If Attacker Enters Area He Or She Shouldn't Be, The Cavalry Will Be Notified

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s a tragedy that happens all too often.  The victim of domestic violence gets a restraining order against her abuser, only to be beaten or killed when that order is ignored.

But now, new technology may give victims a fighting chance.

Maria Santiago knows what it feels like to be afraid. Growing up in the Bronx, and later at the hands of her boyfriend, she was the victim of domestic abuse.

“My life was always about looking over your shoulder and always feeling scared or feeling like I didn’t know when things were going to happen,” she told CBS 2’s Don Dahler.

But Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan is calling on technology to prevent women like Maria from having to keep looking over their shoulder, if their abuser has a court order to stay away.

As of the first of the year, Staten Island will begin using GPS tracking devices.

“This technology that exists now, that’s available to us, it would be a crime not to use it to protect women,” Donovan said.

The way it works is when the person wearing the device enters an area that courts have said he cannot go, the system immediately calls the woman and warns her.

“It’ll be different zones — maybe her home and maybe her workplace, maybe where the children go to school,” Donovan said.

The system also calls the district attorney’s office.

The monitoring of these devices costs about $10 a day, which will be paid for by the offender, not the victim and not the taxpayers. If the abuser can’t pay, Donovan said he’ll use witness protection funds.

“The people who are going to be required to wear this are people who are convicted of violating an order of protection already. They’ve already done something where a court has demanded them to stay away from their victim,” Donovan said.

“I think it could be very helpful,” Santiago said.

Santiago now councils victims of domestic abuse. She said getting a warning could very well save a life.

A Staten Island detective will be wearing one of the devices for the next three weeks in order to test the system and work out any kinks.

Do you think these devices are a good idea?  Share your thoughts in the comments section…

Comments (68)
  1. Suzanne Perry says:

    EXCELLENT points on here, I am glad to hear from the MEN victims for a change. I speak out for PEOPLE – women can be just as bad, if not worse as men. Nobody should “own” others. When women frame men is a HUGE issue here, serious training is needed in law enforcement. Hold up the law!!! When an order of protection is violated, HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!! Dont wait for another beheading or murder!!! This is not rocket science!! Stop looking the other way, letting them sweet talk their way out of everything (because we know they are liike that) and protect those who need it, man, woman, child or elderly!!! If you cant do that, you’re in the wrong profession.

    1. Baconknightt says:

      I am one of those men who was framed. I did NOT hit my now EX wife. SHE did hit me, slapped, bit, threw stuff. AND when the police finally came, she said she was “Afraid of me.”?????
      IF she was, why did she block the door to prevent me from leaving? WHY did she start to destroy anything of mine? WHY did she threaten to move in with a internet boyfriend she met and threaten to leave with our child?
      ALSO, during our divorce, she had a restraining order. I couldn’t see our son for almost a year. UNTIL mediation came along, I then got to see him for 2 or 4 hours every other week. FINALLY, when a OVERNIGHT visit came up, she demanded THAT I COME PICK HIM UP. I responded about the restraining order and I could only speak and meet her at the mediation. SHE said “i’ll take care of that.”
      SHE didn’t. WHEN I came to pick up our son, I had my brother with me. THERE was also bad traffic on the interstate (traffic jam). My soon to be ex wife kept delaying me and taking her time.
      She eventually let me hold our son while she was “packing his overnight bag.” I commented that was suppose to be done already when I arrived. As I ONLY had ONE day with him. SHE said “oh, you can bring him back a little bit later tommorow”.
      Eventually after 20 minutes of waiting, I said ‘forget this, I’ll buy diapers and new clothes and toys for him.’ I LEFT.
      THE next day after MY parents returned our son, I got a call from the local police, threatening to come arrest me for violating the restaining order. I told him about the agreement in MEDIATION. HE asked if I had those papers and if I could fax them over. I did.
      MY EX had tried to delay me to get me arrested after LYING in MEDIATION. Does this count as abuse? IF MY freedom had been forfiet due to her lies, does that COUNT as abuse?
      SOME women abuse the process of RESTRAINING ORDERS. OTHERS use it to deny visitation to fathers. WHO then HAVE to PAY CHILD SUPPORT for children THEY never get to see. (that’s me). Does that count as abuse? DENIAL of affection of their own children?My ex has even gone so far as to attempt name changes of our son.
      Apparently I was only there to donate the seed, and then pay for everything. IF MY ex wife able to, I would’ve been wearing that braclet.
      While I acknowledge there are men out there that ABUSE their significant others, I did not. BUT the system is set up that ONLY women are considered abused. AND that anytime there is a problem, the MAN has to pay for it.
      I continue to pay today, when MY ex is the one who had affairs, denied me friends, slapped, hit, bit, and now makes it so I can’t see our son.
      I get upset at this.

