Well it happened, PFA on my friend and he has questions

[headcase]

Im responding to you just because you're the post right above my last post but this is in regards to all the statements about PFAs.

PFA's are an imperfect solution to a real problem that doesn't have a perfect solution. Any system designed to help those in need will always be able to be abused by those who just want to hurt someone. PFA's, like anything (such as guns), have the potential to be used for good or bad, it all depends on the intentions of the person filing it. We're among the first to tell people not to blame the gun for the actions of the person using it, so we should not be blaming the PFA laws for the actions of the people using them.

A perfect example is a situation a friend of mine encountered.

After moving back to PA (carbon county), she decided to move back to Reading to be closer to her son from her previous (and only) marriage. She was with a guy that was, to put it nicely, a few fries short of a happy meal. When they moved back here, she transferred from the convenience store she'd gotten a job at there to one here, he didn't have a job at that time due to layoff. They stayed with me temporarily till he could get a job, which never happened.

While staying with me she let me know she needed to get away from him because of his issues which was why she called me when she decided to move back here, she knew I'd be willing to help. While they stayed with me I personally witnessed him punching out the window of her car with her and their son in it because she wouldn't stand in the street and have a screaming match with him. A short time after that I got a call at work from her.

She was in tears, the police were on the way to my place. He'd decided to kill himself by using a toaster in the bathtub, she stopped him. He then attacked her and their son (5 months old) with a hammer and a knife. "Mother Bear Syndrome" kicked in and he only managed to cut her hands up as she tried to get them away from him. He bolted from the apartment after that. When I got home the police were outside, he was sitting on the front steps of the building, and he was claiming to not be able to remember anything that had happened at all the entire day, not even where he was when he woke up that morning.

The police ended up taking him over to the hospital, the hospital took Xrays, CT scan, etc to determine if there was anything physical to cause the "blackout," and when they found nothing they called the on call shrink. At that point the police left because it was now a "mental health" issue. By that time he was also "calmed down and coherrent" so being as they were not married she couldn't have him 302'd, the shrink felt that there was no need for her to involuntarily commit him and left the decision on whether or not to stay up to him. Of course he didn't stay, and several weeks later admitted to someone that he never blacked out, he'd only said that because he knew the police would take him to the hospital and as long as he was "OK" by the time they called the shrink he'd be able to go home with no charges pressed.

He knew how to work the system to be able to get away with, at the least, assault with a deadly weapon. She filed a PFA against him, in the courtroom everyone could see it was justified including the sheriffs deputies in the courtroom. While she was on the stand being questioned by him (he decided to represent himself) the way he was pacing, the looks he was giving her, the clenching and unclenching of his fists, etc caused both the deputies to stand up from where they were sitting at the side of the courtroom, one of them standing next to the entrance to the witness stand and the other standing in front of it. While I was testifying to what I'd witnessed (being questioned by her lawyer) He had to be told to sit down multiple times, one of them with both deputies stepping in front of the table he was at because he'd started to come around it.

She got the PFA, which he repeatedly violated and was arrested for each time. Everytime he was in the courtoom again for the violations he made it clear he didn't care about the PFA and on one occasion even told the judge "Its just a piece of paper. It doesnt mean anything and I don't have to obey it." But he never attacked her again, never threatened her again, didn't do anything other than violate the no contact and distance provisions.

She also bought OC spray and a 180+dB personal alarm when she filed it so she'd be able to defend herself with them and get the attention of anyone within a few blocks, but the PFA guaranteed he would be arrested if she needed to use them rather than being given a citation for something like harassment. She had a definite need for protection for herself and her son which is what PFAs were intended for.

Complete wrong answer. He was repeatedly arrested for violating the PFA? WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULTING HER? The whole idea behind a PFA is wrong. If she came to you knowing she was in a bad situation that she needed to get out of, she should have gotten out of it. The PFA wasn't necessary to help her.

[Kaos]

PFA's are a single tool in an arsenal. See my post right after yours, specifically the last paragraph.

Completely understood.

With that being said, why not skip the BS once you've filed the PFA (for legit reasons) and start carrying.

Anyone attacking my daughter/wife would get whatever I could dish out - father bear syndrome we'll call it. I'm a calm and rational guy. I don't jump to conclusions or look for a fight or anything but god help anyone who tries to hurt my family. I'd promptly be looking for an opportunity to make sure they served time...if they're nutty enough to attack with a weapon and it came down to it - I'd hate to do it but would.

I understand that a PFA is a tool, but if it's a tool that doesn't work - why bother? Most of the time to me it seems like a "I know you're going to violate this so Im just getting it so I can use it in court" piece of paper.

[Swarner793]

PFA's are effective when the shitbird can not be shot When they are parked outside the house at 1:00 am blowing the horn. When they show up at her place of work or at her Parent's house. It is to curtail the conduct that does not rise to imminent danger but rather is for the purpose to raise alarm and anguish. When the authorities/Police hear that it is a PFA issue, they are already on "step 4" and are dealing with a known/documented issue. They are actually more effective on the bothersome nitwits than they are on real threats. Real threats should only be met with real violence.

I am currently in possession of several firearms that I got from a Client that was the subject of a BS PFA. It is a fact of life.

Be safe (and don't pick a goofball).

Scott

[mjfletcher]

Complete wrong answer. He was repeatedly arrested for violating the PFA? WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULTING HER?

Because police have no jurisdiction in mental health matters, so the moment the hospital called the shrink in they were out of the picture. He knew how to work the system and used it to walk free instead of going to jail.

The whole idea behind a PFA is wrong. If she came to you knowing she was in a bad situation that she needed to get out of, she should have gotten out of it. The PFA wasn't necessary to help her.

The idea of a PFA is to provide one more tool in dealing with such situations. Yes, without the PFA she could have left, and without the PFA she would have been unable to legally keep him away from her and their child because he would have had the right to visit the child, and thus be able to continue to threaten and assault her during those visits. Without the PFA he would have been able to continue to come into her job as often as he wanted without any repurcussions as long as he bought something in the store. Without the PFA he could have gotten a place right next to her if he wanted. Without the PFA he could have walked up to her anytime he wanted, anywhere he wanted, and said or done anything he wanted with little to no fear of repurcussions because he knew how to work the system to avoid them. Without the PFA he would have been completely free to continue to victimize her.

With the PFA he lost his right to see the child he tried to kill. With the PFA he was prohibitted from going within 300 feet of her job, home or car. With the PFA he was prohibitted from going within 300 feet of her at all. With the PFA, actions that would otherwise be a summary harassment offense with no arrest and just a fine instead resulted in immediate arrest and a trip to prison until the hearing for violating the PFA. With the PFA she had one more tool to use to get away from him and keep him away from her.

[Searcher67]

It seems to be judges will hand out PFA's for women against men almost like candy. .

Ain't it the truth.....

[mjfletcher]

Completely understood.

With that being said, why not skip the BS once you've filed the PFA (for legit reasons) and start carrying.

She doesn't like guns, its why she got the OC spray and personal alarm. She's not against owning guns, she supports the right to own and carry them and thinks most gun laws should be repealed. Once they're old enough that she feels they're ready to learn, if either of her kids (one from a marriage and one from the wackjob) wanna shoot she's going to bring them to me to have me teach them the basics.

Anyone attacking my daughter/wife would get whatever I could dish out - father bear syndrome we'll call it. I'm a calm and rational guy. I don't jump to conclusions or look for a fight or anything but god help anyone who tries to hurt my family. I'd promptly be looking for an opportunity to make sure they served time...if they're nutty enough to attack with a weapon and it came down to it - I'd hate to do it but would.

If I'd been home, that night would have gone alot differently for him. To start with I would've let him fry himself and saved everyone alot of trouble.

I understand that a PFA is a tool, but if it's a tool that doesn't work - why bother? Most of the time to me it seems like a "I know you're going to violate this so Im just getting it so I can use it in court" piece of paper.

In many ways thats what it ends up coming down to.

Before he went totally over the edge and she got the PFA and left him, he'd stop into her job every couple hours to "make sure she was safe," which was really just his way of not letting her out of his sight any longer than he had to. Several of his violations were him deciding he needed to get gas to top off his tank and spending a whole dollar (or less) to do it. Nothing illegal about buying gas from a 24hr convenience store at 3am, best she could hope would be getting him for harassment without the PFA. With it, as soon as he got out of the car she was hitting the security button, the security service had his pic and knew about the PFA so they called the police and he got taken away in cuffs.

