We previously discussed the outrageous conduct of Jennifer Petkov, 33, who taunted a terminally ill 7-year-old girl in Michigan. Now Petkov has been sent packing by a court as part of a plea agreement for an assault and battery of a neighbor.
Petkov pleaded guilty to trying to run over a neighbor — Tana Bowling — was crossing the street on Oct. 13. Bowling was going to the house of Rebecca Rose.
Judge Carole Youngblood sentenced her to 18 months probation but added an impressive list of conditions, including that she move out of the Trenton neighborhood. This includes psychological evaluation with treatment, if recommended; substance abuse evaluation with treatment, if recommended; anger management; and no contact with Bowling or the five block area of Detroit Street, Washington, Cleveland, Park Place or Roerig.
Source: Detroit News found on Reddit
21 thoughts on “Petkov Takes Plea and Neighbors Granted Reprieve”
please god don’t let this bitch move to florida
It is common to have a prohibition against contact w witnesses as part of a criminal prosecution and applied for by a govern prosecutor. Where it gets dicey is when there is no criminal prosecution. In most states there is a special classification and statute when there is a family or sexual relationship but not in a neighbor situation.
There are huge numbers of complaints about abuse of protective orders in family law, as a tool to get full custody of children accompanied by otherwise unreachable alimony and support obligations. There are stories about women bashing their own faces and then blaming their husbands.
I think that one word does kind of sum it all up!
Makes one proud doesn’t it… it is not the child that she was accused of taunting but another one……
As if Jennifer Petkov needs any more negative attention. The woman accused of taunting a terminally ill seven-year-old and her family is now accused of trying to run another neighbor over with her car.
Here is the one….alls I can say is and as nicely as I can is BITCH……
I haven’t looked at the ruling and don’t know any American law but…
(Okay please put the brickbats away, I promise I won’t say anything contentious.)
I wonder if the residency order and whatnot are conditions of probation. If the law would permit her to be incarcerated but the judge chooses an alternative, presumably he can append reasonable conditions on the probation. It would be up to the probation service to implement orders like this, and I dare say she could in practice keep her residence at the cost of some personal freedom if she failed to comply to the satisfaction of the probation service.
As I understand it this woman has a child so the non-custodial sentence may be the result of the court considering the rights of that child.
I am open to discussion on residency injunctions as long as they comply with the Magna Charta publication and jury trial requirements. For instance, residency restrictions could be an add on to or substitute for jail or home detention for rape and /or statutory rape. If so, they should be added by the legislature as options or requirements to the various laws. Everything about the statutes should be totally clear and the law should be used to the minimum amount to accomplish a goal related to public danger.
Enforcement of indirect contempt is at huge risk of abuse. For instance, all sorts of charges can be made up to try to get someone’s real estate. People can be framed for criminal acts and injunctions can be used to get their property — giving motive and opportunity to frame someone.
I’ll have to admit that I find the “banishment” part of the ruling rather questionable and her not going to jail for attempted vehicular manslaughter completely reprehensible.
This woman deserves to be spending some time in jail over this outrageous conduct. I am a bit confused on the portion of the sentence that required her to move from the neighborhood that she lives in. How can the judge force someone to change residences? I understand the no contact distance ruling, but what if she owns the house and can’t sell it? If the judge puts her in jail where she belongs, she is removed from the neighborhood for that period of time.
Its only a matter of time in the neighborhood described…or maybe she provides the evening entertainment for the boys….
“I’m sorry, I can’t help but think that if judges would turn their attention to doing their jobs in this world rather than legislate ideals and prejudices, it would look and be a whole lot better…” (Woosty’s still a Cat)
Hear … hear!!
Geez, i wonder if she’s the same woman who tried to send a puppy through the mail:
I’m sorry, ’18 months probation’ for a lengthy torture by intentional infliction of emotional distress and attempted murder with a dangerous (and very heavy) weapon and this is the result? She gets to wander around free to pick new victims?
I’m sorry, I can’t help but think that if judges would turn their attention to doing their jobs in this world rather than legislate ideals and prejudices, it would look and be a whole lot better…
I’ve always wondered if this woman had some sort of death wish and her neighbors simply refused to accommodate her.
I suppose this plus a civil penalty is some form of justice.
Can we draft a proposed law that makes sense?
Talk about urban blight.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer gal.
Think of the lucky new neighborhood that gets to deal with her now. I thought banishment was outlawed.
There are people like that all over the net, even groups of them, but it’s rare to run into people so determinedly and brutally nasty off the net as in this case. There at least, though at long last, they can be appropriately restrained.
A mental case. Her husband must be one too or hopelessly co-dependent.
Comments are closed.