What was expected to be a simple correction of its domestic violence statute in Utah to include non-married couples, triggered a disturbing outburst of homophobic and extremist views. The bill was opposed by the Gun Owners of America.
While the Senate endorsed the Dating Violence Prevention Act, H.B. 50 by a 24-4 margin, three opponents rose to give their objections to including unmarried individuals the right to such protection. The bill simply allows “for the issuance, modification, and enforcement of protective orders between individuals who are, or have been, in a dating relationship” in cases of abuse or danger of abuse.
Sen. Scott Jenkins (R) rose to explain dating to this colleagues:
JENKINS: You make a lot of mistakes in your first original encounter and dates with this new partner. A lot of times you rough house. A lot of times you’re trying to determine limits and where your limit is and where her limit is and when you’ve gone too far and when you haven’t gone too far. And when it doesn’t work you, you walk away. Now there’s a new element in here—now, if you feel uncomfortable about something that happens, you go and you get a court order. And it’s like “how did this get introduced? I did something that I thought was in fun and jest and the next think you know, I’ve got a court order against me!”
If that was not bad enough, up popped Sen. Margaret Dayton (R) who warned of a slippery slope that could result in the protection of people in same-sex couples . . . from abuse.
DAYTON: As I read this dating relationship explanation, it talks about two parties in a social relationship, whether or not they’ve had interpersonal bonding. Okay? And it doesn’t include any kind of gender issues, so the way I read it, it could be two girls and one of them thinks they’re just good girl friends and the other one thinks it’s a romantic relationship and they’re dating. When the first one finds out that they’re not dating, she thought it was girlfriends, all of a sudden, one can get angry and all kinds of concerns can get generated because this is such an ill-defined dating relationship.
Of course, the same can happen in a conventional relationship but Dayton does not want to risk protecting same-sex partners from violence.
Then Sen. Mark Madsen (R) rose to object that verbal threats could be the basis for a protective order, apparently preferring to wait for an act of violence:
“What I’ve asked and requested and has not been offered is –- at least require a pattern, at least two instances of verbal threat or verbal abuse . . . I guess we’ve abandoned the old saying that sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me.”
That of course ignores when the statements threaten to break your bones.”
It is important to note that this was a very small minority and that bill passed overwhelmingly in Utah.
Source: Think Progress
Really? As a ten year survivor of domestic abuse, I can tell you from experience that the first incident could well be the last incident. While that’s not typical of an abuser, there’s always exceptions to the case! The bottom line is, no matter what type of relationship you’re in, there’s no excuse for abuse! I don’t care if you’re gay, straight, or bisexual, there’s no reason for it whatsoever!
“Gun Owners of America” claims to be the only non compromise gun lobby. Of course, they are are not in opposition to violence…..
Utahpion crazoids.
Dredd, LOL!
“A lot of times you’re trying to determine limits and where your limit is and where her limit is and when you’ve gone too far and when you haven’t gone too far. And when it doesn’t work you, you walk away. ”
As I understand the objections, this change in the law would interfere with couples right to test the depth of their commitment by beating each other up.
Part of the problem is that some (primarily men) are incapably of walking a way.
One former boy friend to my god daughter explained ‘I only beat you up because I love you so much’.
Who said love is blind. Sometimes love has a pretty good jab followed by a devastating right cross.
Utah has been a joke for a long time… Look who their Senator is… Orrin Hatchit!
Sounds like Dayton may be talking from experience.
What is with these repubs and violence in relationships acts?
Is it like Portman. While it is wonderful he has changed his position on DOMA he only did so after realizing his son was gay and it now was an issue involving his family.
Well, well … it’s good to know that all the nut jobs out there have representation in their legislature. It’s also good to know that, after being heard, their representatives’ opinions had no impact on the legislative body.
Gun Owners of America … take note.
“What was expected to be a simple correction of its domestic violence statute in Utah to include non-married couples, triggered a disturbing outburst of homophobic and extremist views.”
***********************
With all due respect to the post, these laws do raise issues of necessity and abuse by complainants as well as perpetrators. While I don’t subscribe to the notion of “testing limits,” I am not naive enough to accept that this protection as between dating couples won’t be used for revenge. Sexual jealousy is a powerful motivator for crimes up to and including murder and false accusations seem the least we can expect from unhinged people with hurt feelings. I think that existing Utah law amply handles these situations where oppressive behavior results in stalking or worse and providing yet another incentive to use the criminal justice system to atone for bruised psyches and another layer of monitoring of sexual conduct is not my idea of progress.
76-5-106.5. Stalking — Definitions — Injunction — Penalties.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Conviction” means:
(i) a verdict or conviction;
(ii) a plea of guilty or guilty and mentally ill;
(iii) a plea of no contest; or
(iv) the acceptance by the court of a plea in abeyance.
(b) “Course of conduct” means two or more acts directed at or toward a specific person, including:
(i) acts in which the actor follows, monitors, observes, photographs, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or interferes with a person’s property:
(A) directly, indirectly, or through any third party; and
(B) by any action, method, device, or means; or
(ii) when the actor engages in any of the following acts or causes someone else to engage in any of these acts:
(A) approaches or confronts a person;
(B) appears at the person’s workplace or contacts the person’s employer or coworkers;
(C) appears at a person’s residence or contacts a person’s neighbors, or enters property owned, leased, or occupied by a person;
(D) sends material by any means to the person or for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about or communicating with the person to a member of the person’s family or household, employer, coworker, friend, or associate of the person;
(E) places an object on or delivers an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by a person, or to the person’s place of employment with the intent that the object be delivered to the person; or
(F) uses a computer, the Internet, text messaging, or any other electronic means to commit an act that is a part of the course of conduct.
(c) “Immediate family” means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person who regularly resides in the household or who regularly resided in the household within the prior six months.
(d) “Emotional distress” means significant mental or psychological suffering, whether or not medical or other professional treatment or counseling is required.
(e) “Reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances.
(f) “Stalking” means an offense as described in Subsection (2) or (3).
(g) “Text messaging” means a communication in the form of electronic text or one or more electronic images sent by the actor from a telephone or computer to another person’s telephone or computer by addressing the communication to the recipient’s telephone number.
(2) A person is guilty of stalking who intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and knows or should know that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person:
(a) to fear for the person’s own safety or the safety of a third person; or
(b) to suffer other emotional distress.
(3) A person is guilty of stalking who intentionally or knowingly violates:
(a) a stalking injunction issued pursuant to Title 77, Chapter 3a, Stalking Injunctions; or
(b) a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued pursuant to this section.
(4) In any prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the actor:
(a) was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or
(b) did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.
(5) An offense of stalking may be prosecuted under this section in any jurisdiction where one or more of the acts that is part of the course of conduct was initiated or caused an effect on the victim.
(6) Stalking is a class A misdemeanor:
(a) upon the offender’s first violation of Subsection (2); or
(b) if the offender violated a stalking injunction issued pursuant to Title 77, Chapter 3a, Stalking Injunctions.
(7) Stalking is a third degree felony if the offender:
(a) has been previously convicted of an offense of stalking;
(b) has been previously convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense that is substantially similar to the offense of stalking;
(c) has been previously convicted of any felony offense in Utah or of any crime in another jurisdiction which if committed in Utah would be a felony, in which the victim of the stalking offense or a member of the victim’s immediate family was also a victim of the previous felony offense;
(d) violated a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued pursuant to Subsection (9); or
(e) has been or is at the time of the offense a cohabitant, as defined in Section 78B-7-102, of the victim.
(8) Stalking is a second degree felony if the offender:
(a) used a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601 or used other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, in the commission of the crime of stalking;
(b) has been previously convicted two or more times of the offense of stalking;
(c) has been convicted two or more times in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions of offenses that are substantially similar to the offense of stalking;
(d) has been convicted two or more times, in any combination, of offenses under Subsection (7)(a), (b), or (c);
(e) has been previously convicted two or more times of felony offenses in Utah or of crimes in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions which, if committed in Utah, would be felonies, in which the victim of the stalking was also a victim of the previous felony offenses; or
(f) has been previously convicted of an offense under Subsection (7)(d) or (e).
(9) (a) A conviction for stalking or a plea accepted by the court and held in abeyance for a period of time serves as an application for a permanent criminal stalking injunction limiting the contact between the defendant and the victim.
(b) A permanent criminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court at the time of the conviction. The court shall give the defendant notice of the right to request a hearing.
(c) If the defendant requests a hearing under Subsection (9)(b), it shall be held at the time of the conviction unless the victim requests otherwise, or for good cause.
