(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Man arrested for violating no-contact order with woman he is accused of assaulting.

Why is this news?

Because the "contact" occured when she came to *his* house, rang *his* doorbell, and he called the cops to remove her because he's not allowed to have contact with her.

Comments

[elffin.livejournal.com]

And he's not even been tried on the first incident that caused the court to issue the no-contact order.

What is not included is whether or not he called her on the phone, whether or not he contacted her in some other way, whether or not he opened the door and had words with her, etcetera.

IF he saw that it was her, had not invited her onto his property and had not contacted her in any way previous since the order was handed down and then contacted the police to have her removed:

One: He's a dumbass. Never ever ever trust the police;
Two: This becomes a perfect example of abuse of the system. Formula: Accuse someone of sexual assault. Judge hands down no-contact order to accused, contact the accused yourself, (you could even contact the police yourself to let them know you're on his property, because once they show up, they still have to act that the no-contact order has reasonably been violated because a victim reasonably would not go to the home of their attacker) and you have gamed the system.

Hopefully all the facts come out at trial.

[larabeaton.livejournal.com]

And he's not even been tried on the first incident that caused the court to issue the no-contact order.

When my ex-roommate assaulted me, the lawyer I was working with worked out the same arrangement and it never went to trial. Apparently, most cases like this don't ever see the inside of a courtroom. First time offender, his word vs. hers, difficult to prove, yadda yadda yadda.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, and I have no problem at all with no-contact orders and restraining orders of all kind.

I simply find it at least partly fucked up that he got arrested after *she* contacted *him*.

(I also think that restraining orders should, unless there's an extremely good reason otherwise, go both ways by default - with the understanding that if the other person violates it, you do not respond. You simply call the police immediately.)

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

wait, where does it say that? it didn't give that detail when i clicked the article. if that's the case, well, FUCKED UP. but man, who the hell goes and holds someone down and masterbates on them? i mean, don't people that attack women usually rape the women? not just masterbate on them? they can do that in the comfort of their own homes to porn! did he know the woman? wtf? when did this story happen??

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

"Nelson said he is a commercial driver who has been employed by the same Portsmouth company for 20 years. He also told the court the alleged victim came to his home and that he called police to have her removed."

Also:
He's not been convicted of the first incident, only accused and charged, and previous articles on the case show that they were in a relationship at the time of the original assault accusations.

We simply don't have enough information, here, to say what the hell is going on.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

damn, wtf.

so sounds more like... crazy gf... fucking over guy's life...

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Um, no. There is more information - you just didn't see it.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

convictions on these kind of assaults are rare. The fact he got a non-contact order suggests a bargain has been reached.

The fact they were in a relationship is irrelevent. It doesn't mean he didn't attack her nor does it means any attack was less severe or wrong.

We have his version of events. Maybe she did come to his home. Maybe she called her to his home through whatever means.

[elffin.livejournal.com]

If he held her down and masturbated on her {edited to add: Against her will}, that's rape.

The problem is this: He's /accused/ of having done so. We do not know the facts of what happened. We don't have a trial transcript. Presumably he's pleading not guilty, or he wouldn't be out on bail. This is in Maine, in the United States, where people are presumedly innocent until proven guilty. He was released on bail and under a no-contact order. Whether he took any or no reasonable steps to not contact his alleged victim, his alleged victim still contacted him. It would not matter to the court if he had locked himself in a bunker and not answered the door: The alleged victim being on his property violates the no-contact order.

Whether he actually contacted her between the no-contact order being issued and her being witnessed by police to be on his property is a question of fact, to be decided by a court. Whether she did so entirely of her own accord is a question of fact, to be decided by a court.

For all we know, he might be a Svengali sex cult leader and she objected to the way he treated her, filed a complaint, he was arrested, she experienced Stockholm Syndrome and showed up on his porch after the no-contact order was issued and he was let out on bail.

The fellow was making a good-faith attempt to comply with the strictures of the no-contact order.

He fucked up by not calling his /lawyer/ rather than the police.

[chaosrah.livejournal.com]

fcking lame. so moral of story is call lawyer not police? grah. ridiculous.

when i meant rape, i wasn't being politically correct. i meant more like, you know, having vagina intercourse with her forefully. i realize any unwanted sexual contact is rape. i just didn't mean it to be taken so.. correctly..

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> The fellow was making a good-faith attempt to comply with the strictures
> of the no-contact order.

How do you reconcile that with the police accusing him of contacting her?

Because I'm not seeing anything that says "he contacted her" happened at the same time as "she showed up where he lived and he called the cops on her".

[badbadbookworm.livejournal.com]

It's not rape, actually, it's sexual assault. There was (as far as I know) no penetration.

[hel]

I don't see, in the article linked, anything to support that he was making a good faith attempt to comply with the no-contact. I just see it saying that he claims she showed up. Me, I wonder what the rest of that sentence is. 'She just showed up....cos I kidnapped her cat and threatened to kill it' is a way I could easily see that sentence ending. And if that's the case, then fuck him, he broke the order.
But, if she really did show up entirely of her own accord, without provocation from him, then him getting arrested is bullshit. He should be able to be on his own property. I'm fine with him having to do the work to avoid her everywhere else, grocery store, etc. But, she should not be coming to his home.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Er... he's being arrested for contacting her. He claims that she showed up at his house and he called the cops on her.

It specfically does not say that the contact occurred when she came to his house and he called the cops. It doesn't even say she made it into his house or apartment building, or even saw him when that happened.

Did you honestly look at this and not have your first thought be "Was feeling nasty, contacted her to ask her to come over, then tried to sic police on her in a petty sulk"?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That's right, I really didn't have that first thought.

The only contact in the article is her coming to his house. This makes it a reasonable assumption that this is the contact the article is about. Her coming to his house is itself unreasonable, especially as a reaction to a hypothetical contact not included in the article.

[hel]

Just because that's the only contacted mentioned doesn't mean it was the only contact. The article explicitly does NOT say there was no other contact.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

I look forward to the 10,000 blog entries from Men's Rights types saying SEE WE'RE RIGHT GIRLS ARE JUST TRAPPING MEN followed by a nice warm wallow in rape denial with a dollop of The Domestic Violence Hoax.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I certainly want more information on this one.

But the simple matter is, "man bites dog" is news.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

Except, "Dog lies about being bitten by man, has history of biting people" is a different kind of news.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

See my latest post on my LJ for some of that. I didn't realise it was quite so prevalent. Sheesh. The world should come with a warning label. "WARNING: Contains idiots who think victims are to be blamed."

/off topic rant.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

You misrepresent this. presenting an unverified allegation by the suspect made after he was arrested. I have a feeling if it was real, it'd be the headline of the story. It's also not proven the his allegation was the cause of his arrest.

Had you googled the name of the suspect, you'd have found a few reasons not to trust this claim:

Upon learning of his bail violation, police discovered that Maine authorities had also issued outstanding arrest warrants for Nelson for violation of a protective order and a domestic violence related assault, according to Capt. Janet Champlin.

"We believe he is violent individual based on the history we have with him here and the allegations over the border," said Champlin.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The article makes the clear implication that his description of the arrest is accurate, the judge accepts it, and the judge does not care *why* or *where* he had contact with her, only that the contact occured.

If the article is inaccurate, I'm sure we'll see more - but I posted it because it's a fucked up claim that the news people are making.

[theamaranth.livejournal.com]

i don't even know how to begin to pick this apart.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

To be fair: He SAID that she came to his house and tried to contact him. Sorting out differing versions of events are what courts are for