Thursday, May 07, 2009

So You Think “The System” Will Protect You

Belittling by judge caught on tape A woman is filing for a protective order (restraining order) against her abusive husband. The husband has admitted to the particulars of the case. The judge denies the petition. And then encouraged child abuse.
Ellender also congratulated the woman's husband after learning that he had threatened to make his 2-year-old daughter's "booty bleed" if she didn't behave during a family meal at a Subway franchise.
He was hauled in front of the State Supreme Court (2nd time - more on this later). His defense? "He had a bad day." Cry me a river.

That previous censure?
In the previous case, Ellender was sanctioned because he wore a Halloween costume in which he dressed as an inmate, complete with an orange jumpsuit borrowed from the local sheriff, handcuffs, an Afro-type wig and black makeup.
Real classy.

Aside from the "I had a bad day" excuse, he had - via his son, who is representing him - a list of excuses.
"He had a bad day," said his son, who noted that his father apologized to the commission for his remarks. "He didn't have his hearing aids in. He was rude, hurried, nothing to be proud of. But he was not out of control."
In what universe is congratulating a father for being willing to beat a 2-year-old child "bloody" not being out of control?

The woman who filed the petition?
"I understand now why women don't go to court," she wrote. "That judge treated me just like my husband does. He gave my husband permission to abuse his wife and children."
So the next time that someone tells you "The System" will protect you, that you can rely on the cops or the courts for protection, think again.

Of course even if he issued a restraining order, it is unlikely the police would do much - could do much - to enforce it. (See the list of stories at the Domestic Violence link.) Restraining orders are interesting legal documents, not bullet-proof vests. But you should be able to get one if you need one. (If nothing else it will be evidence at the self-defense-shooting inquiry.)

No comments: