Halloween & Sex Offenders don't mix

Florida Department of Corrections probation officers will be out in force on Halloween, making sure sex offenders are not participating in Halloween activities involving children. Through surprise home visits and increased surveillance, probation officers are working closely with local law enforcement agencies statewide to keep Halloween safe for children. Probation Officers will instruct sex offenders currently on supervision who are restricted from having unsupervised contact with minors to comply with the following restrictions on Halloween:

* Do not give out candy or other treats.
* Turn off porch lights, close blinds.
* No outside decorations to attract children.
* Do not answer the door to trick or treaters.
* Do not dress in costume or masks.
* Do not attend Halloween parties where children will be present.

Parents are encouraged to accompany children when trick-or-treating, to carry a cell phone and to instruct them to avoid darkened houses and hotels/motels. Parents are encouraged to visit FDLE’s website at: http://www.flsexoffender.net/ to search for sexual offenders and predators in your area and sign up for alerts that notify you when a new registered predator or offender moves into your neighborhood.

Remember, the sex offenders listed on this website may not be the only sex offenders in an area. There are currently more than 9,000 sex offenders on state supervision in Florida. By working together, parents, law enforcement, and the Florida Department of Corrections can help you and your children have a safe Halloween.

The Price of Pretrial Freedom

I attended a Motion to Remove GPS Monitoring Device in Judge F. Rand Wallis' courtroom Friday. The defendant, Charlie Anthony Jackson, has a degree from FSU and works in a high paying MIS job that requires him to travel often. He is now living at a hotel in Jacksonville (previously having commuted to his job from Orlando), and claimed that the GPS monitoring device provided by Court Programs has malfunctioned in the past, once causing him to have to return to Orlando from a job in Arkansas to be replaced. In addition to claiming financial hardship (having to pay $84/week for the privilege of not being incarcerated while awaiting trial), Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the monitoring company could call him at an inopportune time, for example while he is conducting a training session or in an important meeting, that might cause him a hardship (though I guess embarrassment is more the issue).

I suppose that Mr. Jackson believes that the judge should try to minimize any potential for awkward situations he's made to suffer while awaiting trial.

The defendant's wife, the victim in this case, was assaulted so severely in August that she literally thought her eye had come out of its socket when blood squirted from it during the attack. She has two facial scars and suffered facial fractures.  She testified that this was the fourth physical assault by her husband during their nine year marriage.  She obtained a 3-yr injunction immediately after the offense and the defendant was granted only supervised visitation with his child through Family Ties, which he has not yet exercised, even though it was ordered two months ago. She told Judge Wallis that knowing his movements are monitored is the only thing that has provided her with any peace of mind since the attack.

Jackson is charged with Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) and Domestic Battery by Strangulation. Defense Attorney Charles Willits did a good job of pleading his client's case, but Assistant State Attorneys Christopher Pasquale and Michelle Latham countered every argument with convincing testimony by a representative from Court Programs and the victim herself.  Additionally, Court Programs told the judge that if Mr. Jackson cannot risk being disturbed during an important meeting, they will refrain from contacting him during that pre-arranged time.

In the end, Judge Wallis denied the motion, finding that the defendant's concerns did not rise to the level of a hardship and that his issues had been alleviated by a newer device that does not have the same battery problems the older device had. 

CourtWatch commends Judge Wallis for maintaining this level of protection for the victim and accountability for the defendant while awaiting trial.

Domestic Violence is a choice

A new study shows what advocates and batterer accountability groups have been saying all along – domestic violence is a choice, not a loss of control. While batterers may claim that they "lost their temper," this is just another excuse in a long list of excuses for their violent behavior.

Below is the study that was just released.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uoh-vbc101809.php

I have also included two links to 2 Public Service Announcements that were done in Canada but never aired. They are controversial and I will warn you in advance, they use strong language and violence to make their point. But they truly illustrate how batterers choose to hurt only their partners and are usually well controlled in public. I would love to have this be mandatory viewing for everyone who deals with a batterer so they can understand the Jekyll/Hyde persona they can exhibit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgREmzi97o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUGEHBs5oWY&feature=related

Just before Dan and I separated, he told me in a very calculated manner how to make sure I would never be believed if the police became involved. Here's what he said:

Step 1: Push the other person's "buttons" until they're ready to explode. If you're married or have lived with someone for very long, you know exactly what I mean by "buttons" - we all have them. But the more mature you are, the better able you are to control yourself when they get "pushed."
Step 2: Take that person to a public place and (verbally or emotionally) push them some more.
Step 3: Wait for them to get hysterical while you stay calm. The victim looks like an idiot and the abuser can say to the police "You see what I have to put up with?"

