The world has lost a strong, brave woman who stood up to an abuser.

Restraining orders are important if only because they leave a paper trail of the abuse; good police do enforce them.

Preventing this kind of horrible act always leaves me at a loss. I wish restraining orders came with an ankle-monitoring bracelet that emitted loud noises when an abuser came within 500 feet or so of his victim. Obviously, it would have to be deemed necessary by a judge. Then an abuser would be detected by police (who could approach the abuser before he got to the victim) and passerby (which might deter the abuser from approaching the victim). The abuser wouldn't need to be imprisoned, and he could have the bracelet alarm removed upon completion of rehab.

Again... my deep, deep condolences to your friend and her neighbor's family.

I am against the death penalty, but I have to admit my gut response when I read that it was being considered was "good!"

This is my first time posting, but this is such an important issue I just needed to jump in. While I totally understand your frustration with the system Samhita, unfortunately it's all we have right now until drastic changes are made.

That said, I used to work in law enforcement and can tell you that good cops *do* enforce restraining order violations. However there are a LOT of them out there and cops cannot simply patrol around the homes of those that should be protected. Many times the cops may not even be aware of restraining orders in effect because they are issued by the courts and not directly communicated to law enforcement. It's only through the victims' reporting of violation that cops are made aware.

Of course, there are instances where a perpetrator is stalking and in that case most cops are aware and hopefully are trying to stay close to that area when they can, but call loads do not always cooperate with the best intentions of those trying to protect.

Again, I'm not trying to justify the system we have because I believe we have a long way to go before our "justice" system actually works, however many of the cops I worked with were amazing and did the best they could within the system to work for the victims.

It's terrible that a restraining order is the best we can do. It's not like we can have a squad car parked outside of every abused woman's home. But why are abuser even allowed to go free? They shouldn't be allowed to be bailed out if arrested, until he is cleared, just like what they do to accused serial killers and child molesters.

Wheni read this post it reminded me of the movie ENOUGH w/ Jennifer Lopez. She says "And when he comes around, what am I supposed to do with that piece of paper, throw it at him?" She took things into her own hands, obviously not the best choice, but learning self defense is a good thing for any woman to learn. If the cops won't help you, what else are you supposed to do? Noone should have to keep running for the rest of their lives.

oh, sahmita, i just read your stalking incidents account for the first time. i am so sorry that happened to you. i'm happy to hear you had resources to stay safe. i don't think anyone can understand that type of anxiety and trauma until they live it. and when we live it, it's endless and boundless. the misogynistic experiential version of durkheim's anomie, i'd say.

re: restraining orders, what a joke. i mean, they can work if someone is just harassing. but in a violent and explosive situation, there really should be something much, much stronger to restrain than a sheet of paper. i'd venture to say that most folks misunderstand that.

this woman's story terrifies me. i say, put the cia surveillance to better use than tracking vegans and environmentalists. track stalkers!!!

Katie, I think your monitoring idea is a good one. I've often thought about how best to keep violent people from their partners. Unfortunately we don't as a society have the resources to either imprison them indefinitely or have police officers keep an eye on *all* of them. In many cases, imprisonment isn't warranted at the time of the restraining order request because it's done during the course of proceedings for a divorce, such as "I'm filing for divorce because he's violent, and I'd like a restraining order." There may not be a specific incident the woman's bringing to arrest him for.

That said, Samhita, I'd caution you against so easily labeling people as "psychotic" or "mentally ill." Perhaps it is because I'm bipolar, but I feel mental illness still in enlightened parts of our society is treated unfairly. Not all people who are mentally ill ever do harm to others. (In fact, we're far more likely to harm ourselves.) Nor are all violent criminals mentally ill. Being psychotic is a very specific state, and I hate when the term is thrown around in lieu of finding more appropriate words.

In some ways there may not be much you can do. Unless someone actually commits a crime you can't put them in jail, full stop.

It's frustrating and horrible when psychos act on their impulses, but since none of us can tell the future you can't know in advance whether someone is violent enough to actually do something. You just can't. Patterns of behavior are always obvious in hindsight.

I am not excusing the behavior. Please understand that.

Forcing people into custody of any kind has a rather sordid history in minority communities. And until we have things set up to offer treatment and all kinds of other support to people who are having these kinds of problems the restraining order may be imperfect, and in some cases inadequate. But it's something.

In the meantime, we can support policies that make domestic violence harder to do. For instance, if good educations were available to all women before they get involved with someone like that, then that reduces the odds of it happening in the first place. (These kinds of problems correlate with education because having one opens up options for jobs and such). If good child care were available to working women and battered women's shelters were everywhere then the situation would be much different, I think. It isn't s sexy spectacular instant kind of solution and it makes a lousy movie. But it is the kind of thing that works over time.

That is a scary tramatic experience, Samhita. I'm sorry. I hope he is punished properly.

I'm usually against technology solutions, but the ankle tracking device is not a bad idea. If you are enough of a predator to warrant a restraining order, perhaps a tracking device with a monitor by the victim and the police could be a solution worth exploring. It would be a warning system and a modern and more productive "scarlet letter"

Of course, many cities have backlogs of rape kits they can't seem to pay for, so this idea could take awhile. Restraining order should be step one but there has to be a next measure.

Obviously if a person is irrational enough to stalk someone, the consequences of breaking a restraining order might not be enough to get through a stalker's skull.

Restraining orders seem sort of silly. We need rehabilitation programs, short-term prison sentences for stalkers, I don't know. Something more drastic than a piece of paper has to be done. You're absolutely right.

I like the GPS bracelet idea, although for it to work, both parties would have to wear it. I'm imagining that the victim's sends out a radio signal that's got a radius of say 500 feet, and the restrainee's will detect that signal and then start both beeping and possibly signaling the cops with a GPS showing his (or her) location. Also, the victim's could have a panic button which signals the cops with her location if she presses it, so she can call for help if the restrainee manages to get his bracelet off and show up at her house, or something.

There would need to be some common sense applied in the use of such a thing. You cannot *have* a restraining order against a person who has visitation with your children. It makes no sense, unless some social worker is willing to be the third party tradeoff -- and to be completely honest, although I am aware it could be abused against innocent men, there have been *so* many cases of people with restraining orders but visitation rights who got their kids and then killed them to screw over their ex, I think that if there is a restraining order it must also apply to the physical presence of the children if there are children. I mean, if the woman thinks the man is seriously dangerous enough to her, and a judge agrees, that he's not allowed anywhere near her, why is he allowed anywhere near his kids? (And the same is true in the rare case where the abuser is female.)

There would need to be a clear mechanism for a person who was so accused of being a danger to clear themselves, so they would not have to wear a bracelet their entire lives if in fact they aren't particularly violent people. But I'm tired of hearing about men who murdered their kids to get back at their exes, and I'm tired of hearing about men who murdered their exes -- there has *got* to be a way to stop people who are a clear and present danger to a specific person or persons but haven't actually committed a crime yet. It violates every tenet of our jurisprudence to lock people up for a crime they haven't committed and maybe weren't going to, but at the same time, there is no way for the law to stop someone from committing a crime if they are determined to do it.

I know that "restraining orders seem sort of silly," in that yes, a piece of paper cannot literally protect you from a person. But first, I don't think anyone who gets one expects to keep living his or her life in the exact same way--people move, change cars, change jobs, avoid places and people, keep their doors locked, live in a constant state of fear, etc. The restraining order is one part of that. Second, if you call the police because someone is stalking you, threatening you, or hurting you, and you have no restraining order, you are less likely to get helped. Documenting everything that has happened to you in the past makes the police more likely to pay attention to you in the present.
I know you probably all know these things, but I feel the need to say them. I have a very close relative who has a restraining order against an ex (who has violated the order recently), and I am afraid for her every day. Of course I wish there were something more to do, but that piece of paper gives me a little bit of security, even if it's symbolic, even if only to prove to me that she's taking her own safety seriously.
And as far as Jess's point about education for women goes, I disagree. ANY woman, educated, uneducated or half-educated, could end up in an abusive and dangerous relationship. Women stay with abusers for many reasons other than lack of financial independence, or lack of education. Even if the education was specific to domestic violence, if you taught every woman about warning signs of abuse, it can be very difficult to recognize those signs once you're actually in a relationship, once you're ready to rationalize (and once your abuser has destroyed your self-esteem). Talking about education for women as the solution to domestic violence makes it sound like you think only a dumb woman would get herself involved, or stay involved, with an abuser, and that's certainly not the case.
Instead, since we're talking utopian, long-term solutions, why don't we talk even bigger, long-term solutions? How about creating gender and racial equality, studying why men do this and educating MEN about domestic violence, making sure every person who wants a job has one, making sure the needs of mentally ill people are met adequately (although I don't mean to malign all mentally ill people as abusers, via Brandi), and generally healing our society?

i agree with Louise about the education piece. to quote andrea gibson, slam poet and feminist extraordinaire,

"she knows she won't be the only one
she's not asking what you're gonna tell your daughter
she asking what you're gonna teach
your son"

resources for women, while not pervasive enough, exist. i feel fairly comfortable generalizing that many men are not taught about boundaries AT ALL... at least not where i come from nor where i live now

Restraining orders seem sort of silly. We need rehabilitation programs, short-term prison sentences for stalkers, I don't know. Something more drastic than a piece of paper has to be done.

When my sister was being stalked by an ex, we all knew that the restraining order would not keep him away from her -- it was just a piece of paper, after all. But it wasn't silly -- what we hoped was that when he broke the restraining order, he would be sent to jail. And that's what happened. So the "piece of paper" led to a "short term prison sentence."

