I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt: this case is, by its very nature, incendiary. All it takes is one word from the DA said in jest (e.g., “What a nutbar!”) and the state ends up going through totally unnecessary competency hearings and pre-trial motions about sanity.

The angle I’m going with is that after ripping off the feds for student aid money, Trump ran for president to make prosecution more difficult.

Who knows these days, though. It might not have even been anti-choice nuttery but your typical InfoWars crowd’s “CRISIS ACTORZ BE FALSE FLAGGING” crap that happens after these shootings.

I think you omit a couple of options:

Again, the law is only as good as the enforcement. It would have been entirely possible to have an order of protection continued, without any other criminal charges pressed. And FWIW, that would preclude someone from buying new firearms from a licensed dealer—orders of protection are mandated to be entered into an FBI…

That isn’t true. The federal Violence Against Women Act bars anyone with *any* kind of order of protection against them from owning firearms. Orders of protection do not have to stem from criminal convictions, but can come from any number of court orders of protection that fall short of beyond-reasonable-doubt.

I’m responding because I don’t want any victim thinking that domestic violence charges aren’t worth pursuing —it’s certainly arduous to press charges, but the law is only as good as the willingness of victims to uphold them.

This is really just horsecrap. Almost every advice columnist, psychiatrist, etc. says the same exact thing about post-breakup communication: *no contact*. In Facebook terms, it’s just plain simple: block the ex, delete the photos (you can always download them beforehand), and move on.

What is key here is that the salon owners didn’t purchase wage bonds, and they continue to refuse to (including posting up signs claiming that they never will). This is an incredibly egregious violation of labor law. Please let me explain: