In reading about the Charlie Sheen and wife problems it amaze me that we had gone so overboard with domestic violence laws that we had grant the courts the power to stop all communications between a husband and wife even when neither wish such an order to be in place.
Seem unconstitutional on it face to had given the courts such powers to interfere to that degree with a marriage against the will of both parties.
This have must more to do with her rights not Sheen my friend.
Number one, he had not been found guilt of any crime to this point in time my silly silly friend including the what had long ago been declared an accident shooting of his former wife after a police investigation.
Second, my silly friend this is not a bail condition but a restraining order that cover both of them and both of them could end up lock up for breaking it. So what is his wife charge with and what is she out on bail for?
Third, the Supreme Court had found in any numbers of cases that the state ability to interfere with a marriages have limits especial in regard to the right to married and be married. Ordering a man and his wife to not even talk is surely limiting their ability to be married!!!!!
Four, so what concerning pregnant women and murder as it can not be claim this have anything to do with safety as the order forbid even talking over the phone and not even Sheen can murder someone over a phone line or beat them up for that matter.
She does not wish this order so are we going to treat women as children or not?
I could be wrong, but if the state was called into the situation to intervene in a life threatening situation, then I think the state has the right to impose restrictions above and beyond what the parties involved (husband/wife) want
People with fully functional brains in their heads recognize the obvious potential for harassment and coercion between victims and victimizers.
Quote:People with fully functional brains in their heads recognize the obvious potential for harassment and coercion between victims and victimizers.
First of all no one had been judge a victim as yet and may not be and second I would have no problem with an order stopping communications if one of them wish to have it.
Sheen as far as I know have zero criminal record concerning violence but for drug/alcohol problems the same type of problems his wife share.
And this nonsense is now standard with the once major of New York facing such an order also against his wife wishes and there was no knife claim to had been involved as he throw a cardboard tea box in her direction and it ended up hitting her.
Are women adults or are they not and if they are adults then surely they have a right to talk to their own husbands if they wish to do so.
regardless of whether or not the accused is a woman, you misogynistic piece of piece of ****.
It was a Judge who ordered $8500 in bail with conditions, moron. The fact that the victim is a woman has nothing to do with it, you demented misogynistic piece of ****.
Quote:regardless of whether or not the accused is a woman, you misogynistic piece of piece of ****.
I love you to.
Now come on let not be that dishonest here you are the one who brought up that the leading cause of death for pregnant women was their male partners not me and these silly orders had always been justify by pointing to batter women not men.
No problem at all if the woman or rarely the man wish such an order but to jam it down their throats is insulting to their rights as adults.
Wrong moron. ANYONE out on bail for holding a knife to ANYONE’S throat will likely have "No contact with the victim" included as a bond condition
Wrong moron. ANYONE out on bail for holding a knife to ANYONE’S throat will likely have "No contact with the victim" included as a bond condition. Your hatred of women is incidental to these circumstances.
Sheen's problems are with the State. So too would hers be if she violates a court order.
You view women as children