(d) If the conviction was entered in a justice court, a certified copy of the judgment and conviction or a certified copy of the court’s order holding the plea in abeyance shall be filed by the victim in the district court as an application and request for a hearing for a permanent criminal stalking injunction.
(10) A permanent criminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the district court granting the following relief where appropriate:
(a) an order:
(i) restraining the defendant from entering the residence, property, school, or place of employment of the victim; and
(ii) requiring the defendant to stay away from the victim, except as provided in Subsection (11), and to stay away from any specified place that is named in the order and is frequented regularly by the victim;
(b) an order restraining the defendant from making contact with or regarding the victim, including an order forbidding the defendant from personally or through an agent initiating any communication, except as provided in Subsection (11), likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the victim, including personal, written, or telephone contact with or regarding the victim, with the victim’s employers, employees, coworkers, friends, associates, or others with whom communication would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the victim; and
(c) any other orders the court considers necessary to protect the victim and members of the victim’s immediate family or household.
(11) If the victim and defendant have minor children together, the court may consider provisions regarding the defendant’s exercise of custody and parent-time rights while ensuring the safety of the victim and any minor children. If the court issues a permanent criminal stalking injunction, but declines to address custody and parent-time issues, a copy of the stalking injunction shall be filed in any action in which custody and parent-time issues are being considered and that court may modify the injunction to balance the parties’ custody and parent-time rights.
(12) Except as provided in Subsection (11), a permanent criminal stalking injunction may be modified, dissolved, or dismissed only upon application of the victim to the court which granted the injunction.
(13) Notice of permanent criminal stalking injunctions issued pursuant to this section shall be sent by the court to the statewide warrants network or similar system.
(14) A permanent criminal stalking injunction issued pursuant to this section has effect statewide.
(15) (a) Violation of an injunction issued pursuant to this section constitutes a third degree felony offense of stalking under Subsection (7).
(b) Violations may be enforced in a civil action initiated by the stalking victim, a criminal action initiated by a prosecuting attorney, or both.
(16) This section does not preclude the filing of a criminal information for stalking based on the same act which is the basis for the violation of the stalking injunction issued pursuant to Title 77, Chapter 3a, Stalking Injunctions, or a permanent criminal stalking injunction.
Maybe bills such as these before legislatures are good once in a while to vet out the fools within.
Keep in mind that these types of protective orders can be issued against someone without that person ever being charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one, and the evidentiary standard for such an order to be issued is quite low. It is with this in mind that the Gun Owners of America oppose any law, such as this one, that has the distinct potential deprive someone of their right under the second amendment to the United States Constitution simply for having a protective order of this sort issued against them.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/06/1548961/meet-the-four-republican-senators-who-think-the-violence-against-women-act-is-unconstitutional/ Rand Paul is one.
importanttopics:
That’s exactly my point. These protective orders are issued almost pro forma because judges use a lower standard of proof than criminal cases and feel socially compelled to protect women who some judges perceive as the weaker sex. I’ve seen lots of abuse here even in the context of a married couples seeking leverage in divorces or custody fights. I see an even greater incentive for abuse as between dating couples without the moderating effects of long-standing relationships or children of the marriage.
While the Senate endorsed the Dating Violence Prevention Act, H.B. 50 by a 24-4 margin, three opponents rose to give their objections to including unmarried individuals the right to such protection. The bill simply allows “for the issuance, modification, and enforcement of protective orders between individuals who are, or have been, in a dating relationship” in cases of abuse or danger of abuse.
———————————
Don’t ask anybody if they want to go to lunch. You might end up with a disorderly conduct citation and a restraining order.
Follow up.
Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail
How HSBC hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists. And got away with it
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214
It’s easy for me to understand why GOA takes positions against these type laws as they are just backdoor attempts to destroy constitutional “Rights”.
One reason these type laws a unconstitutional is that they single out certain people for special treatment.
Nanny state cr*p that say, oh look at me I’m a special Victim.
Hey, the world will continue to be a rough place, learn how to defend yourself, physically, mentally & legally.
There are already plenty of laws on the books addressing issues of violence.
ie: Assault, Assault/battery, attempted murder, etc…
And a Supreme Court ruling: Them there are Fighting Words!
Yes, the SC ruled if you mouth off & provoke a fight you are the guilty party!
Further why isn’t Utah attacking their real crime problems.
Wallst Banks/Insurance companies, like JPM, GS, etc.. run out of the murder/crime capitals of the world, New York City/Chicago preplan/create crimes/ murders everywhere, including Utah.
. Utah & other states should be at least banning those criminal outfits from doing any business in their states & have those firms BODs bought before state Grand Juries to address those firms being a Public Menace that disturb the domestic peace.
Maybe some here are interested in domestic tranquility & your communities/nation.
There is a case in the news today that is literally a road map to how & why our Govt & major corporations became so corrupt & evil.
Here’s an easy place to start down this rabbit hole
You may recall the Jack Nicholson movie “The Departed” based from a true story, yet it only cracks the surface of this subject.
wiki/The_Departed
James Joseph “Whitey” Bulger, Jr.
wiki/Whitey_Bulger
Gary Webb
** Webb’s reporting generated fierce controversy, and the San Jose Mercury News backed away from the story, effectively ending Webb’s career as a mainstream media journalist. In 2004,
Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, which the coroner’s office judged a suic*de.
wiki/Gary_Webb
**
Roger Wheeler (February 27, 1926 — May 27, 1981) was an American businessman, the former chairman of Telex Corp. and former owner of World Jai Alai. In 1981, he was murdered at the age of 55 in his car while preparing to leave Southern Hills Country Club in Tulsa, Oklahoma, following his weekly game of golf. **
( Note: Its highly doubtful it was mob gambling that got him killed, most likely was that Telex used to be used for major cash transfers by govt’s & major corporations. Drugs/illegal weapons transfers aka Fast n Fury type deals/under the table foreign policy? I think those records would tell the real story.)
wiki/Roger_Wheeler_%28businessman%29
Back full circle, Matt Romney receiving blood money from South/Central America… Reagan, Clinton, Bush Family, & now Obama….
What’s going on now?
Mespo,
I see the value of it and the burdens of the same…. I agree that they are issues almost proforma…. And the burden is on the respondant to show why it should not be kept in place…. Then you have a whole lot of other issues…. CCW or CHL permits are voided…. It’s a public record…. It can be used to deny housing… As I have said there are two sides of this coin…. And the abuse out weighs the harm…..
If you’ll recall… In New Jersey… There was a woman married to an abusive cop husband…. She could not get any restraining orders issued…. Because he was a cop…. She tried three times…. The commanding officer always said he’d talk with him….then one day…. He shot her dead….. Right after that…. Personal Protection Orders were issued fairly easily…. I think that it t the city about 6 mil….
AY:
I’ve seen these abuses and I think that is the reason a lot of people oppose these types of restraining orders absent some pretty good evidence of likely harm.
“Our goal here,” Breuer said, “is not to destroy a major financial institution.”
—————
It’s time to take the pill. Pick which one.
Back where there are humans,
National Security Letters Unconstitutional, finds federal judge, who bans them
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/15/national-security-letters-unco.html
NYPD cops ordered to run criminal checks on domestic-abuse victims
By JAMIE SCHRAM and DAN MANGAN
Last Updated: 9:15 AM, March 15, 2013
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_nab_the_victim_lXiQhecmrcMWX01cMEJ5JJ
Dredd,
The US Gov. is being run by “SECRET” memos and the POTUS will have any “leakers” arrested… Where does he fit into all of this mess?
Doesn’t his Oath compel him to protect and defend the Constitution and ensure the Laws are “faithfully” enforced? Or is there a secret oath that negates this public Oath? What gives? No Impeachment, yet?
ah utah, where having a stick up your a$$ is a good thing.
This article raises some interesting issues about disenfranchisement: http://blog.timesunion.com/localpolitics/14243/newest-albany-mayoral-candidate-has-record-to-run-on/ thought you might take a look.
I was stuck in an airport in Salt Lake City, Utah. The airport kept playing this song over their intercome put out years ago by Warren Zevon. It is called Lawyers Guns and Money. Those are the three things one needs in Utah if you leave the terminal. If you are “terminal” then take a Bible with you. Generally though, a place like Utah is aspirational. The aspire to be a Pirate Territory with no laws. Fly over and flush. Twice on Sunday.
In a true Pirate Territory the brother of the victim would come around and beat the hell out of the abuser. You would not need no law or no law enforcement. No officers of the law. Grrr.