For us, the restraining order was not about making him stop, it was about being able to take that next step (jail time) when he did not. The jail time was what stopped him, and it wouldn't have happened without the restraining order.

Of course, we were lucky that his first time breaking the restraining order was non-violent. That's where the danger to women comes in. I don't know how to lessen this danger, and it infuriates me and breaks my heart. Alara really gets to the heart of this problem: How do you punish/prevent someone from committing a crime when they don't have a record in the eyes of the law/police?

I want to second Jess' point about child care and resources for divorced and battered women being key.

And while Trixie84 is right that learning self-defense can be empowering for women (it was for me), it is NOT a solution. Read Melissa McEwan's excellent blogpost "Five Reasons Why 'Teach Women Self-Defense Isn't a Comprehensive Solution to Rape" for, well, 5 reasons on why. Not all of the reasons translate exactly onto a stalking situation, but most do. The idea of self-defense also puts the onus on women rather than on stalkers/rapists, and there's already enough of that in this culture.

I'm terribly sorry about your friend. I agree with you 100% In fact i feel as if that person should've had to relocate or get a mental evaluation in cases like that. Something more should have been done. We need to ensure something is done for the rest of the women out there with stalkers and what not.

thanks for posting. as for your question "is a restraining order ever enough?" i would say no, and even "a restraining order is never enough."

feminist love,
jen

In response to the title of this post, sometimes a restraining order is enough but way too often it is not. I just last week accompanied a friend to court who was seeking and thankfully was granted a restraining order.

I want to highly recommend the book Courting Disaster by Jennifer L. Dunn for anyone interested in an in-depth academic exploration of how the legal system is simply not arranged so as to allow for effectively addressing stalking. This is a brilliant sociological monograph and though it is clearly about a very serious and depressing topic it is a powerful and fascinating read. Dr. Dunn observes a Domestic Violence Unit, interviews stalking survivors, and analyzes heteronormative notions of romance and masculinity to inform her analysis of the failings of the criminal justice system in the case of stalking. Most significantly she goes on to offer practical and reasonable suggestions for policy changes.

I guess I am feeling a bit pessimistic right now but I am inclined to believe that it will take a huge movement to make the necessary changes to the legal system similar to the policy changes of the 1970s and early 1980s that allowed for protecting survivors and reporting of rape and sexual assault especially by acquaintances.

The problem is not that these men don't know that stalking is scary, murder is wrong, and violence is not ok. It is that people don't generally have to toolkit to deal with extreme emotional situations, and more often than not respond in a manner that is not appropriate.

Simply stating that we need to educate men is not enough. Everyone has been educated that murder is wrong, yet we are confronted that it happens on a regular basis. More education about how wrong it is, how damaging it is, how scary incarceration is will not change that fact.

Making people who have restraining orders out on them attend classes on how to deal with painful, or otherwise intense, emotions might be a part of a solution though. It is timely - they are feeling those emotions right then and it allows for community followup. It probably also costs a lot and is an unproven theory, which means a smaller left-leaning city would need to be found to test it on. Plus it would need oversight to make sure people aren't abusing the system.

As for situations with children are involved the complexities only increase. What is key there is that no one feels backed into a corner and that they only have one option to get out.

The job of the police is to respond to crime and to catch criminals. I don't really understand why people expect the police to protect them from crimes yet commited. Do what you need to do to protect yourself, accept the fact that it may never be enough, and if things do turn violent act first and apologize second - better to spend a few years in jail than a lifetime underground.

I volunteer helping people request temporary restraining orders. I agree with Lizzie: the main function of a restraining order is to create more severe penalties for abusers if those abusers violate the orders. Restraining orders have to be enforced to be protective, though.

It's extremely important for restraining order applicants to be offered other ways to protect themselves. They need information about who they should call in case of emergency, how to get the restraining order enforced, how to hide from their abusers, how to press charges for criminal acts, and so on.

Also, in response to Mark:
"I don't really understand why people expect the police to protect them from crimes yet commited. Do what you need to do to protect yourself, accept the fact that it may never be enough, and if things do turn violent act first and apologize second - better to spend a few years in jail than a lifetime underground."

Well. Your "fight back, victim!" theory would work just fine if abuse didn't involve huge imbalances in power. What woman in her right mind would "act first and apologize second" by trying to fight back against a man twice her size, or a man with a weapon, or a man who had threatened her children, or a man who would happily destroy her body and property?

Furthermore, people "expect" the police to protect them from future crimes because the law protects them from future crimes.

Thank you Lizzie. I understand that it is incredibly frustrating that there is so little that can be done to protect a person when someone actively wants to hurt them. It's terrifying. But orders of protection are not silly.

