Standoff in Waterloo?

[michael medeski]

i just heard there was a hostage situation in waterloo. does anyone with a scanner have any details?

[HoosierHelen]

Here is the link I found Michael.

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/

[nathandiehl]

US6 has been closed since about noon, and all the traffic has been routed down CR427 to CR28 and back up to 6 at the co-op.
The road is still blocked off, and traffic is pretty backed up at times.

[michael medeski]

thanks for the like helen. i thought it was still going on. i watched the video and they said they guy that was holding the woman hostage is dead. i wonder if he killed himself or if the cops did?

[HoosierHelen]

I do not know who killed who. Pretty sure it will be on the evening news. Darn shame for everyone...especially the childen who may have been in the area.

[debbiesanders]

According to the news tonight at 11pm the police shot and killed the man. They said that he had shot his wife prior to their arrival in both legs. Somehow the children were able to escape and ran to a near by home prior to the police getting there. The news reported that had they have not shot the man, he surely would have killed the woman. The report didn't say how the woman was doing other than she had been taken to Luthern in Ft. Wayne.

You are right Helen it is a shame that things like this have to happen.

[HoosierHelen]

According to the news tonight at 11pm the police shot and killed the man. They said that he had shot his wife prior to their arrival in both legs. Somehow the children were able to escape and ran to a near by home prior to the police getting there. The news reported that had they have not shot the man, he surely would have killed the woman. The report didn't say how the woman was doing other than she had been taken to Luthern in Ft. Wayne.

You are right Helen it is a shame that things like this have to happen.

That poor woman is fortunate to have survived blood loss from her legs for such a long time. Thankful that the children were safe at their good neighbors during those long hours. Sounds to me that our law enforcement gave it their best efforts to negotiate a different ending to the situation.

[debbiesanders]

Haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet but I did see where the woman had filed a protective order back around the first of Feb. Also saw where the guy had a long history of abuse and violence. It just doesn't sound good, but at least like Helen said it sounds like the children are safe and it sounds like the woman might be alright despite the horror that she went through.
Yes it does sound like the police gave it a good effort.

[hairypumper]

Those protective orders sure are handy, aren't they? The woman killed in Auburn recently had one too. Quite often it just enrages the person it is taken out against. (Perhaps because they have to pay the costs?) As far as I can tell, the only ones these orders help are the lawyers and judges who collect the fees.

[debbiesanders]

I tend to agree with you Hairy...a piece of paper sure don't stop someone from hurting you.

[HoosierHelen]

I tend to agree with you Hairy...a piece of paper sure don't stop someone from hurting you.

Domestic battery is always a very dangerous and unpredictable behavior.

I've been wondering if Mr. King had been penalized more severly in previous incidents, would there have been a different outcome? How successful are court ordered Anger Management programs? I imagine there are Judges, prosecutors, and probation officers all asking themselves what they might have done better. There may have been absolutely nothing that would have worked in his case?

Our law enforcement officers were very brave and I feel they all should be recognized for thier efforts here. Reading the article where they used an armored vehicle and shields to protect themselves when they delivered items he was demanding was amazing. They did one heck of a good job in my opinion.

[debbiesanders]

Our law enforcement officers were very brave and I feel they all should be recognized for thier efforts here. Reading the article where they used an armored vehicle and shields to protect themselves when they delivered items he was demanding was amazing. They did one heck of a good job in my opinion.

I agree 100% that law enforcement did a great job at the scene that day handling things, and doing everything that they did. By no means was I saying anything against them or their actions that day.

My thing with people like this is just this: Back in Feb. or whenever Mr. King beat on her and she went and got the restraining order, something was obvious to the judge or someone that she was in danger or they would never have given her the order for protection. They don't just hand them out because someone walks in and asks for it. You have to have some type of proof that there is a problem. I personally have gone and gotten one. I do know that you can't just walk in and say I want it. You have to prove that you are in danger or there is a threat or that there is a history of abuse or something. So with that in mind, and according to what the newspaper has reported, Mrs. King was obviously the victim of abuse and probably had bruises or something of the sort. Knowing that he had beat on her once, and she asked for the order of protection I am sure is why she got it. My thing is, a piece of paper doesn't and never will stop someone from hurting another person if that is what they want to do, and like has been said before very well might enrage them into hurting that person again. Therefore maybe in cases like this the abuser should be kept in jail or someplace where he can get help and not be able to get to the person that he wants to hurt.
Now I can hear some people on here...the jails will get overcrowded, that's not fair to the abuser, everyone has rights and so on.
Yeah well maybe so but also maybe it might save a life or save something like what happened in the King case from happening again.
I don't know what the answer is but there has to be one somewhere.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Mr. Slotz had the scanner going Friday while all of this was going on. He kept calling work and giving us the heads up. This is a terrible terrible tragedy.
I had a restraining order as well for my ex-husband. It certainly did not stop him from walking around the house at 3 am drunk off his butt and getting loud and all of that. I always had to call the police on him. Right now he is sitting in State Prison for 6 years for armed robbery. ..........I sure hope Mrs. King does not end up crippled because of her gun shot wounds. She is very lucky to be alive.
Someone here at work said that in New Jersey if you get a restraining order, the abuser has to wear an ankle bracelet that has some type of GPS in it so the police can keep tabs on you all the time. It will beep if you get close to the victim.
I think that is a great idea. Anyone ever hear of this.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Here is an article i just found on the GPS tracking for abusive cases. Looks like 17 states have this and I need to see if Indiana is one of them. If Not, I would hope that after what happened in Waterloo that someone steps up to the plate to make this a law.
Actually,all states should have this option.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276188

[wickedacoustic]

Great job to the Officers! Tough job these Officers have these days maintaining a load of Non-English Speaking Residents, Meth Makers, People stressed from News sources, and the state of our economy, Job losses...and the list goes on and on...and not getting any better!! Would be a tough job having to deal with these people not knowing what their state of mind is?
I do wish the wife well, but in thise case the child that had to run to the neighbors house is left carring this mental bagagge with out ever fully inderstanding anything that happened!!!!!!! I have seen adults acting in very disturbing ways that are can very dangerous to the adults involved. Men and Women alike both have a way of playing with the emotional well being of one another and for some reason the kids futures mean nothing to these adults as they act out these very disturbing situations in front of the children, leaving the rest of the world asking "What is wrong with our Youth" !!........................The answer is..disfunctional adults!!!!

[Mrs.Slotz]

Great job to the Officers! Tough job these Officers have these days maintaining a load of Non-English Speaking Residents, Meth Makers, People stressed from News sources, and the state of our economy, Job losses...and the list goes on and on...and not getting any better!! Would be a tough job having to deal with these people not knowing what their state of mind is?
I do wish the wife well, but in thise case the child that had to run to the neighbors house is left carring this mental bagagge with out ever fully inderstanding anything that happened!!!!!!! I have seen adults acting in very disturbing ways that are can very dangerous to the adults involved. Men and Women alike both have a way of playing with the emotional well being of one another and for some reason the kids futures mean nothing to these adults as they act out these very disturbing situations in front of the children, leaving the rest of the world asking \"What is wrong with our Youth\" !!........................The answer is..disfunctional adults!!!!

I can see the Mr. being disfunctional but Mrs. King did what she needed to do to protect herself and her children. Is one disfunctional adult enough to do the damage?

[wickedacoustic]

I can see the Mr. being disfunctional but Mrs. King did what she needed to do to protect herself and her children. Is one disfunctional adult enough to do the damage?
No defense for Mr. King!
Yes Mrs. Slotz but in this case I did not lay blame on the Mrs. King. I made mention that this happens in a lot of domestic situations Male or Female, due to poor judgement for both...........Since neither of us were in the home at the time of or before the caos, we don't have any idea of which adult could have done things differently, or were there opportunities to avoid the whole thing..by either adult?.....We will not know because the adults involved made their own choices. Mrs. Slotz not trying to be argumentative about it but trying to make the point that adults always feel a need to defend things that they should be walking away from but for some reason pride steps in. Mr. King could be in the situation we feel that he should be in for his actions....But again with this rambling the Kids will pay for this everyday the rest of their lives and if they are biological children double, triple, or even quadruple the pain felt.

[Mrs.Slotz]

No defense for Mr. King!
Yes Mrs. Slotz but in this case I did not lay blame on the Mrs. King. I made mention that this happens in a lot of domestic situations Male or Female, due to poor judgement for both...........Since neither of us were in the home at the time of or before the caos, we don't have any idea of which adult could have done things differently, or were there opportunities to avoid the whole thing..by either adult?.....We will not know because the adults involved made their own choices. Mrs. Slotz not trying to be argumentative about it but trying to make the point that adults always feel a need to defend things that they should be walking away from but for some reason pride steps in. Mr. King could be in the situation we feel that he should be in for his actions....But again with this rambling the Kids will pay for this everyday the rest of their lives and if they are biological children double, triple, or even quadruple the pain felt.

I feel horrible for the kids. Agreed, they will never forget Friday, March 26th, 2010, for their entire lives. When this all began, Mr. Slotz said, "This is going to end up with the husband dead". His feelings were that the husband, Mr. King, would not have gone through all the trouble to get The SWAT Team and everyone involved if he was not prepared to take a bullet. Thank you to everyone that responded so quickly and stayed on site until this was resolved.
I pray Mrs. King's wounds are not serious and that she is able to return home and get the family into counceling right away. My prayers go out to her.

[HoosierHelen]

I believe Debbie, Mrs. Slotz and Wicked all have made some good points.

Debbie,

I read in one of the articles where the Police had been keeping an eye on Mrs. Kings home because they were aware of an ongoing problem with the family. The county budget is stretched prettty thin as it is and I'm thinking that placing Mr. King in jail might have been costing more than the taxpayers can afford. You are absolutely correct though Debbie, that piece of paper is very limited in the physical protection it can afford a person.

Mrs. Slotz,

I really love your thoughts about the ankle braclet to monitor someone and their location with a GPS. Whatever the addditional costs would be to the county could be charged back to the offender who has been charged with the abusive behavior. It makes good sence to me. I would vote for a program such as that.

Wicked,

I hear what you are saying about dysfunctional adults being the source of many dysfunctional children (not all of them). I've heard of programs where parents were drug abusers, neglient, or abusive to their children being required to go to parenting classes before their children would be returned to them from social services and even after being returned they were monitored by social services. Again, I do feel the parents should be expected to reimburse the tax payers costs when this occurs.

SAFEHOUSES are still available to families who are aware they are living under an imminent danger aren't they? I'm not aware how long a family is allowed to live in one of those?

I especially like Mrs. Slotz suggestion about the ankle braclets. I would be interested in knowing if you discover where Indiana stands on that program Mrs. Slotz. If I find anything, I'll post it also.

[Mrs.Slotz]

I believe Debbie, Mrs. Slotz and Wicked all have made some good points.

Debbie,

I read in one of the articles where the Police had been keeping an eye on Mrs. Kings home because they were aware of an ongoing problem with the family. The county budget is stretched prettty thin as it is and I'm thinking that placing Mr. King in jail might have been costing more than the taxpayers can afford. You are absolutely correct though Debbie, that piece of paper is very limited in the physical protection it can afford a person.

Mrs. Slotz,

I really love your thoughts about the ankle braclet to monitor someone and their location with a GPS. Whatever the addditional costs would be to the county could be charged back to the offender who has been charged with the abusive behavior. It makes good sence to me. I would vote for a program such as that.

Wicked,

I hear what you are saying about dysfunctional adults being the source of many dysfunctional children (not all of them). I've heard of programs where parents were drug abusers, neglient, or abusive to their children being required to go to parenting classes before their children would be returned to them from social services and even after being returned they were monitored by social services. Again, I do feel the parents should be expected to reimburse the tax payers costs when this occurs.

SAFEHOUSES are still available to families who are aware they are living under an imminent danger aren't they? I'm not aware how long a family is allowed to live in one of those?

I especially like Mrs. Slotz suggestion about the ankle braclets. I would be interested in knowing if you discover where Indiana stands on that program Mrs. Slotz. If I find anything, I'll post it also.

Helen:
I have been searching all morning for a law about the GPS for repeat Domestic Abusers. Looks like Indiana put this law in place July 1, 2009. What I am wondering, however, is how many victims actually know about this law?
How many new mothers know about the safe haven law?
I believe they need to make this law known. Perhaps our good friends at The Star can put an article in the paper about the GPS tracking.

[HoosierHelen]

Helen:
I have been searching all morning for a law about the GPS for repeat Domestic Abusers. Looks like Indiana put this law in place July 1, 2009. What I am wondering, however, is how many victims actually know about this law?
How many new mothers know about the safe haven law?
I believe they need to make this law known. Perhaps our good friends at The Star can put an article in the paper about the GPS tracking.

An article running in the KPC publications with information in this regard would sure be an excellent public service notice to our communities.

Information being made public that victims have options available to them and that offenders will be responsible for their actions according to the law, might be very helpful for all of us?

[Mrs.Slotz]

An article running in the KPC publications with information in this regard would sure be an excellent public service notice to our communities.

Information being made public that victims have options available to them and that offenders will be responsible for their actions according to the law, might be very helpful for all of us?

I guess it would have helped if I posted the link. According to this link there is a website you can go to and get help with obtaining a restraining order as well as the GPS tracking for repeat abusers.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090701/EDIT07/307019972/1147/EDIT07

[Felary]

People that obtain a protective order or restraining order need to tell their neighbors,family,friends,and local athorities after they get one.

[Mrs.Slotz]

People that obtain a protective order or restraining order need to tell their neighbors,family,friends,and local athorities after they get one.

I carried mine in my purse and all of the places that I frequented had a copy of the order as well. I am a firm believer that if the abuser really wants to get you, They WILL. i do think that the GPS tracking device can be a very effective tool in keeping the abuser away from the victim.

[hairypumper]

I believe someone else who needs our good wishes and prayers is the officer who had to ultimately bring this situation to a conclusion. Sure he is highly trained, quite possibly former military, but can you imagine being the one to have to squeeze the trigger? Knowing that it needed to be done to save another life I'm sure gives some solace, but I hope I'm never in that position.

[matt_s]

I guess it would have helped if I posted the link. According to this link there is a website you can go to and get help with obtaining a restraining order as well as the GPS tracking for repeat abusers.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090701/EDIT07/307019972/1147/EDIT07
One thing to keep in mind on this article (if I read it correctly) is that the GPS devices were only for people who had already violated a protection order.

[HoosierHelen]

One thing to keep in mind on this article (if I read it correctly) is that the GPS devices were only for people who had already violated a protection order.

Maybe the law could be modified? One violation could be deadly. Someone on house arrest with an active ankle braclet does trigger an alarm to their probation officer don't they? Why should these braclets protecting those with personal protection orders be set to wait for ONE violation? That is simply a change in the setting for the alarm status.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Maybe the law could be modified? One violation could be deadly. Someone on house arrest with an active ankle braclet does trigger an alarm to their probation officer don't they? Why should these braclets protecting those with personal protection orders be set to wait for ONE violation? That is simply a change in the setting for the alarm status.

I agree, If you go to file a protective order, the victim should be given that choice at the time they file.
If you notice though, Mr. King had several batteries against him and so did the man that killed his wife a few months ago. In a lot of cases, the victim will drop the restraining order, either out of fear or because they believe so much that their partner will change.

[matt_s]

Maybe the law could be modified? One violation could be deadly. Someone on house arrest with an active ankle braclet does trigger an alarm to their probation officer don't they? Why should these braclets protecting those with personal protection orders be set to wait for ONE violation? That is simply a change in the setting for the alarm status.
Our criminal justice system isn't built to prevent, it's built to punish those who have committed a crime. A change to a preventative system would basically require the repealing of innocent until proven guilty. Also, how would this fit in with the arguments that I've seen people (not necessarily you, I'm just using your post as an example) who have argued for a clean slate after one has served their time on a prior conviction?

The freedom that we enjoy comes with some costs. One of them is leaving ourselves exposed to a certain extent. I'm ok with that I guess, or at least to me the risk that represents is more than balanced by the freedoms we enjoy, IMHO.

That isn't to say that I don't feel for the people that have been subjected to violence and have suffered due to this exposure. They are glaring examples of how people can take advantage of freedom. But how do we alleviate the problem without taking away the freedoms of those who justly exercise that freedom?

[edeevee]

Our criminal justice system isn't built to prevent, it's built to punish those who have committed a crime.

Excuse me if I misunderstood you but, if a woman (or man) needs to prove to a judge that violence has already been threatened or committed before thay can get a restraining order -- hasn't there already been a crime? When we start treating domestic violence the same way we treat violence between non-family members, maybe THEN women and children will begin to be safer.

[HoosierHelen]

I know that if someone has been arrested for DUI, or OWI, they immediately surrender their drivers license until their court date. So, during that time prior to a conviction, they have lost their driving privileges.

How big of a stretch would it be from this practice, to allow the police who witness the evidence of physical abuse between family members to remove their ability to be in contact with one another until the Judge has made a ruling. Because of the difficulities involved with victims dropping charges because they wish to believe their family member will change, I support that these charges be pressed by the law enforcement rather than by the family member.

If I am attacked by a stranger and the police are able to resolve the case, they press the charges, I don't. Why is it different if they are a family member? Somehow our system treats it as a lesser offence in my opinion.

[matt_s]

Excuse me if I misunderstood you but, if a woman (or man) needs to prove to a judge that violence has already been threatened or committed before thay can get a restraining order -- hasn't there already been a crime? When we start treating domestic violence the same way we treat violence between non-family members, maybe THEN women and children will begin to be safer.
A restraining order isn't predicated on an act already having been committed. It is predicated on the reasonable belief that one may be committed and the ability to convince a judge of this fact in such a way that they believe the limitations of another individual's freedom of movement is warranted. If an act of abuse has already taken place, then that is a criminal act and should be pursured as such. However, as has been point out, from a practical sense, a restraining order offers as much tangible protection as the paper it is written on would soften a blow or stop a bullet. It provides a mechanism to detain or punish an offender should they breach the protection order. While the hopes are that the detainment could be done before a serious transgression takes place it isn't always the case.

[Mrs.Slotz]

I know that if someone has been arrested for DUI, or OWI, they immediately surrender their drivers license until their court date. So, during that time prior to a conviction, they have lost their driving privileges.

How big of a stretch would it be from this practice, to allow the police who witness the evidence of physical abuse between family members to remove their ability to be in contact with one another until the Judge has made a ruling. Because of the difficulities involved with victims dropping charges because they wish to believe their family member will change, I support that these charges be pressed by the law enforcement rather than by the family member.

If I am attacked by a stranger and the police are able to resolve the case, they press the charges, I don't. Why is it different if they are a family member? Somehow our system treats it as a lesser offence in my opinion.

I agree with you Helen. I am thankful that even if the victim changes their mind about pressing charges for battery, once the police have arrived, it is out of their hands. The police WILL take the abuser away and the State will press charges. This is a good thing.

[HoosierHelen]

I agree with you Helen. I am thankful that even if the victim changes their mind about pressing charges for battery, once the police have arrived, it is out of their hands. The police WILL take the abuser away and the State will press charges. This is a good thing.

Is that true Mrs. Slotz? I didn't know? I simply thought it made more sence.

[debbiesanders]

I know that if someone has been arrested for DUI, or OWI, they immediately surrender their drivers license until their court date. So, during that time prior to a conviction, they have lost their driving privileges.

How big of a stretch would it be from this practice, to allow the police who witness the evidence of physical abuse between family members to remove their ability to be in contact with one another until the Judge has made a ruling. Because of the difficulities involved with victims dropping charges because they wish to believe their family member will change, I support that these charges be pressed by the law enforcement rather than by the family member.

If I am attacked by a stranger and the police are able to resolve the case, they press the charges, I don't. Why is it different if they are a family member? Somehow our system treats it as a lesser offence in my opinion.

And from my understanding of the law herein lies yet another loop-hole in which people slip through:

Say a man and woman are fighting and the man hits the woman and leaves obvious bruises. The police are called, but by the time they get there the fight is over. Both parties are in seperate rooms, or say one has even left the scene.
depending on the amount of injury present the police don't always just arrest the abuser right then. They will most often give the woman (in this case) information on how to file her own complaint, safe houses or shelters (if there are some in the area), and information on how to get a restraining order and have the man evicted from the house.
It is then left up to the woman to do all of the work if she wants to do it. The police step out.
Now on the other hand if the police roll up to the same scene as above and with their own eyes see the man slap, hit or whatever, the woman that is a different story. He automatically is cuffed, and taken off to jail, and then charges are filed against him for battery or what ever they charge him with, and the woman is out of the picture. Yes she can go and make her own complaint and start another case but the police (or maybe it is the state or prosocutor) that files the charges and the woman can't stop it in any way.
At least this has been my experience with the way cases like this have been handled and my understanding of the way the law works.

[Mrs.Slotz]

If the abuser admits to any kind of inappropriate touching the police will take them away. IE, A man kicks his wife in the face and she calls the police, the police come, the man denies kicking her in the face but said i kicked her out of the bed and she hit her head, well, he just admitted to battery.

[matt_s]

And from my understanding of the law herein lies yet another loop-hole in which people slip through:

Say a man and woman are fighting and the man hits the woman and leaves obvious bruises. The police are called, but by the time they get there the fight is over. Both parties are in seperate rooms, or say one has even left the scene.
depending on the amount of injury present the police don't always just arrest the abuser right then. They will most often give the woman (in this case) information on how to file her own complaint, safe houses or shelters (if there are some in the area), and information on how to get a restraining order and have the man evicted from the house.
It is then left up to the woman to do all of the work if she wants to do it. The police step out.
Now on the other hand if the police roll up to the same scene as above and with their own eyes see the man slap, hit or whatever, the woman that is a different story. He automatically is cuffed, and taken off to jail, and then charges are filed against him for battery or what ever they charge him with, and the woman is out of the picture. Yes she can go and make her own complaint and start another case but the police (or maybe it is the state or prosocutor) that files the charges and the woman can't stop it in any way.
At least this has been my experience with the way cases like this have been handled and my understanding of the way the law works.
For better or worse, that part of the law is what what protects people from unlawful prosecution. If the police witness a crime taking place, they are empowered to arrest the person and place charges on behalf of the community. Probably cause exists through their official witnessing of the event. However, without their actually witnessing the event, it is basically hearsay and a different set of rules apply. Charges must be filed for the police to get involved in an investigative manner. Probably cause for arrest must be determined etc. The aspects of the law that we want in place to protect us when we are innocent can protect the guilty. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than some alternatives.

[HoosierHelen]

For better or worse, that part of the law is what what protects people from unlawful prosecution. If the police witness a crime taking place, they are empowered to arrest the person and place charges on behalf of the community. Probably cause exists through their official witnessing of the event. However, without their actually witnessing the event, it is basically hearsay and a different set of rules apply. Charges must be filed for the police to get involved in an investigative manner. Probably cause for arrest must be determined etc. The aspects of the law that we want in place to protect us when we are innocent can protect the guilty. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than some alternatives.

