Restraining orders work
Home News Tribune Online 05/5/06
By RICHARD KHAVKINE
Restraining orders work as intended the vast majority of the time: The person against which the order is issued will respect the law and stay away.
More often than not, the fear of serious consequences will sway a person to abide by the order's terms.
"Given the fact that someone has a restraining order against them, they are not a law-abiding person," said Rachel Partyka, an attorney concentrating on family law with Central Jersey Legal Services.
Still, restraining orders, usually secured through the Family Part of the Chancery Division of Superior Court, are useful in the majority of cases, said Sandy Clark, the associate director of the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women.
"Those are the cases we're not going to see," she said. "They're very useful for many, many women for keeping a batterer at bay."
But, as events in South Amboy early Wednesday morning proved, taking out a restraining order is by no means a guarantee of safety.
"Unfortunately, a piece of paper can't protect you from a butcher knife or a bullet," said Partyka.
On Tuesday, Donna Beckmann-Palladino, 36, secured a final restraining order against her estranged husband, 32-year-old Joseph Palladino. Less than 24 hours later, both were dead.
Before jumping to his death from the Victory Bridge in Perth Amboy, he stabbed and shot his wife, killing her at her mother's South Amboy home, according to law enforcement. Donna Beckmann-Palladino's mother, Mary Jane Beckmann, also was killed.
Given the anecdotal evidence that the reporter cites, and HNT liberal press bias, the headline is a joke. A more appropriate headline might have been "Restraining orders are not protection", or maybe "Restraining orders are good if everyone obeys", or even "Restraining orders are a bad joke".
If I had an abused daughter and she sought a restraining order, then I'd violate the gun transfer law in the People's Republic of New Jersey and give her my "abusive spouse discouragement device". It has the value of being 100% effective when used. When the abusive spouse came around to do her harm, in violation of the court's order, she'd have an alternative. No, not dial 911 and die! She could defended herself effectively. My advice would be shoot! And, keep shooting till its empty, Then reload and empty it again. (Admitted exaggeration; just slightly!) Problem solved. No 911 call needed; you know the police would be there in record time. Can't have an ordinary citizen doing their job. We might find out we don't need them so much.
When the Court issues a restraining order, the Sheriff's office should: immediately deputize her to enforce the order, escort the woman to the firing range, give her some lessons with practice, and "loan" her the pistol of her choice. We know that they are always confiscating guns, let's put them to good use. Further, the court should give her the PRESUMPTION of innocence in any shooting unless it's can be proved she went "hunting". With this type of a restraining order, any spouse would be wise to be extra sure about "staying away".
My personal recommendation is the good old 1911 Colt 45. While it may hurt the shooter's wrist, arm, or shoulder, the abusive spouse isn't gong to be be doing much of anything after receiving "treatment". It's only in the movies that people get shot and keep on going like the energizer bunny.
The dead old white guys, aka the Founding Fathers, recognized that "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Second Amendment was enshrined in the Constitution for just such people as Ms. Donna Beckmann-Palladino, Ms. Mary Jane Beckmann, Saoule Ms. Sveltana Moukhametova, and all the abused spouses usually women in New Jersey. They should have been able to protect themselves.
In better days, it was joked that "God made men and women. Sam Colt made them equal." We need to remember that.
Am I worried that it will be like the gunfight at the OK Corral?
No, I trust my fellow New Jerseyians to know when they are being threatened. Any woman who is a afraid is entitled to the full protection of the State. One of those protections is an express trip to the gun store. But, no, here in the People's Republic of New Jersey, all we give people is a piece of paper and expect that to stop an enraged or psychotic spouse. I like Sam Colt's solution better.
The Anti-Gun proponents would like to believe that we live in a peaceful civilized society where laws protect people. Us gun nuts know that the real world is a dangerous place. Two-legged and four-legged predators abound. Abusive spouses and bears come to mind. The article cites abusive spouses. Don't forget in California the jogger killed by a cougar and in Tennessee a child killed by a bear. Lest you think that the street will run red, consider the many jurisdictions where concealed carry is permitted; some without control. Florida was supposed to be where every road rage incident would devolve into shoot out. New Hampshire has had it for while. You know that the press would have dutiful reported even one incident. New Orleans demonstrated that it is the people who enforce a law and order society. When the good folks of NOLA were gone, crime ran rampant. Heinlein, a famous scifi writer, wrote "an armed society is a polite society". And, it is so true.
There are other benefits of an armed society. The value of concealed carry is that you don't have to carry to receive a benefit. If a criminal has 100 potential victims, then he has to pick one. If out of that hundred people ten are packing, then the criminal has a 10% chance of facing an armed victim. "Hmmm" says the criminal who should I pick? The gay guy. Ever hear of the Pink Pistols? The thin spindly blond woman. Agggg, that's Paxton Quigley and she's describing what a center of mass is to me with a laser assist sight. I know. says out hypothetical criminal, the squat little brownish guy with the big mustache, looks like an mexican arab. Ohhh, good day Mr. Massad Ayoob. Yes sir, I'd be happy to put my hands up. See the unarmed sheep are protected when we "salt" the flock with a few armed sheep. The criminal has to guess. Sometimes they will guess wrong … dead criminal! Don't have to worry about recidivism then. There's reason why burglars choose unoccupied houses. And remember that TV show that ask hardened criminals what they feared most? Not the cops, the courts, or jail. It was an armed potential victim!
There is no magic in a gun. It's just a tool. Dangerous? No more so then so are cars and chainsaws. Handle it with care, of course. Would all these women have survived? I don't know. But I do know they would have had a chance. And I for one would have liked them to have that chance.
So bottom line, I grieve for these women killed by our collective stupidity. We didn't give them the understanding, tools, and training to preserve their own lives. Worse, we fooled them into beleiving we'd protect them. Let's fix that now.
Any abused spouse is welcome to come by and chat!