Charlie Sheen, his wife and the courts

Forums: Law, Idiocy, Domestic Violence, Demented Misogyny, Domestice Abuse
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,305 • Replies: 51

[+3] - OCCOM BILL - 02/07/2010[quote="BillRM"] 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...

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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.

It is a standard condition of his bail, as the man is facing felony charges, and only the Court can lift it. If anything, their response is under-board. The man shot a previous lover and held a knife to this one's neck. The travesty here is that his bail was a pittance.

BillRM wrote:

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.

which amendment do you think covers the right to beat your wife and not be held accountable, Bill?

DV Laws are obscenely lenient. Do you know the leading cause of death of pregnant women?

Ignorance need not be permanent. Do something about it.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

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?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Who is bringing the case against Charlie? Is it his wife, or is it the state?

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.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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.

The man has a criminal record, and both the prosecutors and the judge are privy to past allegations as well as convictions.

BillRM wrote:

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?

This is indeed a bail condition and no-contact orders are very standard in these situations for good reason.

BillRM wrote:

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!!!!!

Again with the reference-less appeal to authority. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitution prevent the State from imposing these conditions. You are talking completely out of your ass, as usual.

BillRM wrote:

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?

People with fully functional brains in their heads recognize the obvious potential for harassment and coercion between victims and victimizers.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

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

the state is dictating the terms of a personal relationship in contradiction to the will and desires of both individuals. Unless the state can make a reasonable case that it is acting to protect kids of the couple this is of course an abomination.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

She does not wish to go on with this and given that, she was drunk out of her mind when she call 911, two or three times the legal limit if memory serve me, who know what the truth is or is not about that night and the knife claims.

I agree the state had some rights here but to order a man and a wife to not even to talk is way over the line in my opinion and a clear violation of both of their rights.

It cannot be a safety concern when you limit them from communicating in any manner including e-mail or phone.

Frankly, it come down to are women children who need the society protection whether they wish for it or not?

Hell it they are children perhaps we should revisit the 19 amendment that gave women the vote and even look into limiting other rights of adulthood for them. Hell it work for Britney Spears where her rights have been given to her father and had yet to be return and perhaps we should do something similar for all women.

You cannot have it both ways and be logical are women adults or are they not?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

This particular condition would be standard regardless of whether or not the accused is a woman, you misogynistic piece of piece of ****.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

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.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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.

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 ****.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

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.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

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 ****.

So it the “victim” call her husband will she would not then end up facing the judge for contempt of court or not Bill my friend?

This have no direct tie in to a bail as she have no bail and she is facing no charges but she is under a court order to the same degree as Sheen is.

So stop the bail nonsense this is a court order that is not a direct part of the bail.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

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. Your hatred of women is incidental to these circumstances.

2 Replies

really, wouldn't the police have done us all a great service if they'd just popped a bullet in the back of charlie sheens head, hell probably denise richards as well while they were at it (and maybe the could have stopped and visited lindsay lohan, tila tequila, every member of the kardashian family (including bruce jenner) etc, etc)

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Your lack of understanding of "contempt" issues is incidental as well. Sheen's problems are with the State. So too would hers be if she violates a court order.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

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

that is fine so long as the court has no information about there being an ongoing intimate relationship between the individuals, and can reasonably assume that the victim desires no contact with the accused. Once the court has a set of facts that go the other-way the no contact order idea must be further investigated. If both parties do not want the order, and there are no kids in danger who need to be protected, the court no longer has any grounds to impose its will upon the citizens in question. The collective has no right to regulate intimate relationship, or any relationship, in contradiction to the individuals. What the collective calls "protecting the unfortunates (the victim)" from themselves is in reality nothing other than violating the rights to freedom that all American citizens are born with, which the constitution does not allow the state to remove.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

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.

First there was no knife in the hands of the major of NY just a card board tea container. There was however the same results and the same kind of order directed at a man with zero criminal background who happen to also hold high public office at the time, so the knife is beside the point when it come to such orders as we both know.

Second once more my slow and or dishonest friend this order apply to the wife to the same degree as her husband and we both know it!!!!!!!!

You view women as children not me that need strong men to place their judgments ahead of the women and we both know that also.

You have no respect for women it would seem.

The courts should not have the ability to order a couple to have what amount to a divorce against both of their wishes.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Sheen's problems are with the State. So too would hers be if she violates a court order.

We agree the state is using it powers to keep a wife from talking to her husband against her will and you see nothing wrong with so doing.

Shame on you.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You view women as children

I too have noticed that bill views women this way. It is a sad fact that for a period of time this view of women was very common in the West. Women rightly rebelled and demanded to be treated as adults with their own minds and own abilities.

Luckily, creeps like bill are rare now days.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Interesting tact for the demented misogynistic duo to take, I'll say that. People who actually give a **** about female victims actually view them as children? Rolling Eyes

That’s rich. I guess the "I know you are but what am I" strategy is all that's left when the truth has exposed your misogynistic idiocy (the laws being applied here are NOT gender specific.)

1 Reply

Charlie Sheen, his wife and the courts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know