Matt,

IF I am exiting my home and a stranger attacks me, steals my purse, hits me on the head and then rapes me. (God Forbid). I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, but am unable to identify the attacker (because I don't even know him). IF they are able to determine the identy of my attacker, I am not required to press charges. The local law enforcement may call me to pick him out of a lineup...but...they file the charges. That is how 'stranger' attacks are treated.

IF a family member attacks me as I am exiting my home and attacks and injures me, perhaps takes my purse, or whatever. I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, I am able to identify my attacker (because it is a family member), what is the common procedure on this? Does local law enforcement press charges, or is the victim required to do so?

REMEMBER: In neither of the above examples were the police there to witness the attack first hand.

In each of the above cases, are restraining orders issued to protect the victims from further attacks before the hearings in court?

Just wondering?
Helen

[Mrs.Slotz]

Matt,

IF I am exiting my home and a stranger attacks me, steals my purse, hits me on the head and then rapes me. (God Forbid). I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, but am unable to identify the attacker (because I don't even know him). IF they are able to determine the identy of my attacker, I am not required to press charges. The local law enforcement may call me to pick him out of a lineup...but...they file the charges. That is how 'stranger' attacks are treated.

IF a family member attacks me as I am exiting my home and attacks and injures me, perhaps takes my purse, or whatever. I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, I am able to identify my attacker (because it is a family member), what is the common procedure on this? Does local law enforcement press charges, or is the victim required to do so?

REMEMBER: In neither of the above examples were the police there to witness the attack first hand.

In each of the above cases, are restraining orders issued to protect the victims from further attacks before the hearings in court?

Just wondering?
Helen

Helen,
In your first example,my guess would be, they would do a Rape Kit test on you and if it came back positive I believe the Police would arrest the accused In your 2nd example, I think you would have to take them to court to testify since nobody witnessed
anything.

[HoosierHelen]

Helen,
In your first example,my guess would be, they would do a Rape Kit test on you and if it came back positive I believe the Police would arrest the accused In your 2nd example, I think you would have to take them to court to testify since nobody witnessed
anything.

I guess in my second example Mrs. Slotz, instead of using the words ' and whatever', I should have duplicated the word 'rape'. Then what?

Or in the first stranger case, what if I had been physically attacked, and the purse stolen and no rape occurred. Should they ignore the case because no rape happened? Of course not!!

The point is obvious, if a crime is committed by a stranger, there is a different standard than is held for a family member. I disagree with that standard. That is all.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Not to change the subject or anything but I read the full obituary this afternoon and it made me ill.

[HoosierHelen]

message posted for Mr. King from his family:

God looked around his garden and found an empty place. He then looked down upon earth, and saw your tired face. He put his arms around you, and lifted you to rest. God’s garden must be beautiful, he always takes the best. He saw the road was getting rough, and the hills were hard to climb. So he closed your weary eyelids, and whispered “Peace be Thine.” It broke our hearts to lose you, but you didn’t go alone. For part of us went with you, the day God called you home.

Let us give them our condolences.

[matt_s]

Matt,

IF I am exiting my home and a stranger attacks me, steals my purse, hits me on the head and then rapes me. (God Forbid). I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, but am unable to identify the attacker (because I don't even know him). IF they are able to determine the identy of my attacker, I am not required to press charges. The local law enforcement may call me to pick him out of a lineup...but...they file the charges. That is how 'stranger' attacks are treated.

IF a family member attacks me as I am exiting my home and attacks and injures me, perhaps takes my purse, or whatever. I then dial 911 on my cell, report the event to local law enforcement, I am able to identify my attacker (because it is a family member), what is the common procedure on this? Does local law enforcement press charges, or is the victim required to do so?

REMEMBER: In neither of the above examples were the police there to witness the attack first hand.

In each of the above cases, are restraining orders issued to protect the victims from further attacks before the hearings in court?

Just wondering?
Helen
**NOTE- I'm not a lawyer**
In both cases, you have filed a criminal complaint. That got the ball rolling. It may not be targeted to a specific person, but you have initiated the claim that gets the police involved in the situation.

In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant. That is because the defendant is charged with breaking a communities laws not an individuals rights. So it is not individual vs. defendant. Those are civil suits. Those may arise from a criminal proceeding in order to garner restitution beyond what is available in a criminal proceeding. But they are separate trials with separate outcomes.

[HoosierHelen]

**NOTE- I'm not a lawyer**
In both cases, you have filed a criminal complaint. That got the ball rolling. It may not be targeted to a specific person, but you have initiated the claim that gets the police involved in the situation.

In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant. That is because the defendant is charged with breaking a communities laws not an individuals rights. So it is not individual vs. defendant. Those are civil suits. Those may arise from a criminal proceeding in order to garner restitution beyond what is available in a criminal proceeding. But they are separate trials with separate outcomes.

Real life case in reference Matt: A young woman who has done my manicures for years is a Vietnamese mother of 4. She has gained her citizenship, she is a property owner and all 4 children have been born in the US. Her husband and her were getting a divorce last year in Allen County. He had left her for a lady in Indianapolis. The divorce had been filed and was in progess. He suddenly appears in her home in the middle of the night (before the divorce was final) and physically attacks her and destroys furniture in her home. One of her children is able to use a cell phone and call 911. The police arrive and see the attack in progress where her husband is beating on her. They arrest him and take him to jail. They gave her a list of instructions she was unable to read in English as to how to file a protective order to prevent him from coming near her in the near future.

She contacted me, she needed English translation both for reading the papers and to ask the Judge for the restraining order. Because this man had attacked her violently, had damaged the home her and the children were living in, in the middle of the night did not raise to to the level of an automatic restraining order against him. The police had witnessed enough abuse he had done to her that they had arrested him for abuse that night however, this did NOT automatically create a restraining order against him.

