exist.

Oh, and Nikki? BANG! I know your trigger............

[PeaceNikki]

78. I hope nobody alerts on this and it stands. It's clear who is unhinged and completely 'hysterical'.

And seriously sick.

[TheDebbieDee]

90. Yes, Nikki. You've made it quite clear just who it is that needs a nap!

[Jamastiene]

105. How fucking disgusting.

[DapperDon]

77. And how do you know this woman didn't take steps to defend herself?

There isn't much one can do when someone is determined to kill them. Moving away doesn't always help. Short of killing him first, she probably didn't have much she could do.

[lark]

97. What I don't get

is why you think keeping the murderer in jail in not an option? Why do you think gun fights in the streets is the real answer? Prevention of violence is much better than an escalation of violence. Keep f*ing rapists and murderes in jail and let out non-violent criminals who don't hurt anyone.

[TheDebbieDee]

102. It is what it is! This guy was loose and there was nothing to deter him

but a Protective order. Protective orders do nothing but piss the abuser off MORE.

In this woman's case, since the judge didn't keep this joker in jail, her best option after getting a Protective order, is to do whatever it takes to take care of herself!

[Wind Dancer]

107. You've been blaming the victim this entire thread.

It's disgusting, pure and simple.

[tledford]

46. Actually, that ISN'T what you asked.

"Short of keeping the abuser in jail, what did you expect the judge or police to do?" (emphasis added by me)

[Madrona]

111. To win your argument, you lied about what you just said.

Unfortunately, you wrote it down so the record is there for all to see.

The Text:


Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:41 PM
TheDebbieDee (8,189 posts)
6. Short of keeping the abuser in jail, what did you expect the judge or police to do?


Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:44 PM
PeaceNikki (18,238 posts
7. uh... keep him in jail


Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:51 PM
TheDebbieDee (8,189 posts)
12. I asked you what you think the victim should do if they don't keep the abuser in jail.....

"uh...keep him in jail" wasn't an option.....



When you said, "I asked you what you think the victim should do if they don't keep the abuser in jail..." This is not what you wrote/said!

What you actually wrote/said was just above and it was:

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:41 PM
TheDebbieDee (8,189 posts)
6. Short of keeping the abuser in jail, what did you expect the judge or police to do?

Did you not notice that you had contradicted yourself?

This is the problem with political debate in this country, a person admonishing someone else for telling the truth.

[Madrona]

112. Why did you not call DebbieDee on admonishing you for your accurate response to her question?

TEXT FROM THIS DISCUSSION:

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:41 PM
TheDebbieDee (8,189 posts)
6. Short of keeping the abuser in jail, what did you expect the judge or police to do?


Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:44 PM
PeaceNikki (18,238 posts
7. uh... keep him in jail
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022083334

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:51 PM
TheDebbieDee (8,189 posts)
12. I asked you what you think the victim should do if they don't keep the abuser in jail.....

"uh...keep him in jail" wasn't an

END OF TEXT.

TheDebbieDee changed her position and admonished you for asking her, accurately, about what she initially said.

I do not see anywhere in this discussion that anyone pointed out TheDebbieDee's lie to her. I am curious, did you notice it?

[LWolf]

38. Keep him in jail.

Put him on probation.

Put an ankle cuff on him.

SOMETHING other than allowing him to stalk and murder this woman.

[TheDebbieDee]

43. Abusers have been allowed to stalk and murder their victims for centuries, on this continent

and others. And until they start locking up their abusers, these victims need to defend themselves.

Fuck martyrdom - that only gets you another dead victim!

[PeaceNikki]

44. fuck abusive men. and fuck people who alert quoting Leviticus.

[TheDebbieDee]

56. Really Nikki, you should cut back on the caffeine!

And the taking the Lord's name in vain part of my alert was completely a joke.

I alerted your post because I thought you were rude to me and over-reacting a bit. But now that I've read a few more of your posts in this thread, I can see that you live in a state of constant hysteria and that you completely lose your shit when guns are mentioned. So I won't take it personally............

[PeaceNikki]

57. :*

[lark]

98. I alerted on your post because you are an insensitive gun promoting rwer

who is being rude to everyone on this board. Go away.

[PeaceNikki]

100. The jury already let that stand.

Nice, huh?

[TheDebbieDee]

103. Says you. And I am not promoting guns. I'm promoting that victims of DV

do whatever it is they need to do to protect themselves.

In my case, since guns are still legal, that would be my weapon of choice. For someone else, it might a TASER or pepper spray. To each his or her own.

And you're being very rude yourself. Maybe you should go away.

[MADem]

101. Let's assume he can't be kept in jail--how about parole with an ankle bracelet?

And a BOLO the second his alarm goes off or he violates other conditions of his release?

[Taverner]

99. Jeez...this article has me speechless

[SheilaT]

2. Sadly, this kind of thing is all too common.

A crazy spouse or former spouse -- usually the husband, but sometimes the wife -- repeatedly threatens to kill and eventually succeeds.

The really, really unfortunate thing here is that the gun apologists will use this as a talking point about now we all need guns all the time.

[PeaceNikki]

3. She BEGGED the court for help.

According to the transcript of the guilty plea Oct. 12, Donna Kristofak told the judge: “I definitely want a permanent order of no contact. May I also say that a protective order existed the night of the arrest and I do not feel that will necessarily bring safety.”

Judge Grubbs: “I understand that. It’s a little different with a TPO and filing a protective order. … If he violates the order in this case he gets picked up by the probation violation and put in jail immediately.”

Mrs. Kristofak: “Yes, your honor, I respect that and thank you for that. My fear is that I may not survive that …”
“I understand,” the judge said, cutting in.

“… I fear for my life,” Mrs. Kristofak continued.

“I can’t tell you with 100 percent, I’d be lying to you and I am sorry you are in that position,” said the judge, sounding sympathetic. “But whatever I do, you can go out and, you’ve got that risk but you will have that … copy of the protective order so the minute you get nervous about anything you call the police. … It’s as close as we can get to 100 percent.”

“Thank you, your honor,” Mrs. Kristofak said. “May I ask, your honor, that it is on the record that I fear for my life?”

“It is on the record,” said Judge Grubbs, who then threatened John Kristofak, saying she would send him to prison in an instant if he ever came near his ex-wife or tried to contact her.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Protective orders protect the victim from prosecution if he or she has to kill the abuser.........

If the situation is desperate enough for the victim to need a protective order, then the victim should be prepared to defend her/himself.

Of course the judge or police will not verbally tell the victim that she/he needs to have already purchased the Bushmaster (or whatever firearm/taser or other disabling weapon) but if the victim KNOWS that a protective order will be ignored by the abuser, then the victim should be prepared to kill their abuser WHEN approached by him/her.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Jesus Christ, go away with the "MORE GUNS!!11!!" bullshit. That not even what this thread or I were

discussing.



I am sensitive to domestic violence. Especially in conjunction with firearms

[hrmjustin]

8. I was juror number 4

At Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Jesus Christ, go away with the "MORE GUNS!!11!!" bullshit. That not even what this thread or I were
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083457

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The poster is taking the Lord's name in vain! Her comments are rude and insulting. She states that she is sensitive to domestic violence but I have lived through domestic violence and I know that when a person wants to kill you, it's best if you prepare yourself to kill them first. Protective orders only protect you from prosecution.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:45 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Compainant is the one who should be monitored closely.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't like her taking the Lord's name in vain either, but I will not hide this post.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future

[PeaceNikki]

9. Are you fucking KIDDING me!?

[hrmjustin]

10. No.

[bongbong]

36. The Flowers are very Delicate

and scared, of pretty much everything.

[TheDebbieDee]

59. You're not very professional.......this is the first time I've ever seen a juror post

post the jury results. Wait, is this a witch-hunt?

[hrmjustin]

62. I though she would get a kick out of it. If you read her post in Meta it looks like she did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=195688
If you don't like the fact that I posted it I am sorry, but it is my right.

[TheDebbieDee]

64. Wow! I've been here for almost 10 years and I never knew that forum existed!

[Jamastiene]

106. There is a lot you do not know, obviously.

Who is to blame when someone murders someone else, for starters. Here is a hint, it is the murderer, not the victim of the murderer.

[MrMickeysMom]

93. Your not very nice...

So, non-professionalism beats the shit out of what you've been saying in this thread.

I was juror#4 in one over one of your many rude comments, which I won't cut and paste here... I'll just tell you that I'm not a fan and leave it at that.

