Nov/Dec. 98
Behind the News

When Restraining Orders Don’t Work
by Nancy Norell

A Maryland judge granted Rosa Salvador a domestic violence restraining order against her husband Juan on August 18, 1997. The next day he entered the Gaithersburg, MD apartment where she was sleeping and stabbed her to death. She was wounded more than 50 times. She suffered 12 of those wounds while trying to fend him off, Assistant State’s Attorney Robert Steinheimer said. Juan Salvador then stabbed himself in the throat. Their 5-year-old daughter Erica called 911, crying hysterically in Spanish that her parents were covered in blood.

A year later, Erica sat on a courtroom bench with her maternal uncle, who is raising her, and listened to a judge sentence her father to life in prison, reduced to 30 years because Salvador plead guilty to save his daughter from testifying.

Could something have prevented this tragedy? A woman is dead, and a little girl is traumatized and orphaned. A piece of paper did not protect Rosa Salvador.

Kristen Lardner, an art student at Boston’s Museum School, obtained a permanent restraining order against her ex-boyfriend Michael Cartier. Shortly after that he accosted her near her workplace. When she refused to go out with him, he shot her twice in the head, ran away, then came back and shot her twice more. He then went to his apartment and killed himself.

Lardner had been convicted of multiple offenses and four felonies. He had beaten other women, scoffed at restraining orders and conditions of probation. Somehow he had managed to serve only a few months in jail. It was a federal felony for him even to touch a gun. At the time he murdered Kristen, he had already violated a temporary restraining order by phoning her. Kristen reported the violation, and expected that her stalker would be arrested. The restraining order was issued on May 11, 1992. She was murdered May 30 that same year. A restraining order did not protect Kristen Lardner.

And most incredibly, many authorities respond to a domestic violence situation by disarming the victim, as happened in Cheektowaga, NY. Lee Przybyl stalked his estranged wife Polly and her children to a motel in neighboring Erie County where she had fled. Although he had no permit, he told her that he was carrying one of Polly’s licensed handguns. She sought refuge with her widowed mother, but Przybyl followed her and threatened to break into the house. Terrified, the women called 911.

When the police arrived, they searched Przybyl and told him to leave the area. Then, incredibly, the police told Polly, who had a federal firearms license (FFL), that she must surrender her firearms. Outraged, she turned over two .380 semi-automatics, a Beretta and a Walther.

She told the police, "I can’t believe you want to take away my guns when he (Lee) has a house full of guns. I have a pistol permit and a legal right to protect myself and my children ... and my husband doesn’t even have a pistol permit." [Required in New York State.]

The police promised her that the Niagara County authorities would be alerted to pick up the firearms in the Przybyl home. Then they took firearms belonging to Polly. But Lee refused to surrender his rifles and a shotgun.

Two days after the police disarmed Polly Przybyl, she obtained a court order of protection requiring Lee to stay at least 500 yards away from her and her children. This did not save her life.

Lee Przybyl attacked his wife with a knife. She had defensive wounds on her hands and arms, but she died from a thrust to her abdomen which severed the aorta. When her mother came on the scene, Przybyl shot and killed his mother-in-law with a rifle.

Polly’s sister said bitterly, "If she had a gun at least she and my mother would have had a chance." A restraining order did not save Polly Przybyl’s life, nor that of her mother.

The most basic human right is that of self defense. The old notion that women must be passive, that women are incapable of self protection needs to be re-examined.

Although men, too, are victims of abuse, a Department of Justice study, "Female Victims of Violent Crime" by Diane Craven, Ph.D, states, "Female homicide victims are more than twice as likely to have been killed by husbands or boyfriends than male victims are to have been killed by wives or girlfriends."

There is no doubt that a woman in fear for her safety can take active measures to protect herself. Abuse is a crime, not "a family matter." Civil protection orders are one part of the solution. Help is also available from churches, law enforcement, health care professionals, and women’s’ rights organizations.

Domestic homicide is preventable. Partners who are likely to seriously injure or kill often send clear signals. In 50% of cases where a murder was finally committed, the police had been called to the home five or more times to settle disputes. In 35% of the cases police had been called at least once. Ninety-two percent of men who abuse their wives or partners have histories of arrest, and 95% have abused more than one woman.