[headcase]

Because police have no jurisdiction in mental health matters, so the moment the hospital called the shrink in they were out of the picture. He knew how to work the system and used it to walk free instead of going to jail.



The idea of a PFA is to provide one more tool in dealing with such situations. Yes, without the PFA she could have left, and without the PFA she would have been unable to legally keep him away from her and their child because he would have had the right to visit the child, and thus be able to continue to threaten and assault her during those visits. Without the PFA he would have been able to continue to come into her job as often as he wanted without any repurcussions as long as he bought something in the store. Without the PFA he could have gotten a place right next to her if he wanted. Without the PFA he could have walked up to her anytime he wanted, anywhere he wanted, and said or done anything he wanted with little to no fear of repurcussions because he knew how to work the system to avoid them. Without the PFA he would have been completely free to continue to victimize her.

With the PFA he lost his right to see the child he tried to kill. With the PFA he was prohibitted from going within 300 feet of her job, home or car. With the PFA he was prohibitted from going within 300 feet of her at all. With the PFA, actions that would otherwise be a summary harassment offense with no arrest and just a fine instead resulted in immediate arrest and a trip to prison until the hearing for violating the PFA. With the PFA she had one more tool to use to get away from him and keep him away from her.

I do not believe that the rights losses associated with these PFA's can be justified against the safety issues they sometimes provide. Proper application of basic laws would solve most of these problems. Another generally unpopular solution is personal responsibility. The difficulty in getting away from these abusive situations can almost always be boiled down to not being willing to give up your comfort level to ensure your safety, or that of your kids. If you feel you are in danger, protect yourself. If you can't stand up to the threat, get away from the threat, get help dealing with the threat. If the abuser is an extreme case of slippery, use extreme measures to ensure your safety. But PFA's provide the opportunity to violate the rights of people under the color of public safety, with no due process. They sacrifice the liberty of all, for the safety of a few. The poster children for these things are "defenseless women and children". Making better choices in life usually removes people from these type of situations. There are always going to be extreme exceptions, and that sucks, but it is also part of life. Much like the Patriot Act, these things are more dangerous than they are helpful.
ETA~
In this case there are a few glaring things, she stopped him from killing himself, then he attacked her? You witnessed him endangering the welfare of a child, among other crimes, and..? It is a very familiar sounding situation, and one that very often winds up with the woman crying in court about how she was helpless to do anything about her situation, or her dead. The usual reason being her inability to do what she should to punish him and protect herself.

[Frenchy]

BTW, Tootie had a better word for this type woman, begins with a C and ends with a T

Hey Dalton, See You Next Tuesday?





C-U-N-T.

[LittleRedToyota]

PFA's are an imperfect solution to a real problem that doesn't have a perfect solution.

i agree.

however, there needs to be serious, serious ramifications for women who abuse PFAs...like jail time--in the amount of years.

a PFA can destroy a man's life. the intentional misue of them is not much different from the intentional misues of a firearm. further, they are an instrument of the state. so, when PFAs are abused, the state is a party to it. the state cannot allow itself to be used by one citizen to unjustifiably deny the rights of another.

[Dredly]

Buddy of mine was going through a divorce (she was cheating on him).

The PFA was awarded with no proof at all. she claimed she was in fear for her life and used a "domestic" issue that had occurred months earlier when they were arguing loudly and someone called the police.

Of course it was awarded, within one swipe of a pen from a judge who had NEVER spoken with him, he was barred for contact with his kids, no access to his house or bank accounts and obviously no contact with his (now ex) wife. In addition the judge awarded child support and alimony to the mother for the time where he would be out of the house. He was permitted to go in (while escorted by a deputy) to gather a bag of clothing, which he then gave to the wife to confirm she was fine with him taking the stuff.

took like 2 months to get it all resolved and finally meet with the judge. when they walked into the court room she just said "I'm dropping it" and that was the end of it. He was out over 1500 in alimony and I think almost 2k in child support, I'm pretty sure he was able to (eventually) get the Alimony back. well by "back" i mean credited to what he "owes".


PFA should be called "Protection from law abiding men who wouldn't do anything anyway so that women can do whatever they want without them around".