  2. Paula says:

    It is a great idea but I kowy abuser has escaped the courts so many times he would NEVER wear one because then he would have to admit he was worng and he wont and most abusers dont. I moved,York left my entire family and friends in NY and wnet to Maryland to try and get away from my abuser. He found me and I ended up with a black eye, brusied jaw loose teeth!!! my order stated no 3rd party contact an he continued to contact my sister amd mother and found out where I was. I have to sa getting a gun to back up thepaper is the only way.

  3. Van Wehrle says:

    ” If the abuser can’t pay, Donovan said he’ll use witness protection funds.”

    So in fact, taxpayers will be funding this. And I cannot imagine why on earth it costs $10 a day when you can get any any other gps device/cell service hell of a lot cheaper from anywhere.

  4. Ivan K says:

    Terrible idea, unless proper checks and balances are in place. The restraining order system the way it is now is unfair and unconstitutional.

    “It would be a crime not to use it to protect women”. What about protecting men from the women that abuse the system? Getting a temporary restraning order these days is as easy as 1-2-3, if you are a woman. Just tell the police you are afraid of your husband/boyfriend. Absolutely no evidence is required. No “innocent until found guilty”. The men’s freedom is restricted imediately, based exclusively on the words of one [angry] woman. He come back home from work and surprise-surprise: you are homeless now, dude! Gather your credit cards and start looking for an hotel.

    Will women abuse this system? They will and they do. Because even if she is caught lying, there are absolutely now consequences for her. Law abiding men abused by angry women are as much victimized by this system as sufferers of real domestic violence (against which restraining orders are not really effective as the article admits).

  5. Matthew says:

    Good idea, but it can’t fly if we’re still “innocent until proven guilty”. Although I like the idea of a former victim being safe from HIS/HER abuser, a mandatory ankle bracelet is, in and of itself, a punishment. I believe a person should be tried and convicted before any punishment is issued.

    1. Ghostsouls says:

      This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty. The article states they would have already committed a crime against the person, and or have violated previous court orders to stay away from the victim, so that isn’t the case at all, they would be in direct violation of a court order. If a judge issued the court order, they have already been thru the court system.

      1. Ivan K says:

        Their “crime” could be sending a text message saying “I am sorry”. This is no joke. I have a friend who was arrested over this.

        1. KP says:

          Shouldn’t have sent the text then. How is that hard to understand? No contact means NO CONTACT.

  6. John says:

    Speaking of domestic violence, how many more Muslim men were allowed to enter the country in the last 12 months…

    1. Matthew says:

      You’re an idiot.

    2. Ghostsouls says:

      Every Muslim man does not beat or threaten women, only the radical Muslims. There are more American men beating and killing women every day, than Muslim. Crime statistics are available if you just spend the time to look them up to back up your claim

      1. Marbran says:

        There is no such thing as a “radical” Muslim. There are simply Muslims who follow the Qu’ran, hadiths, and sunnah, and the rest that don’t but still claim to be Muslim.

    3. KP says:

      Why can’t there just be some sort of deadly plague that targets people of every race and religion who just happen to be stupid like yourself? Sigh…

  7. Tom says:

    Got a stalker, or an abuser with a protective order??? Back up the paper, with a gun. Buy one, learn to use it, and kill the POS when attacked. Fore warned is fore armed.

  8. rufus levin says:

    These devices do not work at all.. a serious offender just takes it off and kills the victim….do you think a killer CARES about anyone tracking him…..it is a total stupid waste of effort and money…and is about selling devices and services to bureucrats and the legal idiots that run the law.

    give me a break.

  9. Steve D says:

    There’s a solution to the legal abuses people have mentioned. Make judges and attorneys civilly liable for their actions in court.

    “They won’t be able to do their jobs?” Repeat after me: “Would you like fries with that?” People who “can’t do their jobs” need to resign.