I did indeed assist her in court the following day to accomplish communicating the need for the restraining order. She had to bring the paper work with her from the arrest from the night before to acquire a 2 yr restraining order. This has been less than 1 yr and she has had to call the police on 911 twice since then when he decides to return to FW and abuse her. Thankfully, both responses from the FW police were rapid because both her and her children were under very dangerous circumstances. Her ex has now been placed in jail for 1 yr.

The protection of our women and children requires the highest attention from our communities. Thankfully, Allen County has looked after my little friend and her 4 children.

Good Grief! What does words such as: 'In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant.' mean to people in immediate threat of their lives?

[matt_s]

Good Grief! What does words such as: 'In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant.' mean to people in immediate threat of their lives?
I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. I was just trying to point out my understanding of how the law works. It's an imperfect system and I think sometimes people are looking for solutions that are really outside the scope of what our legal system is designed to do.

As I have stated and others have stated here and on other threads: words, laws, pieces of paper don't provide adequate protection in the event of immanent threat. Legal procedures can be put in place to put up paper walls. But in our system, they aren't really meant to provide true protection but rather to provide consequence. Unfortunately consequence is after-the-fact. That is a sad fact.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this But, I sense somewhere that you disagree with something I have written. So if you can be a little more specific in your disagreement, I'd be more than willing to clarify what I have written or at least address our points of disagreement.

If people want absolute protection, that cannot be provided by civil law or realistically by civil law enforcement. It might mean relinquishing a lot of personal freedoms and living in a state of relative paranoia. Is this fair to the victims, no.

[HoosierHelen]

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. I was just trying to point out my understanding of how the law works. It's an imperfect system and I think sometimes people are looking for solutions that are really outside the scope of what our legal system is designed to do.

As I have stated and others have stated here and on other threads: words, laws, pieces of paper don't provide adequate protection in the event of immanent threat. Legal procedures can be put in place to put up paper walls. But in our system, they aren't really meant to provide true protection but rather to provide consequence. Unfortunately consequence is after-the-fact. That is a sad fact.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this But, I sense somewhere that you disagree with something I have written. So if you can be a little more specific in your disagreement, I'd be more than willing to clarify what I have written or at least address our points of disagreement.

If people want absolute protection, that cannot be provided by civil law or realistically by civil law enforcement. It might mean relinquishing a lot of personal freedoms and living in a state of relative paranoia. Is this fair to the victims, no.

Matt, I understand that I am doing my thing again and I mean no offense to you.

My passion on a topic is overpowering the logic I am trying to convey. What I am trying to say to not only you Matt, but to any other Father/Husband in our community. Would you want a lawyer standing over your daughter or wife who is being physically abused by a family member stating ''In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant.' mean to people in immediate threat of their lives?"

NO..we want them to cease and desist IMMEDIATELY!!

Why this topic is any more difficult to understand than removing a drunk driver's privilege to drive...I don't know? IF a family member has physically abused another family member, they should have no privlege to access this relationship until proper intervention has occurred from the Court and Social Services. Don't you believe that is reasonable, Matt?

[debbiesanders]

I guess it would have helped if I posted the link. According to this link there is a website you can go to and get help with obtaining a restraining order as well as the GPS tracking for repeat abusers.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090701/EDIT07/307019972/1147/EDIT07

I see two things that don't really help this new law save lives:
1. The first time the protective order is violated in often when the victim is wounded or even killed. This law doesn't even take effect until after the abuser has violated the order for the first time and the court determines this violation. How can that save anyone?

2. In the Waterloo case it is my understanding that Mr. King was a repeat offender, so why wasn't he already wearing the GPS device? Which leads to the question did Mrs. King even know this was available? Maybe if Mr. King had been wearing the device this would never have happened.

[Mrs.Slotz]

I see two things that don't really help this new law save lives:
1. The first time the protective order is violated in often when the victim is wounded or even killed. This law doesn't even take effect until after the abuser has violated the order for the first time and the court determines this violation. How can that save anyone?

2. In the Waterloo case it is my understanding that Mr. King was a repeat offender, so why wasn't he already wearing the GPS device? Which leads to the question did Mrs. King even know this was available? Maybe if Mr. King had been wearing the device this would never have happened.

This is why I suggested that the "Star" write an article about the GPS device. I was not aware of it until someone at work said something about it being a law in New Jersey. After several hours of research, I learned that this became a law in Indiana in July of 2009. Why am I just hearing of this law? Why have not any of you? WHY? because nobody has taken the time to make an awareness about this device that could potentially save lives. Please, I beg, That someone do a story about this.

[debbiesanders]

This is why I suggested that the \"Star\" write an article about the GPS device. I was not aware of it until someone at work said something about it being a law in New Jersey. After several hours of research, I learned that this became a law in Indiana in July of 2009. Why am I just hearing of this law? Why have not any of you? WHY? because nobody has taken the time to make an awareness about this device that could potentially save lives. Please, I beg, That someone do a story about this.

Hey Matt what about it? Who do we have to talk to in order to get the word out there in the papers?

[james_t]

Hey Matt what about it? Who do we have to talk to in order to get the word out there in the papers?

I've passed some of the posts on this thread along to Dave Kurtz.

[HoosierHelen]

I've passed some of the posts on this thread along to Dave Kurtz.

Thanks James. If more people were aware of that GPS program, it would be great. Before Mrs. Slotz mentioned it, I was also unaware of the possibility.

[matt_s]

Matt, I understand that I am doing my thing again and I mean no offense to you.

My passion on a topic is overpowering the logic I am trying to convey. What I am trying to say to not only you Matt, but to any other Father/Husband in our community. Would you want a lawyer standing over your daughter or wife who is being physically abused by a family member stating ''In my understanding, in any criminal proceeding, it is always the people of [insert jurisdiction here] vs. defendant.' mean to people in immediate threat of their lives?\"

NO..we want them to cease and desist IMMEDIATELY!!