Here's how it works. You get your OOP (or injunction against harassment, depending on your situation), and you set the limits of contact. If you have decided, for instance, that you want no contact, then it is a crime for the other person to so much as email you. Then, every time contact is attempted or made, a crime is committed, and that is a potential arrest, if said contact is reported to law enforcement. Three misdemeanors with a DV tag equals a felony. That's why OOP's aren't silly. Three texts from your abusive boyfriend? Then he's not getting OR'd after he's arrested. And really, he might not get out the first time, it depends on the judge.

Which brings me to my second point: Danyell, serial killers and child molesters do not get stuck in jail with no hope of getting out. The judge sets the bond, which can be cash or secured, and if they have family with enough money, or a judge that's lenient, it's really easy for them to be back on the streets within 24 hours. I live in Flagstaff right now, and over the summer there was a murder of a 16 year old here. Three boys were arrested and charged with this, and at their IA's, the judge set bond at a million dollars, cash. A second judge thought that was too high, and not only dropped their bond to $100k, but made it secured, meaning their wealthy families only had to come up with $10,000 dollars to get these killers out of jail. They're walking around town like it's nothing.

I have to disagree with a few points in this post. I work in a domestic violence organization and am a law student.

you wrote "But see the problem is a restraining order doesn't restrain someone who is psychotic, obsessed or just hates women which is usually at the root of most violence against women."

This might be true generally, but it's not true in domestic violence cases. Forgive me for not having my stats handy, but there is no predictor for abuse. These men are not mentally ill, and have there are no psychological tests or personality test to determine who is or will be a batterer. Battering is about control. Obviously, more than just batterers deserve restraining orders (as in your case) but I want to make sure people understand this.

Many people have said ROs are not useful or don't "do anything". In fact, in domestic violence cases, restraining orders and arrests greatly reduce the chance that the batterer will continue violence, unless they are unemployed. And as mentioned above, they create a NEW crime- contempt of court for contact, or whatever else you outline in the RO, that can prevent the batterer from escalating into violence (getting arrested for contacting you can reduce the chance they will be violent in the future) Many abusive people are extremely rational, and you wouldn't know they were a batterer, and many are irrational. Which has little bearing on how violent they will be, or how far they will go. I just don't want people to be discouraged and fail to seek a RO because they think they are worthless. They very often reduce repeat violence, and should be considered as an option to protect yourself. Obviously theyre not perfect, and they aren't going to stop everyone.

Alara- you can, and often people do, get restraining orders against partners who still have visitation with their kids. This is completed through a visitation center where the children can be safely exchanged. Sometimes the batterer is only violent to the spouse, and the judge can decide the children are not in danger. The judge can do whatever they feel is necessary to keep the survivor and children safe.

eco said: "Forgive me for not having my stats handy, but there is no predictor for abuse. These men are not mentally ill, and have there are no psychological tests or personality test to determine who is or will be a batterer."

I agree and would add that the only predictor for abuse is past abuse. That's why restraining orders are important. (1) RO's acknowledge past abuse--and, in the case of ex parte temporary orders, they do so without even requiring a hearing with the abuser present. (2) Anticipating the risk of future harm, an RO increases the criminality of that harm should it occur.

Restraining orders aren't enough in the sense that they don't build walls around victims of violence, who need other forms of support in addition to RO's. But they are an important part of recognizing and criminalizing violence.

The answer is 'no'. Relying on a system where racism and sexism are institutionalized will never be enough.

First of all, it's awful reading about any violence toward women...But I want to be honest here, in reading some of these comments I find myself disappointed at how some of us feminists are so quick to call for imprisonment and reliance on the "justice system" as a solution to violence perpetrated against women. I understand the instinct to want to do so. But as I've learned more and more about feminist and anti-racist movements, intersectionality, about prisons and the PIC, and from my own experience as an assault survivor, it seems more and more apparent that imprisonment strategies are actually counterproductive to both feminist and anti-racist agendas - especially where it concerns violence. I think that it is naive for us to think that punitive criminalization tactics
are going to bring about positive change and an improvement in women's safety as a whole. (True it can keep a stalker/batterer away from his victim at a critical moment, but what happens once that person is released several days, weeks or months later?)

Look, I am in no way trying to excuse men who harm women. I am in no way trying to advocate that they "get away with it". I simply want to point out that this reliance on a violent and unjust system, especially in this country where rates of imprisonment are the highest in the world at a time when we are seeing an increasing militarized police presence, particularly in minority communities...that this can only lead to MORE violence, MORE social and economic strife, MORE division and harm to communities...because our this system is rooted in a culture of mysogyny and racism, it can only beget MORE misogynistic and racially motivated violence. I am not trying to blame feminists or victims for this country's over reliance on imprisonment. However, as feminists, we should be talking about this issue and creating some sort of awareness and reaching out to other anti-oppression groups for ideas. Unfortunately, too often, the issue goes unspoken of.

I think part of the silence on this issue has very much to do with white privilege within feminist communities, and the fact that the voices of WOC are often marginalized within "mainstream" feminism.