  10. stupid idea says:

    Yes because clearly, the last thing someone looking to kill their victim would do is take off the GPS unit. That would be an obvious violation of the law…

    This idea is *SO* full of fail that I can’t even begin to describe it. More than that, it provides a false sense of security. Someone takes off the GPS, stalks their victim, the victim doesn’t get a warning call and is lulled into a false sense of security, and BAM!

    1. katcox says:

      I don’t think they would be able to take off the device. It’s an ankle bracelet like the ones they use for house arrest. I know some corrections departments use this for certain types of offenders already.

      However, I agree with you that it could give a false sense of security. Still, it may be a step in the right direction at least.

    2. cud says:

      The solution to the perp simply removing the device is to implant it in their body; seems like a great test market for the chip that will be in all of us one day.

  11. Carl Curmudgeon says:

    Probably a good thing.

    Men need to know when the abusive ex is within range.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman legally restrained…

  12. Jimmy says:

    First, the article points only at the male being the aggressor. Incidents of female abuse against males are far more frequent yet don’t get reported or acknowledged by the authorities, “You look like a big guy, you should be able to take care of yourself.”

    Second, 9 out of 10 restraining orders are fictitious in nature and used only to gain the upper hand in divorces. Once accused you are “presumed” guilty. The courts do not require a preponderence of evidence as most laws state because judges do not want to be accused of “doing nothing” should something happen. The courts need to better scrutinize the validity of accusations. Upholding the laws of perjury and making false accusations would drastically reduce the number of restraining orders taken.

    Third, state governements receive $$ from the federal gov’t for DV. The courts, law enforcement and special interest groups are all working to get that $$. It is business to them and they respond according. So don’t think they have victims or accused interests at heart, only that which brings them $$. Same is true for state child protective programs …. look what goes on there and the tragedies that occur by workers, many who should be banned from any presence with children and couldn’t otherwise hold a job at McDonald’s.

    Fourth, while I am sympathetic for victims of domestic violence, physical and emotional abuse should NEVER be tolerated, they are being caught in a system that has lost all control and purpose of what they are trying to do. You would be better served to help rid the BS complaints so real complaints can be dealt with accordingly.

    PS I’ve had two RO’s against me by my ex (wife at the time) never for abuse, only claiming “fear”. A third was given her when she physically attacked me. The police arrived to find the shirt ripped off my back and my hand bleeding. My son, who was present at the time and restrained my ex holding her down on the ground, said to the police, “Why are you arresting my dad, he didn’t do anything. My mom attacked him.”. They ended up arresting her too. The judge refused to try her and issued a RO against me. It’s a screwed up system.

    1. Roze says:

      Sorry but most acts of violence are committed by men against women, look it up. I don’t see dead male bodies popping up all over the country. Yes, women to abuse men but you are arguing semantics, just like female-on-male rape. You seem to me as if you are trying to minimize the abuse perpetrated by men against women all over the world. And where are you getting your “9 out of 10” figure from? Are you just assuming this because it happened in your case? Your personal experience makes you bias in this subject.
      In 2004, males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder. Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime, with the exception of rape.

      1. rufus levin says:

        lorenna lobbitt…roze, you are a gender nazi.

      2. Femfem says:

        FACT: 74% of all women are killed by domestic violence.

        FACT: Only 8 out of 10 CEOs are women.

    2. Jake says:

      You just nailed it. And the responders like ROZE are the self imposed blindness catoring to this urban myth(as well as watching too much TV)! This is just a tool for people like ROZE to enhance their dysfunctional sense of control. I have never had a RO, but I have seen it abused and misused in my community as described in Jimmy’s excellent commentary. The only way I would get one is like Jimmy said, the willful spite of a woman through a self important judge!

  13. Tyson says:

    I’ve worked in law enforcement. I’ve delivered these papers as well as picked up”offenders”. This was a joke in the 90’s when I was working it’s a joke now.

    Many times women used these orders as a tool to manipulate the courts and to punish their partners. If a man or woman was the type to abuse and wanted to continue the abuse a piece of paper didn’t stop them.

    The whole system is a mess on this one ask any law enforcement officer what the most dangerous house call is.