[TheDebbieDee]

95. You're very petty......

I'm not here to win YOUR friendship - I'm here to speak my mind and hopefully provide another point-of-view on the subject matter.

[MrMickeysMom]

110. Good for you, then...

Obviously, it wouldn't have been necessary to tell me that unless you wanted to.

[Kali]

70. ...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I was juror number 4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083619

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

How common is it for a juror to post the jury results like this? Don't you guys have some sort of propriety about these things? Justin is making you all look like high school detention pranksters.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:21 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: it is very common, especially on stupid alerts - like this one. you guys? maybe you are on the wrong website?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: WTF, This is just as frivolous as the 'lord's name in vain' alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: People post jury results all the fucking time. Half of Meta is postings of jury results, and loads of contentious threads regularly get jury results for various posts in every forum. Calm down.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't see the disruption in posting the jury decision. I actually think it would be helpful if more people saw the reasoning (if there is any)behind hiding or not hiding a post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[PeaceNikki]

71. lol

[TheDebbieDee]

75. It's a miracle.......you're healed! Imagine that.

[hrmjustin]

72. Wow, just wow!

[Honeycombe8]

11. But the poster was seriously pointing out the limitations of the law in DV situations.

The law allows the govt to keep these guys in jail only so long. There are instances where the judge has not taken it seriously & not sentenced him to the max, but even when they are, there are limitations. Sooner or later the guy will get out of jail, and everyone knows he's going to go after the object of his obsession. The poster was just pointing out that, sadly, the object of the criminal's obession needs to make some sort of plans to protect herself. Carry a metal bat around, get a security system, park your car in a locked garage, barricade yourself in your bedroom at night, get a gun if you know how to use it, vary your pattern of where you go and when you go there, etc.

That how I took that post.

[Mojorabbit]

16. I took it the same way. nt

[PeaceNikki]

19. BULLSHIT.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302792.html

[Mojorabbit]

15. She is right

I would totally have prepared to defend myself one way or another. I had a sister with a boyfriend like this. It is scary as Hell.

[PeaceNikki]

18. I totally disagree. Blame the perpetrator for his crime, the law for not protecting her, but don't

blame the victim.

Ever. It's not her fault he did this because she didn't buy a FUCKING GUN.

Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302792.html

[Honeycombe8]

20. No one is talking about blame. The discussion is about preventing the crime.

How best to do that. No one but you is saying this is a discussion about guns. It's not. If someone isn't comfortable with guns or doesn't know how to use them, they shouldn't get one.

But the facts, whether you like them or not, are:
1. The law can only imprison someone for a certain length of time for certain crimes. If someone is found guilty of breaking a restraining order or of assault, they'll spend time in jail. But the law does not allow a life sentence for those crimes. He will get out.

2. The law cannot protect you very well from a crime that hasn't been committed yet.

3. A lot of abusers who get out of jail, return to abuse or kill the objects of their obsession. Some don't. The police are not allowed, by law, to arrest someone for attempted murder just because someone thinks he may try to do that. That is against the law.

4. Even if you call the police, when the abuser shows up at your place of work or in a parking lot where you are, they probably can't get there before the abuser assaults you or does whatever he's there to do.

Ultimately, it's up to us all to take all precautions, use the law to its fullest, and where the law stops, do all we can to protect and defend ourselves. It's not about placing blame AFTER you've been killed. The point is to prevent it, to begin with.

How you protect yourself is up to you. There are a number of things a person can do. But nothing is 100%. If someone wants to get to you, he probably will. But you should realize you're in a war with a loco obsessive monster who is determined to kill you, and act accordingly for self-defense and protection.

And of course, at the first signs of violence against you, or overly control freakiness, you should drop a boyfriend. And for goodness' sake, don't put yourself in a position to be financially dependent on him. It's a red flag if he insists you be financially dependent on him.

[PeaceNikki]

21. BS. The man in the OP was convicted of many crimes and should have been in jail.

John Kristofak pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking and family violence simple battery charges Oct. 12. Judge Adele P. Grubbs sentenced him to four years and five months probation and seven months in jail, with credit for the time he already served. He was also given a permanent restraining order, forever banning him from contacting or going within 500 yards of his ex-wife.

He should have been in jail.

Her not arming herself was not the fucking reason she's dead.

[Honeycombe8]

22. I put that as an exception in my prior post....

that some courts/judges don't jail the offender to the fullest....but EVEN WHEN THEY ARE SO JAILED, they WILL get out eventually. The problem doesn't go away.

Again...I didn't say she should be armed. YOU are saying that. In fact, I specifically said if someone isn't comfortable with guns, they should NOT get one. Maybe you're fixating a little too much on guns and see that as the only solution?

I offered suggestions of protection, including:
a metal bat
varying your routine (so he isn't sure where you'll be at any given moment)
barricading yourself in your bedroom at night, when you're at your most vulnerable
Good deadbolts
Being alert at whoever is around you and approaching you
Carrying pepper spray
Parking in a locked garage, if you live in a house
Keeping your car locked at all times
Park in well lit areas in well-seen areas so someone would see if he tries to break in

Things like that. As for me, I would also keep a gun in my house, but so often these guys catch the woman when she's out and about...at work or whatever. So a gun wouldn't help there.

But in any case, she should realize this is not a man who loves her. She is in a war with an obsessive monster who wants to kill or mutilate her. She should act accordingly to protect herself.

[PeaceNikki]

23. I see how you think this is another fucking 'MORE GUNS' thread, but I still call bullshit.

http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/

“One article published in 2011 by the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (which isn’t indexed by PubMed) had several damning things to say. The article, written by David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, summarized the scientific literature on benefits and detriments of keeping a gun at home. He writes:

For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.

On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides.” In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house; no protective effect of the gun was found."

[Honeycombe8]

24. Okay, you're getting obsessed with guns. This isn't a gun thread, except for your posts. nt

[PeaceNikki]

25. Uh, no... read again. I am not the one who brought it up in this thread. In fact, I asked it NOT be.

[TheDebbieDee]

49. Apparently, you stopped reading at Bushmaster! I also mentioned taser or other disabling weapon!

You and #4 have NO sense of humor, but you were rude to me in your response. But I'm guessing that being rude to another poster only counts if that poster has a star next to their name......

[PeaceNikki]

51. humor? HUMOR?! Are you fucking kidding?

Rude is in the eye of the beholder, St. DebbieDee.

If you think this was the post to reply with "humor" or that your reply was humorous, you're a sick fuck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2083369

[TheDebbieDee]

61. Are you having a STROKE Nikki? Should I call 9-11 and send them to your mother's basement?

[PeaceNikki]

63. :*

[DollarBillHines]

67. "you're a sick fuck."????

Redstone was right.

This place has become an asylum.

I think you need to step back, take a few deep breaths.

[PeaceNikki]

68. if you or she find humor there, absolutely. 100% sick fuck

My breathing is fine, thanks for your concern.

[TheDebbieDee]

79. Oh Nikki, if only you'd completed the sixth grade reading course......

My joke was my reference in the first sentence of my alert - it was my complaint that a poster was taking the Lord's name in vain. That, you poor hideous fool, was the joke. As are you.

So, how many times a day do you trip over your upturned palms?

[PeaceNikki]

81. I may have been 'rude', but you're now on a 'personal attack' rampage. And you're armed!?!

Terrifying, considering how easily you're set off on rampages, really.

[TheDebbieDee]

85. Personal attacks? I'm just replying to your replies to my replies.........

Tell me, Nikki, who's stalking whom?

I'm armed only with my wit - I've definitely got you outgunned......

[PeaceNikki]

86. Your firearms and any children in your care should be forcibly removed. You're snapping.

I will not add any 'smilies' because it's not funny. It's sad.

And, with that... I am done with you.

[TheDebbieDee]

88. Nikki, come back! Was it something I said???????

[kurtzapril4]

108. What a couple of loons you BOTH are. n/t

[tledford]

52. No, the solution...

...is to drive an armored vehicle, hire a squadron of armed goons to go accompany you on your daily routines and plant your lawn with Bouncing Betties, razor wire at the curb and a moat with crocodiles near the house for the ones who get through the land mines.

I'm with you, PeaceNikki, that is no way to live and is just letting our justice system off the hook.

[pnwmom]

30. His sentence was for 5 years, most of which was on probation.

So the law would have allowed a longer sentence, which would have given her more time to get away and him more time to cool off.