This is Utah where many men (and women) unfortunately have a similar view of women and same sex couples as the Taliban.
People do not seek protective orders because they’re bored, they do so because they have an expectation that the individual could harm them.
This isn’t ‘nanny state’ or in violation of the Constitution. This is about individuals wanting to go about their lives with a reasonable assurance of not being physically attacked or harassed by another person.
Thankfully the Utah state legislature demonstrated sanity. Would that some commenters in this thread do the same.
Shelley Powers,
Sorry, you must have completely missed the point.
Judges already have all the authority the need to issue protective orders for anyone. “Anyone”
This is just a stunt by another legislature wasting time playing on people’s emotions with more of these “Flavor of the Day Feel Good Laws” when there are already enough laws on the books that do the same thing.
Medical Examiner Snubs Official Request for Toxicology Report
Kelly Patricia O’Meara
Cchrint.org
March 16, 2013
While state and federal lawmakers frantically push for massive mental health reform and sweeping gun control laws, two Connecticut mothers recently took to the streets of Newtown, connecting with local residents and gathering signatures on a petition that asks a simple but essential question—did prescription psychiatric drugs play a role in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting?
Seems like an easy and obvious question that, remarkably, has escaped the consideration of legislators who seem hell-bent on legislating increased mental health services without first having all the necessary information to make thoughtful, fact-based decisions. More…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/was-connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza-on-psychiatric-drugs-medical-examiner-snubs-official-request-for-toxicology-report.html
Shelley Powers,
Re:protective orders/Freedom of association
I wonder what Prof. Turley’s thought’s are on the needs of another new law when there maybe other laws already on the books that address the same issue.
I believe Ron Paul/Rand Paul are of the position the constitution allows us all not to associate with people/groups we don’t wish to associate with, thus it seems to me the courts can say , hey stay away from him/her, they don’t wish to be around you.
Or maybe it could be I’m missing Prof Turley’s point of this article?
Away…
** Freedom of association
Further information: Freedom of association
Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama,[169] freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees,[170] the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group’s expression. However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group’s ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,[171] the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts’ right to free association. **
**
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
**
This special interest group will need to come up with another cliche than “homophobe”. The word homophobe is a useless, meaningless cliche used only by special interest groups to stereotype certain people with differing views. (What happened to tolerance??) Phobia implies a fear, but of the general consensus regarding homosexuality, the emotion isn’t of fear, but of disgust.
The overuse of the word “homophobe” has about as much effect as someone labeling a person a racist because they disagree with Mr. obama’s policies.
no Hubert, the word racist regarding President Obama relates to the person (people) wearing shirts that read “Put the white back in the white house” To those who hung the president or watermelons or empty chairs in effigy. who said , and say, horrible racist things about the man, which includes the refusal to accept that he is an American and not a Muslim (which is muslimophobia since it does not matter that he is a Christian, in America supposedly one can be of any Faith or none at all and that is fine and protected)
I feel sorry for you if the idea of 2 people finding and loving one another is disgusting. You seem to forget Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you and Judge not lest ye be judged
@ Hubert Cumberdale. What exactly are you disgusted by? Two women or two men loving each other? Or is it about sex? If it’s the latter, then I think your obsession with other people’s sexual preferences in a consensual way, not involving minors, and within the privacy of their home is a bit disturbing. What’s it to you? My daughter came out about 2 years ago and to read the word ‘disgust’ in reference to homosexuality is painful, sir. You are of course entitled to your opinion. I just wonder what else disgusts you and if you could kindly provide a list of them here so that I know, for future references to brace myself for disgusting comments on those from you. BTW, my daughter is in premed school, is an excellent soccer player and saxophone player and is an upstanding young woman whom I will hug a bit tighter next time she is here. It will be my way to protect her from mean people like you!
@leejcaroll. In all of my hurt at reading Hubert Cumberdale’s comment I didn’t even read yours. Thank you for calling him out on it.
question for the naysayers.. how many men and women are dead with all the laws that are already on the books? and yes i said men.. they get abused also i’ve taken the time to read their blogs and forums as a fromer victim of abuse. that order of protection did NOT stop the ex from cutting my throat one day before my 20th birthday. and back then we didnt have half of the laws we have today… think not ?go read the blogs ” behind the blue wall” and “till death do us part” then answer my question please