  14. DC says:

    Maybe we can start using GPS to track all the disability pension abusers from the NYPD and FDNY

  15. Pilikia says:

    In the Netherlands, they have implemented this system; and both victim and abuser must wear GPS devices … BOTH VICTIM AND ABUSER. They’re not telling you about this in this article; but you should watch for it … because it’s coming. Soon they will tell us that there are problems with notifying the victims via telephone… and then they’ll introduce the ‘solution’ – the victim will also need to wear a device. This is not about stopping crime; this is about tracking and monitoring a population – being sold to you with a sad story. Wake up! Start by searching for the people who are selling this technology. Like Michael Chertoff, formerly of DHS, who went on to sell airport scanners, after conveniently placing his order as DHS chief. Neat trick. Is this another scam?

  16. Janet says:

    I am DISGUSTED by the above comments. To trivialis DV and say most women are liars! How dare you!!! Here’s a stat 1 in 2 women will be killed by their current or former partner. Every 9 seconds in America a woman or child is abused. I lived with DV for 15 yrs. I have the restraining order and the ex who has said he does care what a piece of paper says. He’s proven it to. I DO have to look over my shoulder!! Maybe this device is the answer, maybe it isn’t but its a start!

    1. Tyson says:

      “Here’s a stat 1 in 2 women will be killed by their current or former partner.”

      So 50% of all women will die from DV? Really, where did you get this stat? I’m curious because that is a lot of women being killed

      1. Bearcat says:

        I was thinking the same thing.
        That means half of all the women we know should have been dead by now.

    2. Fred says:

      “Here’s a stat 1 in 2 women will be killed by their current or former partner.”

      You’re right, that IS a stat!

      Janet – I happen to agree with you. True domestic violence is a HORRIBLE thing. I came to read this news story because I am delighted to hear that they’re using this technology to combat it. And like you, I do NOT support the commenters above.

      But … come on. 1 in 2? Don’t let your passion get so aroused that you just start making up numbers that are so laughably easy to disprove. That’s not helping anyone, and certainly not advancing what I feel is a noble cause.

      1. JohnDave says:

        Never fear – this tech. will be used by the wonderful Obonzo gestapo to
        monitor everything EVERYONE does. 1984 is arriving, albeit a few years late.

    3. Wonka says:

      I see your stat, and raise you a few facts:

      nearly half of all *reported* DV results in charges against women.
      More men are raped every year than women.
      61% of child deaths as a result of DV are because of the mother. This number rises when adding in mother’s boyfriends and/or boytoys.
      women are 71% more likely to initiate a violent conflict than men.

      It’s also worth noting that this comes with the warning that women and violence are fast becoming very familiar bedfellows. The rate at which women are climbing in DV charge percentages has them well over half of all reported charges within the next few years.

      Put down your NOW pamphlet and realize that just because you were abused by a man doesn’t mean all the anti-male vitriol you see is true.

      1. Squeejee says:

        For the love of Wikipedia, will someone please cite their sources?! I’m so confused!

  17. Andrew Essen says:

    God help any male who having one of these clamped on him gets one that is defective or the plaintiff accidentally wanders into defendants area. It calls the local swat team too ! The newer trigger happy cops need lots of overtime and target practice and it is great PR. According to NOW one in three men are rapists, and these orders are given out like candy, each piece of paper worth $2000 on the initial signing for the county courts, and those attorneys and judges who are part franchise owners of the new locating device corporation get an extra cut too ! Makes good sense to me.

  18. Sean Delevan says:

    This is just wonderful. Anyone who has gone through family court knows that the number one tool to stip one parents of their rights is by making false accusations of domestic abuse.

    Parents are put through the system on baseless charges regularly.

    Now they can be falsely accused, falsely jailed, and tracked to boot.

  19. James Woods says:

    I think it’s a great idea. However it’ll be fought and found to be un-constitution-able in the great courts we have.

    I guess being the victim of domestic violence will become a civil right.

  20. weeone says:

    when every second counts the police are just minuets away.

  21. weeone says:

    a Colt 45 would end this crap quick! Just what are you going to do with the GPS tracker throw it at him?

    1. Bearcat says:

      Remember when Clinton wanted to give women phones?
      Guns would have been better.

  22. Butch Blosc says:

    Wish there was a GPS alerting the approach of soapaphobic commie Occupy losers. Their odor would knock you out.