After he told me this, I must confess, I tried it out on him one time (just before we separated). Except all I did to "push" him was buy my daughter a box of Sno-Caps at Blockbuster when we rented some movies one night.

A $1.50 box of candy.

I knew when I was doing it he would yell at me. His unpredictability was very predictable at the end. After he yelled until he was red in the face (both Katelyn and Sarah were present), he stormed out of the kitchen. Katelyn (age 7) apologized to me, thinking his outburst was her fault because she had asked me to buy her the candy. I assured her that it was his fault, not hers. But I don't think she believed me.

What was fascinating to me, after conducting this little "experiment," was how stupid he looked while he was having his fit. It was as if I was merely an observer of the drama. What also fascinated me was how amused (and not afraid) I was at his behavior, probably because he had never struck me. I would not recommend you try this if your abuser is prone to battering.

In retrospect, it's obvious to me that Dan was 100% in control even when he acted like a lunatic at home. I had become conditioned to accomodate his demands in an attempt to keep the peace. Even when it meant withholding a treat from my child.

I'm very blessed that I also finally realized I had a choice too. I chose not to let my children grow up in an abusive home and I sought counsel from Harbor House. I'm blessed that my parents were willing and able to assist me financially. But I caution all survivors to keep tabs on their abuser if they choose to separate. Because that's when the potential for lethal behavior escalates.

That's when I lost Sarah.

Mis-Match.com

Online dating sites can be a great way to meet people. But caution must be taken when you decide to go this route.  Eleven years ago, I met the man against whom I have an injunction online. And 7 years ago I met my wonderful husband in cyberspace. So I tell anyone who is considering this avenue to meet people to take precautions to be safe. More about that later....

I had occasion to monitor a Dating Violence injunction hearing on Wednesday in Judge Theotis Bronson's courtroom that emphasizes the need for caution in using these sites. I also found it difficult to suppress my laughter at the end of the hearing because the Respondent tied a noose around his own neck and even his attorney couldn't rescue him.

The parties met on match.com in early September and went on four dates over the course of the month. Both individuals are well-educated and professional. The Respondant became angry that the Petitioner was not yet willing to have an exclusive relationship with him and he texted her 18 times in just a few hours once he knew she was going on a date with someone else. She described his behavior as erratic, fanatical and obsessive. After receiving the texts, she told him the relationship was over. She "unfriended" him in cyberspace later that night.

The morning after her date with someone else, he called her and asked if she had spoken with her best friend and her ex-husband yet. She had not. Within a few minutes her friend, who is a teacher at a local high school, contacted her because the Respondent had sent a defamatory email to the principal and the admistration of her school (addresses which he gleaned from the school's website). The email anonymously claimed that she (the friend) regularly smoked pot, which would be grounds for dismissal from her job. The judge, who is very low key and not given to emotional displays in the courtroom, was obviously appalled. After the friend testified, the judge questioned the Respondent extensively, who admitted to sending the email, about his motives for doing so. Ultimately, the Respondent said he regretted sending it.

I sensed that the judge was ready to sign the paperwork after the first email, but the Petitioner had mentioned at the beginning of the hearing that her ex-husband had received an email too. After establishing that her divorce had been fairly lengthy and the issue of child custody had been contentious, the judge asked to see that email. I was on the edge of my seat as I watched the judge's expression change to a look of incredulity. I wished I could see what he was looking at. I didn't have to wait for long.

The Respondent alleged in the email that the Petitioner had been having sexual relations with black men. Judge Bronson, an African-American, asked him what would be wrong with that? I could almost see the beads of perspiration break out on the Respondent's forehead as he fumbled for an answer. The attorney tried to salvage the situation as best he could, but when your ship is sinking quickly, a small bucket won't help much.

In his closing argument, the Respondent's attorney admitted his client had behaved foolishly and despicably by anonymously emailing unfounded and slanderous accusations designed to cause problems for the Petitioner and her best friend. He tried to convince the judge that an injunction was not needed because the Respondent has not contacted the Petitioner since the day of the emails (neglecting to mention that she had received a temporary injunction the following day).

Ultimately, the judge granted a one year injunction against the Respondent. I only wish he'd included an impulse control class.