As too many victims know, a "piece of paper" is not a panacea. A report from the US Department of Justice, "Civil Protection Orders: Victims’ Views on Effectiveness," examines this issue. It states, "Previous research has shown that the effectiveness of civil protection orders for victims of family violence depends on how specific and comprehensive the orders are and how well they are enforced.

Recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-sponsored research, conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) using interviews with women who filed protection orders, concluded that victims’ views on the effectiveness of protection orders varied with how accessible the courts are for victims and how well established the links are between public and private services and support resources for victims. In addition, violations of the protection order increased and reported effectiveness decreased as the criminal record of the abuser became more serious.

The report said, "In the majority of cases, victims felt that civil protection orders protected them against repeated incidents of physical and psychological abuse and were valuable in helping them regain a sense of well-being. A protection order alone, however, was not as likely to be effective against abusers with a history of violent offenses; women in these cases were more likely to report a greater number of problems with violations of the protection order. The researchers noted that criminal prosecution of these individuals may be required to curb such behavior." (Emphasis added.)

Criminal prosecution and incarceration can provide a temporary respite for the victim of an obsessed and mentally deranged stalker. The Boulder Planet related the story of Mary Morgan, who was pursued since 1979 by a man she met at the University of Colorado.

"I don’t know exactly what led to the obsession," she said, "other than I was kind to him. There was never any intimate relationship between us. Not so much as a kiss."

Since that time, her stalker barraged her with phone calls, and attacked her home.

The Planet wrote, "Sometimes responding police warned him; sometimes they arrested him. The courts ordered mental health supervision and counseling, but not jail. Each time, from his earliest court appearance in 1987, the judge ordered him to stay away from Morgan and her husband.

Each time, he violated that order, Morgan said.

The Boulder paper wrote, "Morgan considered carrying a gun, rejected that, and enrolled in a model mugging class.

‘I’m a pacifist,’ said Morgan. ‘(Self-defense) is such a gut-wrenching thing to do, I almost failed the class.

‘(The shadow fear) goes away when he’s in jail. During those periods, I feel free and light and happy. I open the curtains, raise the shades, let my kids play in the yard.’

Why is it so hard to put abusers and stalkers in jail when so many of them have committed serious, violent crimes already? And why is it so hard for some women to value themselves enough to defend themselves?

One of the most important things Morgan did to insure the incarceration of her stalker, was to keep a meticulous diary, noting every instance of contact, harassment, or threat. She kept in touch with the police—not only did this help them do their job, it also kept them from forgetting they had a job to do.

The DOJ report on the effectiveness of protection orders looked at the victims. "Before receiving a protection order, study participants experienced abuse ranging from intimidation to injury with a weapon. Researchers found that 37% of the women had been threatened or injured with a weapon; more than half had been beaten or choked; and 99% had been intimidated through threats, or stalking, and harassment. More than 40% experienced severe physical abuse at least every few months, and nearly one-quarter had suffered abusive behavior for more than five years."

No doubt about it—these people needed help. But just how helpful were the orders?

"The act of applying for a civil protection order was associated with helping participants to improve their sense of well-being. In the initial interviews, 72% of participants reported that their lives had improved. During follow-up interviews, the proportion reporting life improvement increased to 85%, more than 90% reported feeling better about themselves, and 80% felt safer."

That’s all just fine and dandy. But "feeling" safe is not "being" safe. And a positive self-attitude doesn’t mean much to a violent abuser. If he ignores a restraining order, a happy-face isn’t going to faze him much either.

This study suggested one thing—it makes sense to get a restraining order, but that alone is not enough. The study admitted, "...civil protection orders are only one part of the fight against domestic violence."

Another DOJ report approached the problem of domestic violence from the standpoint not of the victim, but of law enforcement personnel. The report, entitled "Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent Targeted Violence" first examined how to assess a potentially dangerous partner. It said, "Threats of violence arise from feelings or ideas that range from the mean-spirited to the messianic. Sometimes a threat is backed by the will and capacity to do harm; at other times, a voiced threat may amount to nothing but emotional ‘venting.’ However, violent acts can be committed when no prior threat has been uttered. For law enforcement or security officers, recognizing the difference between ‘making’ and ‘posing’ a threat is crucially important.

The report discussed some of the dangers inherent in dealing with a potentially violent partner.

"The target in a threat assessment case needs to be evaluated in terms of vulnerability to attack, job and personal lifestyle, fear of the subject and degree of sophistication with regard to the need for caution."