  23. Matthew Dunnyveg says:

    Yep, guilty until proven innocent, and then still guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is one of those relics of the old, bad America we need to get rid of. Political Correctness forever!

  24. Al Clarke says:

    My son had a restraining order from an ex-girlfriend. Her grandmother, a real man-hater, instigated it because she knew the system. She waited until my son turned 18, even though by then he hadn’t called or seen her for three months. She made up three pages of false charges which, in many cases, her grand daughter refuted in court. Still, the one incident out of three pages that wasn’t refuted, a really minor and very public incident with no threat to it, got her a restraining order because my son was now an adult and the girl was still a minor. Neither the court nor the county attorney would explain the “do’s and don’t’s” of the order to my son. We were left to interpret it ourselves. The girl has since apologized for not having more backbone and she and my son have each married someone else. The experience was a total manipulation in a town where half the population is related to the girl. With sincerest concern for women AND MEN threatened with domestic violence, the whole DV thesis has been seriously devalued by manipulation and abuse. The process of protective orders needs to be returned to the same standards of evidence as required in criminal law.

  25. Anonymous says:

    10 Reasons This is a Terrible Idea

    Sounds like another well intentioned doomed to fail government program that is going to make a couple of people rich.

    Ten dollars a day = 3650 $/yr This is a burden on the economy, because the individual forced to pay this could have spent the money somewhere else in the economy.

    This provides a false sense of security.

    Are implantable RFID chips next?

    What happens if there is a malfunction in the system, or the system gets hacked?

    Does the system call the victim if the offender tries to remove the bracelet?

    You cannot get a GPS signal everywhere so the offender could remove the bracelet when no signal is available then go on the attack?

    Does the system call to warn the victim every time the device is not picked up by the satellite? That could be quite a few false alarms!

    Too many false alarms then the victim becomes complacent

    What if the victim turns her phone off or forgets it one day or the battery runs out? Is he or she going to become so dependent on having the phone nearby that he or she every time the phone is misplaced or forgotten?

    1. Anonymous says:

      I messed up on point # 10…. so let me fix it here!!!

      What if the victim turns the phone off or forgets it one day or the battery runs out? Is the victim going to become so dependent on having the phone nearby that he or she freaks out every time the phone is misplaced or forgotten?

  26. Anon says:

    what’s next, RFID chips for every prisoner?

    1. Butch Blosc says:

      good idea

  27. GlockG20 says:

    Maybe if the women were allowed to carry this wouldn’t be such a problem.

    1. weeone says:

      i say required to carry

  28. CWC says:

    As a male who was the victim of felony level domestic violence (from a woman) and refused to reciprocate, I’d like to have this in place. Also, not all abusers are men. That’s something she used for years to get away with it.

    1. James says:

      I would like to say, as a man who HAD a restraining order taken out on him, this story is lopsided.
      My estranged, and soon-to-be ex-wife took out a restraining order on me. This net effect meant, due to the Lautenberg amendment (1995) that I couldn’t use, own, or have any weapons. CONSIDERING that I was a US MARINE at the time, this had a negative effect on my career.
      I would like to say for the RECORD. I DID NOT THREATEN MY EX WIFE (except if you want a divorce, fine, get out/leave, GO to your new boyfriend).
      SHE had a new boyfriend and sought to deny visitation with our son. AND she did for over a year due to the restraining order. And even after, she resisted visitation because “he’s not use to you anymore so we have to build his trust with you.” IN OTHER WORDS, LIMITED VISITATION, GUIDED by a 3rd party, and EVEN more denial of visitation. That went on for over a year.
      Lucky for me, the first year, her restraining order was thrown out. As she ENTICED me to come to her house to pick up our son. AT which time, she called police to have me arrested. LUCKY for me, there was a traffic jam and the cop got stuck. SHE however, tried to get me to stay so I would get arrested.
      SO, she used the restraining order to deny visitation. SHE used it to try to get me arrested.
      THIS means the USE of restraining orders is essentially a weapon for women to claim ‘abuse’ but really win in divorce court. She tried using the fact that she had one in custody court, but that failed when it was revealed what she did.
      ARE men violent? Do we need to have this thrown in our face as well? WOMEN commit domestic violence as well. I had all my property smashed and was thrown out of the house many times at 3 am.
      I am so frustrated with women who claim “D.V.” and then they themselves are the actual practitioners with a willing court system.

      1. Marbran says:

        You’ve been thrown out at 3:00am many times? Sounds like you may have a problem after all.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Why should this technology only apply to women?

    1. RJ says:

      It shouldn’t. I’m a man who had to get an order of protection against an ex-girlfriend, and let me tell you how biased the system is towards women in this regard. It was an uphill battle the entire time, and ultimately did fix the situation, but only because she lied to her lawyer and they got busted with inconsistencies in court.

  30. Surfin Bird says:

    wont this violate the privacy act?

  31. Janice Schacter says:

    This is a great idea but how do we get Judges to believe the women is a victim of domestic violence? All too often, domestic violence occurs behind closed doors. It becomes a case of he said, she said. Tapes and evidence are eliminated because they cannot be authenticated, Judges don’t want children testifying and witnesses don’t want to get involved because they are afraid of the abuser and may have been threatened by the abuser. Women’s support is threatened by judges or the wife is afraid to come forward for fear the husband who supports the family could lose their job. Education of Judges is critical. If the Judge does not believe there is domestic violence then all the tracking devices are irrelevant since the Judge will never impose it.

    1. Dave says:

      Oh, yeah…the deck is REALLY stacked against women in court.

      You gotta be kiddin’ me!

    2. Natassia says:

      Then women who truly fear for their lives need to take swift and deadly action to protect themselves.

      The problem is that most victims won’t pull the trigger when it matters and will end up with their own gun being pulled from their hands and aimed back at them.

    3. jim says:

      Stacked against women? REALLY? REALLY? (Sarcasm). ALL a woman has to do to get a restraining order is SEE a JUDGE, FILE THE PAPERWORK and say she “feels threatened” by him. AT which point the man is served with a restraining order and immediately loses his gun rights.
      IF is during a divorce action, the man now has to FIGHT two battles. ONE with his wife during the divorce, where he has to prove he’s NOT an abuser because of a restraining order. AND 2. where he has to go to court to get the restraining order overturned. AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK.
      YET if the man is a soldier, policeman, ect, HE essentially LOSES his job.
      WOMEN’s SUPPORT is threatened by judges?
      AS such, your post is so full of holes its incredible. MY Ex wife threw up a restraining order while we were getting divorced. I had to LEAVE my apartment, and still pay rent.
      Later, when she moved out, SHE got SUPPORT in the amount of $700 a month. AND she still worked her job. She came ahead. SHe didn’t need to pay for a lawyer, the courts were on her side with the restraining order, and she got excessive amount of money for ‘support’ of our child while I didn’t get to see him for near 2 years.
      I think the women got the high end on this.
      OH yeah, Someone responded to my post that when MY then WIFE started a fight, and then the cops showed up, I had to leave MY HOUSE at 3 am. THAT is standard procedure thanks to D.V. laws. THE MAN, no matter what, has to leave the apartment. NEVERMIND that I was only trying to go to sleep, but she wanted to argue. THAT was ok, cause she didn’t need to work the next day, but I had to be up at 5 am to go to work. HENCE, a few days of ABSOLUTELY NO sleep cause the soon to be ex wanted to fight.
      WHEN I got home after a few days, my clothes were tore up, my TV busted, and TA-DA, the money emptied out of the joint account.
      I think the idiots on this board need to realize that abuse is more than a husband who slaps his wife. IT CAN BE a wife that destroys property, hits, slaps, bites, threatens to disappear with the kids, has affairs, and more. YET if the man says anything, he gets an ankle bracelet and told to stay out of his own house while the wife gets it all. Hmmmm.
      IF women need such protection from men, why are we letting them become police officers or soldiers? IF they can’t defend themselves at home, how can they defend themselves on the job?
      AND to the idiot above me, JUDGES always impose such laws on the man. NO judge would ever want to be seen as soft on “abusers”. Hence he’ll violate their rights, and throw them out of their homes, make them lose their jobs. Its so much easier than upholding the constitution.

