Do No Evil – A Staten Island girl may have become the first person in the state to violate an order of protection by sending a MySpace "friend request."
What a waste of our court system and it's vindictive on the part of the PO holder. Stalker, violent or not, she can't commit violence via cyberspace and PO's are supposed to prevent violence against persons or property.
I agree, all the recipient had to do was deny the friendship request.
It would be different if the girl walked up to the PO holder and beat her on the head with her laptop or something, but this is ridiculous.
"Stalker, violent or not, she can't commit violence via cyberspace and PO's are supposed to prevent violence against persons or property."
Wasn't there a story recently where a child committed suicide for being harassed via the internet? Isn't harassment a form of violence? And if a PO says "no contact", then it means NO CONTACT.
I wonder by your posts on other boards if you would believe different if the 'PO holder' were female and the stalker were male?
Nope, I think this "stalker" crap has gone too far. People now use it as a way to get back at people they don't like. It's one thing if someone has a violent history, then they should stay away physically, other than that, that's enough.
Parents should supervise what letters and emails their kids are getting if they suspect a problem, and some kids commit suicide no matter what. Further, she can't email the other party unless she gets permission and that's what the initial email was.
Over and over I have seen people start with a PO and then a few months later they drop it and everything's okay.
No. I think it's the same.
It used to be a guy could pursue a girl (or vice versa) and send them cards and letters. Many marriages started out that way.
Now it seems you have to get permission to court anyone, and it's a shame.
Very few people are actually violent. 95% of all violent crime is committed by males between 16 and 25.
The rest of us like to have open and free communication.
Also, you can waive your rights under the PO. If she accepted the email, she can waive her right and begin communicating with the other party and no crime has been committed.
Again, this is just a waste and a vindictive person. She should have pushed the delete button. Another girl or another male, use your delete button and common sense.
Your just wrong. There are many kinds of harassment included in issuing a PO. It doesnt need to be physical, it can be "drive by's" where a person intentionally causes unease/fear or phone calls/emails/ physical mail/ contact through a third party ( ask OJ about that). I agree that alot of people (primarily women in divorce) use a PO as a hammer to gain leverage in child custody/support hearings There should be strong penalties for making false accusations BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT THERE IS NOT A REAL NEED FOR A PO IN SOME CASES.
Also a PO works BOTH ways, the applicant cannot contact the respondent either.
I would like to say this is a step in the right direction in judicial reform but I fear unfortunately that it is nothing more than a one time occurrence. "NO CONTACT" means just what it says. There is no variation for "if it's on line" or "if by telephone" or "if by mail" etc etc. In fact I believe those restraining orders include second and third party messages. How many women would be alive today if restraining order violations against violent husbands or boyfriends were enforced this way?
I have to tip my hat to this judge and I think I will mail this story to FOX NEWS. (I think they may be the only broadcast that will run such a story) This story deserves national attention just to prove it can be done. Perhaps, if we are lucky, but I'm sure we wont be, after this story gets in the news and people realize the law can be enforced we will be less tolerant when it isn't.
Also, it's stuff like this that gets people more violent and unhappy and polarizes them.
For every person that is killed by another (which is relatively rare), there are thousands that need someone to reach out to them. People complain about being lonely and depressed more than ever today, but we have become a culture that rebuffs love and good cheer because we're all soooo afraid of one another. how sad. And I'm not saying it applies to this situation, but an email asking permission to have contact? come on.
Again, other than a handful of people, now people are getting PO's when they just want to harass someone.
And, many people won't send cards or letters to someone in need because it might "invade someone's privacy."
I'm tired of that.
I agree with your sentiments korangirl but it's clear they don't apply here. The consequence of the action taken by the girl when she was violent is that she forfeit her privilege to contact the other party involved in friendship as well as in the violent behavior that resulted in the oder of protection that was issued. Apparently a consequence she was not prepared to suffer as a result of her actions. If she is now suffering from depression and loneliness because she has lost social contact that to is a consequence she has to bare as a result of her action. That is the lesson learned.
AS Oscar says the victim of harassment is not the blame for "causing" the agitator to engage in an act of harassment. However this girl is in fact to blame for any suffering she experienced as the result of her violent acts an that is to include the depression, the loneliness, and if she feels harassed by the restraining order, that too.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
ajaib01
Cuddlywoogy
sujata1
york.bowra
xina.bowness
rontravel
paddingtonji
pacoabes
evansnicoles
adamhowe1980
ryan001
elliotthicks1965
neoncandle
humemacdonald
JordanKasteler
LumFan
_kam0_
Adams917
SenorCoconut
starshinediva
avpd85
banny5656
Macas
askripko
Soft2uMin
justsay0pe
dreamme9669
totlespeed999
at01102002
food875dog
our0120home
star5cometo
vinatamayo
zebayaa
y_soitenly
Aidenag
Ciera Marie
tanyc01
BuyRealEstate
hurr1
bcoynejr
jstalin456
CtrlAltTabby
redbarin
Charlson
zaph22
koranagirl
Bkumm
JasonCalacanis
cosmogenium
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
19)
Vote
Maybe she wanted to kiss and make up!, all they really had to do is reject the request..
On the other hand, all she had to do was follow the court order...
Saying all they had to do was turn down the request is like saying it's OK for her to knock on their door because they don't have to answer, or it's OK for her to approach them on the street, because they can ignore her. "No contact" means just that.
If she had knocked on their door "to kiss and make up," it would have been a clear violation of the court's order, even though they had the option of slamming the door in her face. There is no substantive difference between knocking on their door and making the "friend request" on MySpace. In either instance, it should be clear that she INTENDED to violate a very clear order to "have no contact" with the family she had previously abused. Maybe they need to let Ms. Fernino spend a few days or weeks in the slammer to impress upon her that court orders are not frivolous, and that this is not junior high school.
The initial order, according to the article, was issued because of "an alleged history of VIOLENT incidents." The complainants have the right to live their lives free from further such threats, whether overt or implied. Judge Sciarrino is absolutely right.