Samhita, you wrote a great article awhile back and I remember you posting here on this as well, you state that feminists need to be talking to anti-prison advocates and start listening to the voices of WOC...you talk about the culture of violence that our "criminal justice system" functions on and I think this is also one of the main points I want to make, because once you start to think about all this, I think it's pretty easy to make the connection to the racial and misogynistic violence that this system breeds. I don't know what the answer is to reduce/eliminate the violence against women. But, what I do feel, is that we need a new paradigm in how we deal with it.

Thoughts? ideas?

I had to deal with a physically/verbally abusive ex, who started stalking me after I broke up with him. It got to the point where I took out a restraining order, and while a piece of paper doesn't seem like much, it's not really an end, it's a start to a larger process.

Most importantly, it starts the paper trail. The more you can prove that someone has a history of harassment, the less likely the cops are to let them slide if they continue to bother you. Or anyone else, for that matter.

It also sends a clear message: "Leave me alone." This won't work if the stalker is truly nuts, but when the sheriff bangs on the door to serve them with the paperwork, it's a wake-up call that yes, it's over, yes, you are serious, now knock it off, fucker. (Sheriff service is still the best $25 I ever spent. HA!) The cops that I dealt with echoed what some of the posters here have already said-- a lot of abusers will quit the harassment when they know that they've been reported and will be arrested if they don't quit.

That's just my personal experience with it. It wasn't so much that he was mentally deranged, but he did like to be the one on a power trip. Getting the restraining order was a way of balancing the equation. Yes, he might still be physically able to harass me, but now I could have his worthless ass hauled off to jail and then Everyone Would Know. Thankfully, I never had to enforce it. :|

Callie, this is a good reminder:
". . . the only predictor for abuse is past abuse. That's why restraining orders are important . . . [they] acknowledge past abuse."

And not just for the person getting the RO. One of the things that felt productive about getting one against my sister's stalker was that if he moved on to another woman, there would be a record that she had issued a RO against him. When my sister met him, there was no paper trail to hint that he could have stalked his exes before her -- but her RO made sure that if anyone else looked him up, there would be.

meeneecat, I think you're right that we should also be talking about some of the larger cultural/societal changes needed to address violence against women, and the importance of recognizing the intersectionality of class, race, and the "justice system." I was happy to see Miriam's writing on feministing a little while ago about the prison conference she attended for that reason. Our prison and sentencing system needs MAJOR reform, no doubt.

As far as the personal stories, go, though? We work with what we have. My sister did not want her ex to go to jail -- she wanted him to get therapy, meds, treatment. He wouldn't. So what did we have to work with? A RO and jail. Our main priority was to keep her safe, and she only felt safe once he was in jail. For me, that was her only responsibility: to keep herself safe, using any and all of the tools available to her.

I really wish we could classify domestic violence and murder as a hate crime against women. I think it would make it easier to file charges against the people who do these acts.

Based on many situations like this which I have seen over many years, I have come to the personal conclusion that there has to be a legal mechanism put in place which equates these kinds of stalkers with sex-offenders, placing the most egregious ones in some type of protective custody and putting the others on a registry after a proven offense. These people (including a fair number of women) have very serious mental health issues which can lead to awful consequences as seen in Oakland. These types of stalkers run the gamut from straight to gay to "all of the above". I am also of the opinion that any person who is threatened with this type of violence should learn adequate self-defense measures. Any person leaving a relationship where this type of stalking is an actual possibility should take measures to find community resources (like safe-houses), if possible, prior to getting out. Finally, any person getting into a potential romantic relationship (of any type) should not get overly involved too soon until he or she has had a chance to objectively look at whether the situation is a safe one. For younger people this is a real challenge because the pulsing beat to become sexually involved is so strong. However, it's best to defer sex until one has made this assessment since too-early sex with the wrong person is way worse than being celibate your whole life.

this reminds me of a friend of mine, who had an abusive stepfather for many years. her mother had a restraining order against him, and one of his scare tactics was to call them obsessively from a spot that the cops pinpointed as being exactly 1 ft (or something) beyond the restraining order area.

This is one of the times when I agree with Andrea Dworkin, if more women killed men, fewer men would kill women. I do not understand why anyone would rely on the police to protect them. The police have no obligation to protect you, even if you have an RO. There are several cases decided at very high level courts that say women or their surviving families can't sue the police if they're injured or killed because cops didn't enforce an RO. Even giving the cops every benefit of the doubt regarding their willingness to enforce ROs and arrest violators, there is still the problem that they can't bend the space-time continuum, if a woman even manages to call 911, so they can get to her before the offender breaks down the door and assaults/kills her. Any woman who gets a restraining order and doesn't obtain some method of self protection is deluding herself. Not to mention acting out a patriarchal, paternalistic relationship with society where the helpless, weak woman needs the powerful, strong police officer (usually a man) to protect her. This is one area I've never been able to agree with the prevailing feminist mindset, that guns are bad. Guns are the great equalizer, and there are a lot of ways to make them quite safe, like laser sites, so you don't miss your target, bullets that won't go through walls, and safeties in the grip so children can't accidentally shoot themselves or anyone else. Maybe ROs would not be so necessary if batterers and stalkers knew their victims were armed and willing to use lethal force to protect themselves. And what jury is going to convict a woman for shooting her batterer who is violating an RO?
As far as just locking batterers and stalkers up, a pretty big principle in this country is that we don't lock people up if they haven't been convicted of a crime, and they're entitled to bail while charges are pending. Most ROs are entered after an accusation has been made, but before a conviction. Preventative detention doesn't fit in very well in our justice system. And spending time in jail is going to make most men less angry and violent once they get out? Women need to be willing to protect themselves, and value their lives, and the lives of their children, more than the lives of their batterers. I think every RO should come with a coupon for a free gun training seminar and range time and a concealed carry permit once a woman completes the course, a fact that should be made abundantly clear to the batterer: "Violate the RO and she gets to shoot you, no questions asked." Watch the number of women killed drop.

On long-term strategies for dealing with the problem:

I agree that better education for women is needed, not because it's women's fault that they end up with abusers or because all women who understand how DV works successfully avoid abusers, but because it *helps.* Many of the traits of abusers are actively romanticized in our culture -- jealousy and possessiveness are seen as signs that "he really loves you", men who call constantly and otherwise bother women are often shown from their own perspective in romantic comedies where their perseverance is rewarded and they get the girl, self-help books often teach women inadvertently that if there is a problem in their relationship they have to change themselves to fix it, and so on. A woman who knows how abusers work is not *safe* from ever being abused but she is more likely to see the problem coming and get out before she's too entangled to do so safely.

Likewise, education for men is vitally important! Men are *also* taught that stalking behavior is romantic, cute or funny. It's not. I knew a guy who genuinely believed that if he kept pestering me to date him, sooner or later I had to give in and fall in love with him, because that's how it works in movies. He actually told me this.

Men need to be taught, *by* men, preferably by men who perform masculinity so well that their students won't question their cred as men, that physical violence against women and rape is *wrong*. With appropriate nuances. For instance, can you defend yourself against a woman wielding a knife? Of course. If your girlfriend slaps you, do you just have to take it? You can physically restrain her from slapping you, but it's wrong to hit her back -- if she's weaker than you that's uneven force, and if she's stronger than you (which is rare) it causes escalation. When we say that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, does that mean that having sex with a slightly buzzed woman who comes on to you is rape? No, if she's physically mobile, active, and only about as drunk as you are, it's not rape, but if she's much drunker than you are, turn her down anyway because if she doesn't remember it in the morning she might feel raped, which is as damaging as actually being raped. And so on.

Both men and women need to be taught *both* how to recognize and avoid an abuser, and how not to be an abuser. Many women think they can't be abusive because they're women. In fact 12% of all victims of serious DV injury are men, and while some of them are gay, not all of them are... which, since women are generally physically weaker than men, implies that a lot *more* than 12% of DV victims of more minor violence might be male heterosexuals. Many men think they can't be abused because they're men. How to avoid an abuser, and how not to be an abuser, should be taught by same-sex teachers to the teens separately, the way sex ed is done (in fact it should be part of sex ed), with appropriate editing of the message. (Teen boys need a *lot* more education on how not to be rapists than teen girls do. Although teen girls do need to be taught that "Have sex with me or I'll kill myself" is, if not rape, coercive. I know too many men who had not-entirely-consensual sex (where the lack of consent was *theirs*, not the girls') with teen girls, when they were teen boys, because the girls threatened to kill themselves if the boys didn't put out.)

Will this fix the problem? No, vicious violent people will still abuse and rape because they can, even if they know it's wrong. But clearing up the *cultural* problem where many people don't understand that it's wrong to behave that way will do a lot to help; it will teach people who would have abused because they thought it was acceptable or justified not to do it, and when the people who know it's wrong do it anyway, it will teach the people who might have supported or defended them to stand up for the victim instead.

As for incarceration... a lot of times incarceration is a really dumb idea, or overkill, or unnecessary. But not everyone can change, and no one who doesn't want to change can be changed by force, so if you have an unrepentant abuser what the hell do you do with him except lock him up? I think incarceration in general would be a much less problematic solution for the incorrigibles if we didn't turn to it as our *first* solution for the people who really can be helped to change. Also, if we didn't lock people up for drug use. Also, if we didn't lock up blacks a zillion times more often than whites. If we had a system where drugs simply aren't criminalized, being a prostitute simply isn't criminalized (I have much different feelings about being a john or being a pimp), and we had a lot more checks and balances to prevent racism or classist abuse of poor people, and our first solution for family violence was re-education and rehabilitation, then I think you still need the prisons for the people you can't fix that way. But the prison system would be much less problematic if used as a last resort.