  32. karma says:

    YES it is! a brilliant idea. DV is not taken seriously as has ben apparent with women ending dead. Eddy Coelo (the ex /c/o/p) was let go time and time again after each arrest.. what happened in the end ,,we all know, as her body was found in a dumpster.Men have been charged with 2 felonies and the case has been dismissed, only to have the same guy arrested. 1 month down the line and this time, charged with a ONLY a misdemeanor (you got to be kidding right)..ONLY 1 month down the line another arrest? same person? oh oh.. Not taking this serious enough it seems. yawn yay he had 2 felonies a month ago ya he just got arrested just ONE month later, for the same DV on the SAME woman, lets just reduce and charge him a Misdemeanor and another YAWN TOP charge of a violation.? does this NOT speak volumes? please this should be taken very seriously.There should be a mandatory sentence applied to DV convictions NOT for DRUG CRIMES.. this GpS warning device is a great idea. it will REALLY force them to stay away. it should be mandatory in NY and all FIVE boroughs. Not just SI . Good job on this.PS: In a comment (I made earlier this year, on another news website,when a women in East Village NY, was brutally mutilated and killed by her previously DV convicted BF) I suggested that there be a DV offender data base (just like sex offender DB). Thanks for doing this GPS please put it on ALL who have been convicted and have a PO. sadly, It is common knowledge, that these abuser will go where the woman is ,and sadly, because they have charmed the woman of how they have changed and how much they love her. sadly she is seduced into believing and allows it (mostly).

    1. James says:

      OF course ONLY women end up ‘dead’. AND only men are abusers. SUCH broad sweeping statements show the IGNORANCE of many.
      MANY women use the threat of Domestic violence to win in custody/divorce cases. THEY know that its a case of they don’t have to prove a thing while the man has to prove he wasn’t guilty of anything.
      During the meantime, the man may have to also fight a divorce case/custody case. AND since he has this “domestic violence” restraining order, that counts against him.
      NEEDLESS to say, MY EX WIFE, smashed my personal belongings, ripped up my clothes, spent all our money on herself while we couldn’t meet the rent. I have had stuff thrown at me while I was asleep, I’ve been HIT, BIT, SCRATCHED and more. She blocked the door to prevent me from leaving and then told the police “i’m afraid of him”, KNOWING full well I would be the one arrested. A POWER AND CONTROL moment with a willing government/judge.
      The above comment by Karma should include the cases of women who use the Restraining Order and then ENTICE their husband/boyfriend to violate it. AS I’ve said, I’ve seen fellow US Marines get arrested because the wife called the husband, cried she didn’t have money for baby food, and when the husband delivered some, she called the police.
      SHOULD there be a D.V. registration? NO. SHOULD there be ANY registration? Just wait till they put YOUR name on a list for writing something ‘offensive’ on a blog.
      Sadly, currently the D.V. laws favor ONLY women in ALL cases. True there are cases of where a man has killed a woman. BUT there are cases of women killing men as well. BUT then they always claim the “i was abused” by him defense. AND since the man is dead, he can’t dispute the claim.
      Karma, again, YOU side ONLY with women and think ONLY men are abusers. YET the very laws you propose PUNISH men and MEN only and ONLY see them as the perps. THAT Is UNFAIR.

      1. Joe says:

        Sounds like you needed to have a hidden or visible recorder with you any time you deal with her. (Check your state laws)

    2. Al Clarke says:

      DV is not taken seriously because (mostly) women have manipulated it into triviality. Too bad for men and women who are seriously threatened and need a protective order. The entire process needs to be returned to the realm of standards of criminal law, where simple fear is not sufficient unless there is actual evidence to justify it. More difficult, but would “un-trivialize” protective orders. Karma, I trust you would feel the same way if the victim were a man, even though you don’t actually make that clear. If protective orders were issued as a result of convictions, OK. Right now, if the victim, especially a female victim, is merely afraid, she gets a protective order. I know three people who have had restraining orders. Two were totally frivolous manipulations of the system. In one, the man could have been construed as dangerous. Even though he had not violated the civil provisions of the order, the police implemented the criminal portion forbidding his possession of firearms when he tried to sell off the guns he owned. The laws are vague and can be implemented absent evidence. No wonder the process isn’t taken seriously.

  33. Adrianne Simone Knobloch says:

    It is a violation of inalienable rights. This prosecutor swore to uphold the Constitution. Gov’t can;t provide security like the Second Amendment can. “Shall not be infringed.” This fairy tale that gov’t supplants one’s right and duty to self defense is the travesty. Give the woman a gun and some shooting lessons. A lot more legal and a lot cheaper than 10 bucks a day.

Leave a Reply