Law enforcement has a newly found interest in preventing domestic tragedy, but there is no guarantee that disaster can be prevented. As the DOJ study admitted, "Traditional law enforcement activities aim at apprehending and prosecuting perpetrators of violence after the commission of their crimes. In most circumstances, the primary responsibility of law enforcement professionals is to determine whether a crime has been committed, conduct an investigation to identify and apprehend the perpetrator, and gather evidence. However, when police officers are presented with information and concern about a possible future violent crime, their responsibilities, authority and investigative tools and approaches are less clear."

Where does this leave a potential victim? Certainly, there are many things a person in fear can do. Self defense courses range from simple common sense advice about avoiding dangerous situations and securing the home, such as those in the National Rifle Association’s Refuse to Be a Victim program, to intensive studies at the far end of the threat continuum.

The NRA offers Refuse To Be A Victim seminars for private presentations to corporations, businesses, and other groups and clubs. The seminar discusses the pros and cons of self-defense options; one, of course, being proper defensive use of firearms. For more information, call 1-800-861-1166.

Another excellent source is the nonprofit Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment (AWARE). It offers classes in assault prevention, firearms safety and skills, and use of other defenses such as pepper spray and kubotan. Men are welcome to take this course as well. This organization can be reached on the internet at info@aware.org.

The AWARE website offers some useful general information. For example, a basic issue not only for women in danger, but for anyone, is whether or not it is better to fight back if attacked.

According to AWARE, "It is virtually always better to fight back, particularly if you are trained in how to fight back appropriately. Women who fight back are injured less often, are more successful in stopping the attack, regardless of what kind of attack it is, and feel better about the attack afterwards."

AWARE gives practical advice to anyone who is being seriously threatened. "Report it to the police. Get a restraining order. Find a local organization that can help you. You may decide to make yourself hard to find."

Oddly enough, many police discourage potential victims from taking the steps that will provide the best defense. When Buffalo, NY police advised crime victims to buy guns for self-protection, they were told "to muzzle it." Fear of civil liability plays a part in this attitude. Police Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske told Buffalo police, "First and foremost, ...should an individual follow through with your recommendation and an accidental shooting or other incident occur, you have exposed yourself to the potential for a personal lawsuit as well as the department."

Recent changes in federal firearms law reflect the mistaken notion that a firearm is more likely to be used criminally than defensively. Under the "Lautenberg Act," anyone convicted of spousal abuse—even misdemeanor convictions, is now prohibited from firearm ownership even if the conviction came before it was a prohibiting offense. But statistics released by NRA’s Crimestrike indicate that firearms were the least likely tool in domestic violence—used in 1.1% of abuse cases. In 73.5% of the cases, no weapon was used at all. A bat or other object was used in 9.5% of the cases; a knife or other sharp object was used 7.4% of the time. In other words, a firearm is the least likely source of injury or death in abuse cases.

There have been programs to provide women with personal alarms. AWARE discounts their effectiveness. "Believing that someone will come to your rescue when you blow a whistle or scream is a wonderful fairy tale. Don’t fall for it...you are depending on someone else to come forth to rescue you. That is, you are betting your life on the hope that someone will hear the alarm, and will respond, and will be capable of stopping the attack. That’s a lot of ‘ifs’ that are out of your control."

If you are reading this magazine, you probably are comfortable using firearms. However, you may know someone who needs serious self-protection who at worse, is hostile to firearms use, or afraid of guns. Or, perhaps, simply untrained in their proper use.

The National Rifle Association offers good basic training in firearms safety and marksmanship. It’s not necessary to join the NRA to take the courses they offer. A local gun shop or gun club can give suggestions about instructors.

More specialized training courses for self-protection are available, as well. AWARE suggests that it is wise to be very selective about these schools. Although does it not make any claims for the schools mentioned, a list is available on their website. In addition, AWARE offers courses and seminars on self-defense.

The website has a suggested reading list, as well.

In some cases, a victim may be too demoralized to take effective steps toward self-defense. Or she may be in denial of the danger. AWARE says, "Tell them that the side effects of being a victim of a violent assault can be non-trivial. Fighting back is justified because it can save you from having the mental and physical scars of an assault to deal with for the rest of your life...Tell them that by successfully defending yourself, you help to make the world safer for ALL other women, because you prove, to at least one criminal, that NOT all women are easy prey."

File a restraining order...and carry a big stick.