[Mojorabbit]

34. I did not mention a gun.

There are many ways to defend oneself. I learned early on that one cannot depend on the police to show up in time when you need them.

[PeaceNikki]

35. This subthread started when you replied "She is right" to this (original edit):

"4. Protective orders protect the victim from prosecution if he or she has to kill the abuser.........
If the situation is desperate enough for the victim to need a protective order, then the victim should be prepared to defend her/himself.

Of course the judge or police will not verbally tell the victim that she/he needs to have already purchased the Bushmaster (or whatever firearm/taser or other disabling weapon) but if the victim KNOWS that a protective order will be ignored by the abuser, a Bushmaster should be an option prior to getting the protective order."


So, pardon the obvious confusion.

[TheDebbieDee]

83. I suspect, Nikki, that you live in a state of constant confusion.

[PeaceNikki]

84. I may have been 'rude', but you're now on a 'personal attack' rampage. And you're armed!?!

I fear for those around you.

[Jamastiene]

104. Their replies to you show what is wrong in America when it comes to guns.

They think of the almighty gun as a way to solve problems. It really is the same mentality of mass shooters. Have a problem you can't seem to get solved? Grab a gun and start shooting. It is that irresponsible and immature attitude toward life that is causing most of the gun violence.

It is not like an abused woman can just shoot her way out of an abusive relationship. If that was the solution, there would be a lot of dead men all over this country and bullets flying left and right. These posters are not living in reality if they think she can do that without ending up in jail herself. What idiocy.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. You're blaming the dead as part of your all-guns-all-the-time sales pitch

You make me want to vomit.

[PeaceNikki]

45. sick shit, huh?

[abelenkpe]

92. +1000

Crazy sick gun nut.

[ecstatic]

13. Uggh! So upsetting and disgusting

She did everything right. The law failed her and that judge's words in light of the failure are super smug.

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. If I was stalked by a violent person,

I would be ready to meet him and take him out.
You may have the vapors about this, but there is no real protection if they are determined to kill you. The restraining orders don't help nor can the police act ahead of time. You are really on your own.
As long as a person like this is alive and fixated on you and hurting you, you are not safe.

I believe stalking is a crime that isn't taken seriously enough by the courts or others. It can ruin your life completely if someone is always after you. The psychological damage can be devastating.

[pnwmom]

31. "The vapors"? Your testosterone is showing. n/t

[marions ghost]

32. Sad that women have to think like this--

ie. having to resort to guns --which I think are not all that effective. Many women/people can't bring themselves to kill, and even if they can kill, they may not be good at using the gun at the moment it would stop the crime.

Women need to be protected from these predators. The predators need to do long terms in jail. There also needs to be psychological help for the predator and hopefully for the victim.

[TheDebbieDee]

69. Here's the thing - Women aren't the only people that get stalked.

Men get stalked by women, men get stalked by other men. The danger is just as great regardless of the sex of the victim.

I think it may be worse for men in our culture because they might feel foolish asking for help from anybody.

[marions ghost]

94. Sure --but you are minimizing the extreme danger to women

--the level of domestic violence against women (& children) is much much higher than the reverse.

Yes, women stalk men, but usually just for their money. Not nearly as great a danger.

Men stalking men--yes that could result in men "feeling foolish to ask for help." Men who are stalked are usually holding some power over the stalker, like in a job situation. Usually men whoa re stalked have more resources and access to legal help. Of course it should be treated as just as important as women being stalked. Until women are better protected, things won't change.

[TheDebbieDee]

96. I'm not minimizing the danger to women - I'm elevating the issues of men that are stalked!

I'm pointing out how difficult and embarrassing it can be for an under-resourced man to get help if he is being stalked.

[lunatica]

33. And in many states they're taking women's rights away

This will happen a lot more now. Just like it used to before there were any laws to protect women against violence. I remember when there were no laws to protect women from stalkers, nor was there any understanding of the dangers to women (and men). It was all supposed to be some romantic thing or something until the young actress got shot by her stalker when she opened the door.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[glowing]

37. First off, how was his original charge NOT attempted murder?

Also, why is it that we continue to allow abusive people to walk among people when they are clearly a threat, especially to the object of their obsession. Why is this not seen as a mental instability? Why is the abuser not put into a mental health counseling program to help them with their problems. Locking them up is not going to change their mind or make them healthier to re-enter society... If anything, its going to give them time to think and plan out better ways of accomplishing their ultimate goal of killing the object of their obsession. Many times abusers were in abusive situations as a child and perpetuate the cycle of violence. (Many times its men abusing women, but this is not sacrosanct).

