Long Beach, Wash., shooting victim had filed restraining order

[depakid]

A woman gunned down in a Washington beach city last week had filed a restraining order this summer against the ex-boyfriend accused of killing her. According to documents filed with South Pacific District Court in Long Beach, Wash., Lisa Bonney said she thought Brian Brush was going to kill her during a violent outburst in July.

Prosecutors in South Bend, Wash., will decide this week what charge to file against the 47-year-old Brush. He's a former Medford policeman who owns a Roseburg-based boat company.

More: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/long_beach_wash_shooting_victi.html

[Uben]

1. How about murder in the first degree

...and execute the son of a bitch! Maybe death by pitbull! That sounds fair to me. Or, hand the motherfucker over to the victims dad in handcuffs and let him carry out the sentence however he wants. Now, that's real justice!

[DKRC]

2. Dad?

Hell if someone walks through the paper to kill my daughter handing them over to her Dad would be a mercy to what I'd do to them.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. What do you have against pitbulls.

That's just mean.

Use some flesh eating bacteria or something.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Another piece of paper, totally fails....

[noiretextatique]

4. in these types of situations

i think a gun is absolutely necessary. a piece of paper is not going to stop someone intent on killing.

[TPaine7]

5. I'm shocked, I say shocked...

that the restraining order didn't protect that woman!

How exactly did that former police officer get past that restraining order? We need to investigate thoroughly and quickly. Perhaps the restraining order should have been printed in all caps or in a more authoritative font.

If those gun nuts find out about this they may try to say that potential victims armed with guns are better protected than potential victims armed with restraining orders. And we all know what will happen if that view prevails--blood will run in the streets!

:wow:

[oneshooter]

6. Don't be too shocked

Blood has been running in the streets, the blood of those who believe that a piece of paper, signed by a judge, will protect them. The worst part is that these same people are the ones who would not DARE to touch a firearm, much less learn how to use it.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Statistical]

7. Family can't even sue the govt for failing to protect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

An individual citizen is owed no specific service from the govt.
Not even the duty of protection when one has a protection order.

[paulsby]

8. there was a similar shooting at UW

a staff member had an order against her ex. he was not a student. she worked in an admin building.

he walked on to campus, already a felon for carrying a gun while the subject of a DV protective order btw, walked into her office and blew her away.

interestingly, while WA state has no law prohibiting firearms on college campuses, the victim was prohibited from carrying due to policies of her employer regarding employees.

fwiw, i've never heard of anybody on the UW campus who LAWFULLY possessed a weapon, committing a crime with it.

for those who think that the idea of guns allowed on college campuses is crazy, they need to look at states like WA and utah where it's legal. and a non-issue.

[Euromutt]

9. Anyone notice the very last sentence in the article?

Additional court documents show Bonney had the restraining order dismissed Aug. 11.

I was wondering why he was in possession of a firearm until I read that, since it's unlawful for someone subject to a restraining order pertaining to a child, intimate partner, or child of an intimate partner.

Also a shame the Feds hadn't indicted him yet, which would also have made him a prohibited person.

[proteus_lives]

11. Restraining orders are useless.

I know from personal family experience. She should gotten a gun and killed the son of a bitch before he had to chance to kill her.

I hope they fry the bastard.

[Treo]

12. Restraining orders are not useless

They can be a part of an overall defensive strategy. In order to get a restraining order in the first place you must prove to the court that the person really is a threat to you. Then if you are required to use deadly force to defend yourself the restraining order can be entered into evidence on your behalf.

BTW I'm predicting now that some grabber will mis represent what I just said to mean " you get to kill them and walk"

[one-eyed fat man]

13. Once again

events prove beyond doubt that the maximum effective range of a restraining order is precisely 0 meters.

You can add another to the long list of women killed only to have some pious twit say, "......but, but, but, she HAD a restraining order?!" like it was some kind of magic talisman that made stalkers quake in their shoes, yet deny her a pistol that might have given her a fighting chance.

Former state lawmaker arrested

[Treo]

15. You need to go back and read my post

I said you get the restraining order so that you have a paper trail proving that you were in fear in case you have to use deadly force. Doesn't that statement kind of assume that some type of deadly force is available and that the RO isn't your only means of defense?

[spin]

16. Restraining orders are very useful...

especially if you have a concealed carry permit.

[JonQ]

14. So the argument against guns usually goes:

why not just call the cops?

Well grabbers, why not?