Why this topic is any more difficult to understand than removing a drunk driver's privilege to drive...I don't know? IF a family member has physically abused another family member, they should have no privlege to access this relationship until proper intervention has occurred from the Court and Social Services. Don't you believe that is reasonable, Matt?
I understand your passion on this topic. I understand the desire for immediate safety. My wife always says I have a tendency to first think with the analytical part of my brain rather than the emotional parts. So I'm sometimes a little late in the emotional support process.

The drunk driver is a great example for proving a demonstrable risk vs. testimony based risk and I believe this is what is at the core of the discussion. The police witness the drivers actions. As soon as they do a breath test, they have established a demonstrable risk. Just as they would if they had personally witnessed an act of abuse as opposed to the outcome of abuse.

Try to follow my thoughts on the desire for immediate and absolute safety (again this is the analytical side of me coming out),

Here are the items that I hold as facts in the discussion
1) Innocent until proven guilty requires more than hearsay and testimony to establish guilt and guilt is what establishes (in most cases) the ability to suspend another people's rights.
2) There is a process for establishing guilt but time is an unfortunate byproduct of the process.
3) There is a process, if there is a reasonable expectation or fear of danger, for setting up a TRO. This has a much shorter time to put into play and is a little more loose with the requirements, but that is why they are only Temporary..
4) Time provides opportunity.
5) Laws and TRO's don't protect, they provide consequence.
6) There are safe-houses and otherfacilities and organizations in existence to provide assistance and some measure of safety if needed
7) The police are not our own personal body guards, they respond when needed to the needs of the community and as such cannot always be in multiple locations at one time.

The desire for immediate protection and safety is strong. I understand this. I would want immediate safety for my family and friends. But I don't believe that the legal system is the mechanism to provide this and I don't think it is reasonable to expect the police to provide the constant protection that is necessary for 100% security. These are reactionary tools in the system.

I believe strongly in due process. Is it perfect? No, sometimes imperfect results are achieved. However, if I want the protections that it affords, I have to afford those protections to others. This sometimes means that the system is slow to act on people that may otherwise be deserving of it's reaction to their deeds. Like it or not, innocent until proven guilty requires a reactionary process.

This means, that for people to be able to achieve that immediate security that they desire, however unfair it may seem (as the victim), they cannot rely upon the legal system and the police to achieve this. They need to remove themselves from danger or put barriers in place to keep danger from getting to them. There are facilities and organizations that can help, but it isn't easy. It isn't simple. It requires sacrifices that are truly unfair in a narrow, more focused view.

I don't say this because I don't feel for the victims of abuse and other crimes. I simply say this because I believe the core philosophies of our freedoms and pillars of our judicial system don't always make things easy or create a sense of fairness under some points of view. But I believe very strongly that we are better for having these freedoms and processes. As such, I take a very wide view of justice and fairness.

Maybe it is easy for me to feel this was as I have never been directly confronted by the issues we discuss. I'd like to think that when push comes to shove the core of what I hold to will prevail. But who knows, maybe that's what gets the more emotional side of my brain to assert itself over the analytical side.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Here is another interesting link. It talks about the steps to take in order to get a restraining order more quickly.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/press/2009/0910a.html

[Mrs.Slotz]

Here is another interesting link. It talks about the steps to take in order to get a restraining order more quickly.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/press/2009/0910a.html

Just in case you can't open the link, here is most of it.
The Indiana Supreme Court is partnering with law enforcement, clerks and domestic violence groups to help better protect victims of abuse. Marion and Madison Counties are leading this effort by serving as pilot counties for an enhanced protective order registry. Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr. will be joined by victim advocates for special news briefings to describe how the enhanced registry allows advocates to help victims more quickly request a protective order. On September 14th Justice Sullivan will speak about the new registry feature and how it speeds-up the time it takes to obtain an Order of Protection from the courts in both Marion and Madison Counties. He will thank participants for their commitment to the registry and answer press questions.

MARION COUNTY
MONDAY, September 14th
11 a.m. E.D.T
Julian Center
(please use front entrance)
2011 N. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202


MADISON COUNTY
Monday, September 14th
3 p.m. E.D.T
Madison County Courthouse
(Council Chambers, 1st floor)
16 E. Ninth Street
Anderson, Indiana 46016

Marion and Madison Counties are serving as pilot counties for a new public access component of the protective order registry. The expanded registry will allow domestic violence advocates to complete required forms online at domestic violence shelters. Once the forms are completed, they can be printed and taken to the court clerk for filing. Since the information is already in the registry, the clerk can focus on getting the information to a judge to review. When a judge issues a protective order the information is sent to local, state, and federal law enforcement automatically and electronically. This pilot system is expected to save time and increase efficiency for the courts. It will also allow a person requesting a protective order to start the process with the help of a trained domestic violence advocate.

In 2007, Marion County had 4,177 new protective orders filed and Madison County had 1,264 new orders filed during that same period. Those thousands of requestors obtained their protective orders by going to the County Clerk’s office where they filed their petitions requesting a protective order. The process can include waiting in line and waiting for clerk staff to help them properly complete the paperwork.

The expanded registry is being piloted in Marion and Madison Counties and six other counties across the state including Allen, Elkhart, Grant, Tippecanoe, Saint Joseph, and Wabash Counties. It is being implemented by the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC). Justice Sullivan, who chairs JTAC, believes the expanded registry is one of the most significant accomplishments of the Committee, “We are helping to save lives with this partnership. This new public access function is being added after suggestions from domestic violence advocates and local clerks. By working closely with Indiana State Police, Marion and Madison County domestic violence advocates, and our state legislature we have developed a system that will do more to protect victims.”