Yes, meenecat, Alara Rogers, and others, I'm listening. Yes, those are good long term measures to take to reduce violence against women.

And with resources as limited as they are (say one police officer available per 250 citizens, with a quarter of women experiencing DV/IPV), how do you suggest people be protected from violence now, to make the law, or restraining orders worth anything?

Also, though it would be my first impulse, there is good reason not to go threatening or executing abusers. Currently in Hawaii is a perfectly relevant cautionary tale:

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2008/10/17/news/kauai_news/doc48f8668d1c103253284742.txt

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/kauai_news/doc490ac1bec4fcb609104160.txt

Basically, a young man shot and killed his mother's so called boyfriend, who had himself threatened family members with a firearm the night before. No one is defending the reputation of the deceased, even an alleged relative who commented on the story.

Unfortunately for the young man's self defense claim, the older man was apparently unarmed when he was shot. Threat of imminent harm may be in dispute. Also, he was apparently not licensed to own the gun used. In addition, the deceased's abusive nature was apparently never reported prior to killing him.

The man is currently accused of second degree murder and being held with bail set at $1 million.

I am following this story with interest.

There is no doubt that this is a sad story and I am glad that the criminal was caught, tried and convicted.

I do however have some comments about some of the comments.

1. In regards to ankle-monitoring bracelets. Even though what a stalker is potentially doing cane be viewed as harassment, theoretically no crime has been committed. Shackling the person with the RO could be seen as un-contitutional.

2. To Lizzie: How can you say that self-defense can not be beneficial to help protect oneself from a violent stalker. Self-defense courses are great at practical knowledge to help protect you as well as a great self-esteem booster. Very empowering. It also helps shed the 'victim' and 'helpless' ways of thinking.

3. To Callie: Granted men are typically stronger than women, and the police are designed to "protect and serve". There is just one problem with that, the police can't be everywhere, and they have poor response times. So by the time you call the police, the crime could have already happened.

4. To Destra: DV and murder is not gender specific, man and women both commit these crimes. Also a crime is a crime. Murder has long sentencing, so I doubt labeling it a hate crime would hasten the process. If found guilty of a crime, you will get a verdict.

5. To eava: Your comment is flat out offensive. The idea that killing more men could potentially prevent women from dying, it utter garbage. Anyone who commits a crime should pay the price. You are correct in that the police have no obligation to protect you. I also agree with your stance of women owning handguns. Firearms ARE a great equalizer. No matter if the stalker can lift a truck, a bullet will stop them cold.

Although, I do not agree with the "violate the RO and get shot" idea. There has to be some act of violence before the trigger can be pulled. Otherwise it's murder, not self-defense. Despite what you may think there are people that have RO's that accidentally come across the other person (supermarket, videostore, etc..). As long as they notice you, don't approach you and leave immediately to comply with the RO, I see no reason to shoot them.

"One in 3 women may suffer from abuse and violence in her lifetime. This is an appalling human rights violation.

We can put a stop to this.

"UNIFEM’s campaign Say NO to Violence against Women invites people to add their names to an ever-growing movement of people around the world who raise their voice and demand decisive action on ending violence against women. As UNIFEM’s Goodwill Ambassador, I was the first to sign on. The signatures will be handed over to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, as strong supporter of our cause, to strengthen the United Nations’ efforts to fulfil women’s right to a life free of violence.

So please join me. ADD YOUR NAME TO THE CAMPAIGN."
UNIFEM Goodwill Ambassador Nicole Kidman

www.saynotoviolence.org

I'm really shocked by what I'm reading here. RO or POs should be a criminal matter. I'm a victim of a false PO. I'm confident the man showed no evidence at the TPO hearing since I didn't stalk him and showed no evidence at the permanent hearing because I was present. Nevertheless the judge granted it.

Since I didn't stalk this man and saw him only twice in 4 years, I have to remain imprisoned in my apartment. If I had stalked him, I'd no which places to avoid but I'm in a position where he could be anywhere because I don't know his 'schedule' or 'hang-outs.'

POs are power trips. It's a revenge tactic. Even if you are abused it gives you power. While I don't think this guy will hurt me, if the court keeps giving him false orders, he's going to have more of a power trip that he could get dangerous. Having a false protective order is more dangerous than having a 'real' order over a 'real' abuser. Because now this guy can basically assault me but I can't struggle because it would look like I'm the aggressor. He by law is declared the more value human being and any 'fear' I have is secondary or looked with suspicion. I'm in a position where 'accidental' happenings cannot occur because I can be put in jail. Remember no evidence was shown at the civil hearing, how can I feel confortable that evidence will be needed at the criminal hearing. He can always have eyewitnesses to lie.

