Any man who has suffered in family and/or criminal court by the false allegation of domestic abuse is well aware of the denial of due process and anti male applications of the “Order Of Protection” (OOP). What was designed as a shield for female domestic violence victims has been turned into a sword where the system itself becomes the abuser of the innocent who is denied due process protections while being presumed guilty of future violence based upon his being male. Red Flag Laws will expand the ranks of those who can claim a person “dangerous” and restrict their rights with no opportunity to be heard. It is sure to expand upon the number of men unjustly accused and treated as guilty until proving they’re innocent.
Originally OOP’s were limited in family court to married persons and those who had a child in common and in criminal court to those already arrested for an act violence. But over time the persons who could obtain an OOP was expanded from those having a family relationship to “persons in an intimate relationship” with the relationship defined by the person requesting the order. Thus a person can claim relationship and obtain an order, even where none exists. To this we now want to add police officers, teachers, social workers, and other interested parties?
And at first directed at violent individuals the application has been watered down from violence to “abuse” and applied to those who MIGHT be a danger in the future. Also, due process was thrown out as the “victim” can now file for an order and relief ex parte in both criminal and family court thus forcing a person to prove their innocence in two venues. In criminal court prosecutorial abuse has police and prosecutors filing high and settling low. Men are often charged with felony or high misdemeanor offenses and threatened with long jail sentences, many incarcerated before they can make bail. Then at trial offered a plea deal to a violation level offense and a one year OOP. In family court the preponderance of evidence (51%) means that a judge can find one party more believable and issue orders where no evidence at all exists.
Of course the idiocy that an OOP prevents any violence flies in the face of common sense as a violent person committing violent acts faces higher sentences for the violence than violating an order. Thus the only person who is restrained is a person who would not commit the violence in the first instance. Police, Prosecutors, and Judges fear the political backlash of not doing anything and as such process and issue these OOP’s on mere allegation alone with no evidence presented. “I’m afraid of him” results in a denial of constitutional rights. The process is conducted Ex Parte so the man doesn’t even know there is an allegation against him or who filed the allegation.
The slow erosion of due process and constitutional rights is part of the radical feminist socialist agenda. Mass shooters fitting the “man with a gun” profile allow those with an anti gun, anti male biased agenda to portray all men as “toxic” by virtue of their masculinity alone. Certainly a male owning a gun is evidence of the possible extreme violent nature and as a group in need of restraint. How can we allow “toxic males” to own “dangerous assault weapons?”
Well meaning laws to “protect” women and children haven’t and may indeed be harming them. The vast majority of mass shootings are young males who lacked a biological father in their life which may be one of the contributing factors to their social isolation and anger. And a person intent on harming others and lacking a firearm will just resort to another method. A person who didn’t intend to harm others may be driven to it if persecuted without cause by being red flagged. It is believed by many that the wide media reporting of the incident and notoriety of using an “assault rifle” is why these incidents are occurring with that type of firearm. If the media coverage was greater using a pick up truck you can bet that would be the weapon of choice.
One good thing with the proposed unconstitutional red flag laws is that the public may begin to realize that they already exist for many men due to a biased and broken domestic violence industry and family court system. Men are not only denied that 2nd amendment right based upon an ex parte allegation with no opportunity to be heard, they suffer the loss of ALL their constitutional rights and end up stripped of their assets, removed from their homes and children, facing public ridicule and backlash, denied due process, all from false allegations.
To quote English legal scholar William Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted.” Or Thurgood Marshall who said “I was raised in the days when the prevailing maxim was: “It is better that a thousand guilty people go free than that one innocent person suffer unjustly.” I expect they, and the founding fathers, would roll in their graves in looking at the current system which is denying due process and the proposals to expand on the unconstitutional behavior already in place.
Lt. James Hays, (Ret), West Point, MS.
The writer is a 35 year police officer retiring a Lt. with the NYS En-Con Police. He was a co-founder and past President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc., a parental rights advocacy non profit, and also past Treasurer of the NY Men’s Action Network PAC, a men’s rights advocacy organization. He is a life member of many 2nd amendment, parental rights, and men’s rights advocacy groups. He retired to MS to escape NY’s unconstitutional laws and policies which deny men their God given rights.