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard spoke about the importance of the upgrade in the 2009 State of the Judiciary, “Improving the effectiveness of domestic abuse protective orders is not something you postpone in hard times, it’s something you race to accomplish.” It is a sentiment echoed by Laura Berry Berman, the Executive Director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence who explained, “We are strong supporters of the registry and want people to understand this is more than a technology upgrade—it will allow our volunteers to give victims the assistance they need and link them to community resources.” Marion and Madison County domestic violence advocates will attend the press briefings to answer questions about the process.

The Indiana Supreme Court received a $135,235 grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to improve the electronic Protection Order Registry. The money has helped pay for the development of the enhanced registry site. The Protective Order Registry is used in 92 counties. More information is available at www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/programs/poregistry.html.

Last modified on Thursday, March, 18, 2010

[HoosierHelen]

Matt,
That was a very thoughtful response and the analytical part of your brain also communicates well. I compliment you.
You are correct, we don't want to loose our individual rights and freedoms without just cause. Absolutely, I agree that we cannot afford individual police protection for every citizen who is fearful of another.

In my earlier story from Allen County where the Police had arrived at the home and seen the violent behavior (he also tried to resist arrest that night), they placed him in jail immediately. They handed his wife paperword describing the steps she would need to take to the Court House the next day to attain a Restraining Order. Looking back I don't recall if that was called a TRO or an RO?

It was an education for me when she asked me to help her communicate at the court house. She did have to provide a copy of the police report from the night before to the Judge and then describe in her own words what had occurred. The Judge inquired if her husband had ever struck the children. He had not, so there was no RO against her husband and the children issued. It appeared to me that safeguards were in place to protect the husband from false claims. The Judge reminded her before she answered his question regarding the children, that she was expected to only give an honest answer. He told her that he had handled enough divorces to understand that emotions could influence how she answered this. Bless her heart, she looked fearful when he gave her that caution, but she answered truthfully.

I have to say, I live about 40 minutes from her home, she really has no close family or friends in FW and I worried about her safety often. She doesn't weigh 100 lbs. Inasmuch as in her case, the police has witnessed the harm he had done (he never denied it either), it sure would have been nice if her or I would have known there was an option such as the ankle bracelet with the GPS that would alert the authorities if/when he came near her home or place of work. She would have asked for it.

I don't believe the taxpayers should be responsible for the costs of the ankle bracelets or monitoring, I believe those who displayed themselves to be unsafe and in need of monitoring should pay those costs.

Her ex-husband is now in jail for 1 full year because he violated that RO 2 more times after the divorce. One time he drove his car into the Police car in the driveway trying to get away from them when they pulled in behind him. I'm going to tell her about this GPS possibility for whenever he gets out. It makes alot of sense to me.

If The Star would run an informative article on this topic, I believe it would be beneficial to many who are under informed. I believe there are cases where men need RO's against angry women too....it doesn't just go one way.

[AMSTERDAM]

Wayne King's obituary made you ill?? Shame on you. Although there was well documented instances of domestic violence with this case, who are you to judge. This man was someone's Son, Brother, Father and Friend. His obituary came from a place of love by those who loved him. We are all Gods children and we all deserve love even in death. I was his friend, someone who you would never think would be friends with someone like Wayne King. Prison record, violent past and all of the other horrible things that have been written about him (even though they are fact). What isnt written though is the history of the rest of his life. So no one here on the fence post really knows the good side of a man whos end was that of a "monster". Please just keep that in mind with this healthy debate. It is a good debate to have about the horrible cycle of violence, which was the case here. Violence is never the answer. Judge not.

[Mrs.Slotz]

Wayne King's obituary made you ill?? Shame on you. Although there was well documented instances of domestic violence with this case, who are you to judge. This man was someone's Son, Brother, Father and Friend. His obituary came from a place of love by those who loved him. We are all Gods children and we all deserve love even in death. I was his friend, someone who you would never think would be friends with someone like Wayne King. Prison record, violent past and all of the other horrible things that have been written about him (even though they are fact). What isnt written though is the history of the rest of his life. So no one here on the fence post really knows the good side of a man whos end was that of a \"monster\". Please just keep that in mind with this healthy debate. It is a good debate to have about the horrible cycle of violence, which was the case here. Violence is never the answer. Judge not.

I did not mean to offend. I am sure his children will want to remember their father as a good man. It still made me sick.

[Copycatted]

Wayne King's obituary made you ill?? Shame on you. Although there was well documented instances of domestic violence with this case, who are you to judge. This man was someone's Son, Brother, Father and Friend. His obituary came from a place of love by those who loved him. We are all Gods children and we all deserve love even in death. I was his friend, someone who you would never think would be friends with someone like Wayne King. Prison record, violent past and all of the other horrible things that have been written about him (even though they are fact). What isnt written though is the history of the rest of his life. So no one here on the fence post really knows the good side of a man whos end was that of a \\"monster\\". Please just keep that in mind with this healthy debate. It is a good debate to have about the horrible cycle of violence, which was the case here. Violence is never the answer. Judge not.

Well put AMSTERDAM,I didn't even know the family but went there to offer my so called two cents. Whoever in 1993 made up that acronym for WACO (We Aint Coming Out) as well humored it around during the 51 day stand off maybe had an wishta moment...wished they hadn't of after 80 plus perished. I was there too.

[Mrs.Slotz]

I just read on WANE.COM that Mrs. King will be on the news discussing what happened at 6 PM tonight.

[zdog1962]

I just read on WANE.COM that Mrs. King will be on the news discussing what happened at 6 PM tonight.

That should be interesting, better set the dvr. I believe they are doing a series on protective orders.

[Mrs.Slotz]

That should be intereting, better set the dvr. I believe they are doing a series on protective orders.

I think they are too. I tried to find the Link at WANE.com but I could not locate it a second time. I am going to set the recorder too.

[nathandiehl]

I think they are too. I tried to find the Link at WANE.com but I could not locate it a second time. I am going to set the recorder too.
Here's the link:
http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/15-Finds-Out-Protective-Orders