Here are some tips for online dating that you might not have seen before:

• Most websites have a section about being safe - read what they say!
• Don't give out a home phone number (which can easily identify your address with a reverse lookup website). Communicate by cell phone or email until you feel comfortable meeting with the person.
• Protect information about your employment location - this includes the name of your company, a work phone number, etc.
• Use an email address on a free provider like yahoo or gmail that doesn't indicate your complete name. I didn't tell my now-husband my last name until after we met face-to-face and I learned that he had security clearances to go into nuclear sites (Uncle Sam saved me the step of doing a background check on him!)
• Find out where your prospective date has lived so you can check those jurisdictions' Clerk of Court websites to see if they've been involved in any legal action (this can be tricky if you're checking out a woman who has had more than one last name in her lifetime). Make sure you have their full legal name and check variations. If you know their date of birth, that helps, especially when they have a fairly common name.
• When you finally decide to meet someone, pick a place that offers valet parking. This helps that often awkward end-of-evening moment when having someone you don't really know walk you to your car can make you feel uncomfortable. A side benefit is that the valet attendants will usually get the lady's car first, thus giving her a slight head start out of the parking lot. It's worth paying the tip to do this.
• If possible, make a note of the type of car your date drives so you can determine whether or not you're being followed.

Paranoid? A bit perhaps. But once you've been stalked, you need to be. Someone who is willing to wait for you to feel comfortable disclosing personal information is someone who is probably worth your attention. Someone who pressures you before you're ready is not.

Like Father, Like Son?

Yesterday afternoon CourtWatch monitored a bond motion for 19-year old Winter Garden resident Christopher Brannon, who had been arrested on 10/1/09 for Burglary with Assault or Battery (a felony punishable by life in prison) against his ex-girlfriend, who is 17-years old.  Assistant State Attorney Michelle Latham did a thorough job of demonstrating the defendant's propensity toward violent behavior directed at the victim.

In addition to testimony about his stalking behavior, State witnesses testified about three separate instances of alleged vandalism to her vehicle (dents, a broken window, slashed tires), tearing a dress she owned (not while she was wearing it), gaining access to the home without permission, punching holes into interior doors, and making suicide threats.  The victim has repeatedly not wanted to pursue a criminal case. That is, until this assault on October 1st wherein he shoved his way into her home while her mother was at work, grabbed her, shattered her cell phone, and smashed the back of her head into a table - all because he just wanted to talk to her and she repeatedly begged him to leave.

This young man scares me. He looks like such a nice young man. In fact, that's what all the witnesses for the defense testified. They talked about how polite and well-mannered he is when he visits their homes. I wonder if they've ever seen him spend time with his girlfriend. His actions at such a young age demonstrate textbook Power & Control Wheel behavior.

This young man's father scares me too. He took pride in mentioning his service to our country as a Marine, and is now employed as an intelligence analyst for a defense contractor (something I admire & greatly appreciate). His demeanor, however, screamed "power and control" to me. He minimized his son's previous brush with the law (a petit theft charge), repeatedly stated "I can assure you..." or "I can state unequivocally..." that he would stay on top of his son should Judge Alicia Latimore see fit to grant a bond. He stressed the "Marine traits" of honesty, dependability, trustworthiness, and respect for authority as traits that he had instilled in his son. He testified that his son assumes the role of "man of the house" when dad travels for his job. Even though the attorneys and the judge questioned him several times about how extensively he travels, a clear answer was never given (i.e., how many nights per month he was out of town). I also wonder, is Mom not capable of running the household when her husband is away? Why would a teenager be given this kind of authority when Mom is there?

And then Judge Latimore commented that perhaps Dad had impulse control issues because he had to be ejected from the courtroom last week for losing his temper at a previous hearing. I'm sorry I missed that hearing.

Ultimately, the judge granted a $15,000 bond (which was $10,000 more than defense counsel Michael Lafay requested), home confinement in his parents' home (except when working or as otherwise approved by the home confinement officer), ordered no contact with the victim or her family, stay more than 1 mile away from the victim's residence and 1/2 mile away from her high school, and to possess no weapons.

I am unclear as to why GPS tracking was not ordered.  If the judge is going to permit Mr. Brannon to go to work, he needs to be tracked. The victim's home is only 4 miles away from his. And her high school is only 1/2 mile away from where he lives.

Both Brannons frighten me.

But what frightens me most is that a young girl is at now at risk because her ex-boyfriend in out of jail without GPS tracking to monitor his movements.