I know there are abused people out there but POs are a Pandora's box for restraining order abuse. women abuse it more but kudos to men. They too are using it for control and abuse. Hey equal opportunity.

don't you realize how unconstitional it is to have a ex-parte hearing. The other part is guilty until proven innocent. Also it's civil but the defendent is treated worse than some misdeamoner criminals. It should be a criminal case with a high standard of prove. Every person on the planet can 'potentially' harm me. Should we have orders against every single human on earth?

I know we want to live in a 'safe' world but the safest world we can have is one where we are stripped of our civil liberties. Can't you see how wrong restraining orders are? Do you want freedom or safety in your lives? If you want freedom than it comes with risks. If you want safety than we should all live with ankle bracelets and have Big Brother monitor us 24/7 then no one will be abused but will all be miserable.

This false order has made me realize the only good that can come out of it is if I educate people.

I'm really shocked by what I'm reading here. RO or POs should be a criminal matter. I'm a victim of a false PO. I'm confident the man showed no evidence at the TPO hearing since I didn't stalk him and showed no evidenc

I'm really shocked by what I'm reading here. RO or POs should be a criminal matter. I'm a victim of a false PO. I'm confident the man showed no evidence at the TPO hearing since I didn't stalk him and showed no evidence at the permanent hearing because I was present. Nevertheless the judge granted it.

Since I didn't stalk this man and saw him only twice in 4 years, I have to remain imprisoned in my apartment. If I had stalked him, I'd no which places to avoid but I'm in a position where he could be anywhere because I don't know his 'schedule' or 'hang-outs.'

POs are power trips. It's a revenge tactic. Even if you are abused it gives you power. While I don't think this guy will hurt me, if the court keeps giving him false orders, he's going to have more of a power trip that he could get dangerous. Having a false protective order is more dangerous than having a 'real' order over a 'real' abuser. Because now this guy can basically assault me but I can't struggle because it would look like I'm the aggressor. He by law is declared the more value human being and any 'fear' I have is secondary or looked with suspicion. I'm in a position where 'accidental' happenings cannot occur because I can be put in jail. Remember no evidence was shown at the civil hearing, how can I feel confortable that evidence will be needed at the criminal hearing. He can always have eyewitnesses to lie.

I know there are abused people out there but POs are a Pandora's box for restraining order abuse. women abuse it more but kudos to men. They too are using it for control and abuse. Hey equal opportunity.

don't you realize how unconstitional it is to have a ex-parte hearing. The other part is guilty until proven innocent. Also it's civil but the defendent is treated worse than some misdeamoner criminals. It should be a criminal case with a high standard of prove. Every person on the planet can 'potentially' harm me. Should we have orders against every single human on earth?

I know we want to live in a 'safe' world but the safest world we can have is one where we are stripped of our civil liberties. Can't you see how wrong restraining orders are? Do you want freedom or safety in your lives? If you want freedom than it comes with risks. If you want safety than we should all live with ankle bracelets and have Big Brother monitor us 24/7 then no one will be abused but will all be miserable.

This false order has made me realize the only good that can come out of it is if I educate people.

I actually googled *Protect yourself from obsessed x spouse when cops are not enough* and I came to your link. This right here is exactly what i am dealing with at the moment. It is scary. I was with my now x for 7 years, I finally got enough guts to break up with him back in November 2008. It is now September 2009..He is STILL harassing me and threatning my life. He has broken my windshield with his fist while my son and i were in the car, He has pulled the pins out of the hood of my vehicle two times, i didn't know it and of course i was doing 50 down the road with my son in the car and the hood flew up almost causing me to crash, He has went to my work harasing me, broken out windows on my house, called my phone millions of times a day, almost choked me to death which he would have if my brother wouldn't have happened to peek his head out my slider door at the right time. The judge DID NOT want to give me my PPO. He said it wasn't worthy of one but he ended up giving me a lousy 3 month one woooo that's gonna help i know right. After he stole my vehicle a different judge extended my PPO to a year calling it a *Peace PPO* It is amazing, i call the cops every time he comes around and harasses me. Tonight, he was here, threatning my life and his own, the cops came and the only reason they actually took him was because he tried running from them. Otherwise they would have let him go regardless of what was going on with me. He came to my house, screwdriver in hand ready to do what he could. the cop said he will be in jail till tomorrow night. then he advised me that if i wanted a piece of mind i should uproot my son and i to another home...Then he preceded to tell me that the only way they can charge him with anything is *if* he does physical harm to my son or I. I was in complete shock. Coinsidering especially he threatend my life in front of the cop. I know for sure a restraining order DOES NOT mean CRAP. Tomorrow morning i am bringing all of my police reports down to show the judge who signed my PPO and hopefully that will give him more time. Because the way I feel right now is it was pointless to even call the cops..He is more pissed at me now than he was..and he knows the cops wont do a damn thing therefore he will be back. Sad sad sad. It takes a person to actually physically try and kill you for it to be noticed how important the matter really is.