If the article about the original violent attack had read, "Assailant tries to run down a Pastor in parking Lot. Details within the article would read: "Suicide note found inside assailants vehicle. The shopper was Pastor Smith who was stocking up for the church's food pantry. The assailant was upset at the Pastor for aiding his ex-wife in leaving their marriage. Assailant has a past criminal history of violence toward his ex-spouse, along with a tendency for violence. The town is in shock and outrage. The D.A. will be pushing for the maximum charge in this case for attempted murder."

So, if the case wasn't about an abusive ex, who was threatening his ex-spouse, the full extent of the law would have most likely been thrown at the perp.. that's #1. #2. if this country treated women or "abusive" situations with couples more seriously, then perhaps we wouldn't see so many of these stalking, abusive, Judge "hands are tied", and a meaningless piece of paper that won't protect a person from someone who is intent on becoming violent and killing whom they said they are going to kill. #3, if we actually tried to treat abusive persons like they had a problem, then perhaps, they could be rehabilitated. Perhaps, if there were programs that were voluntary for those who would like to "fix" their violent ways AND a mandate to be in a program to try and "fix" the violent intentions and obsessions once they have been violent toward a S/O, then there might be a better way forward for all parties involved...at the very least, keep the violent, intent on harming ex-S/O off the streets and away from society at large would be better for all of us.

I don't think it should be up to the person who was abused to arm themselves to the teeth against a stalking, ex who is intent on harming them because society doesn't take violence toward women serious. Just look at what we do to women who have been raped with the "what were you wearing, what were you doing, did YOU put yourself in a nefarious situation?" AND then the whole "boys will be boys". The conversation should be how do we protect innocent people involved? How do we help them escape the violence and stigma of an abusive relationship? How do we stop the cycle of abuse that children see and experience and then grow up into the abuser themselves? Weapons do not help these violent domestic situations, its more likely to harm the family more. Also, the people being abused need to be councelled; especially children who are witness to the abuse and anger. Its not normal. Its not how loving people treat one another. Its not how people are supposed to treat anybody; especially those who are supposed to protect and guide you into adulthood.

[PeaceNikki]

39. I agree. and thank you.

[davidn3600]

50. Our justice system is reactionary, not proactive

The way our justice system works is it punishes people for actions already taken. The system is going to struggle to do anything to someone who has yet to do wrong, because of due process of law.

The only way you will get them in jail is if you can prove they made a threat of life and limb, in the process of planning a crime, or catch them in the act of a crime. You can't put a man in jail just because a woman says, "i'm scared of him."

That's just the way the law works.

[BigDemVoter]

55. Disgusting.

This happens too goddamn frequently. Courts so often do NOT listen to women who KNOW what their husbands/significant others are capable of doing. Restraining orders don't do shit when it comes to these crazy, violent assholes.

[zabet]

58. TROs

ain't worth the paper they are written on. I had them on 2 men for threatening to kill me and burn down my house in front several witnesses. When I caught one of the 2 attempting to steal tools out of the back of My truck in My back yard............I ended up getting locked up on a $10,000 cash bond (which was over a 2 + yr old unpaid seatbelt ticket supposedly) at 1:00am. The thief was best friends with magistrate's son. And yes I live in podunk backwoods redneck keepem barefoot n pregnant country where good ol boys rule....from the cops to the courthouse.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

76. Nothing constructive to add here

But I am so SICK of this happening. We hear the same story over and over and over again and it's utterly heartbreaking

RIP Donna Kristofak

[Manifestor_of_Light]

91. I hope we could find out her maiden name and use it instead.

Since she was Mrs. Violent Murderer.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

109. OK I am confused.

From what I am reading the man was not just SMI (seriously mental ill, a legal definition uses in AZ), he was DMI (dangerously mental ill). With the e-mail and whatever else he may have sent her, their would be proof to keep him in a mental hospital. They were married 19 years. He just started this, if I have read this right, that shows that there was something wrong. Just another whole in the system.