I have seen the future.

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.

From:

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??

From:

"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.

From:

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.

From:

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.

Edited Date: 2008-08-13 06:37 pm (UTC)

From:

Indeed.

From:

damn, wtf.

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

From:

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.)

From:

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..

From:

I tend to use the legal definition of a topic when I discuss legal issues. I know that not many people do. I suspect that our host posted this because it is a story about a legal "WTF?", and that it will engender passioned responses. I don't and can't expect everyone to take a perfectly reasonable tack.

And the question: Yes, the moral of the story is to call your lawyer, not the police. Only call 911 in Emergencies. Don't talk to the police without a lawyer present otherwise: You never know when they've decided that you're guilty of /something/ and are looking for a reason to arrest and indict and try you.

From:

>_< lame

From:

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"?

From:

No! You call the /lawyer/ immediately. Your lawyer will then contact the lawyer for the other party or the court, whichever is most appropriate and is most in your own interest.

The police will not act in your interest. They will act in the interest of preventing any and all possibility of a criminal act occurring by a member of the public, and their own arrest/conviction quotas.

From:

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".

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

I certainly want more information on this one.

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

From:

In a no-contact order, as it is here, it is the responsibility of the person who is ordered to prevent any contact, no exceptions.

That means that if the ordered person is in a public place and the subject of the order arrives, the ordered person must leave immediately and in a direction directly opposite from the subject. If the ordered person is on private property and the subject arrives, the ordered person must leave immediately and in a direction directly opposite from the subject.

It is the ordered person's responsibility to ascertain beforehand if the subject is at any given place, public or private, before traveling to that place in order to take all reasonable steps to prevent contact. If the ordered person shows up at a public place and the subject is there and comes within the minimum distance set out in the order, no matter what steps the ordered person has taken to ascertain whether the subject is there or not, the order is still violated.

If the subject shows up on a front doorstep, he must not open the front door, but must immediately remove himself from the property and outside the prescribed distance as specified in the order until he reasonably knows that the subject is no longer on the property. This is true even if it is his own property. No-contact orders don't make exceptions because the edge case of a subject showing up on the ordered person's front step of their own free will is highly unlikely, will always be done without or against the advice of the subject's legal counsel, and covers such instances as the mentioned possibility that he is a Svengali sex cult leader and she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Your mention below that he could have phoned her and then he tried to sic the cops on her is also entirely plausible, and is yet another reason why no-contact orders do not entertain exceptions.

From:

And I ought to have said "appears to be making a good faith attempt", but without all the facts, he may very well have done what you mentioned below.

From:

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.

From:

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

From:

So, in short: The police will say that he contacted her because she was within the minimum distance, regardless of any other circumstances.

From:

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

From:

badbadbookworm.livejournal.com

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

From: