Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

why would you need to be a 'legal expert' to get this. what about NO CONTACT do you not understand? she has a court order barring him from making any contact with her. he made contact with her by CONTACTING HER on Facebook. you have to form an intent to contact a person in order to send them a friend request. yes, she can decline but she shouldn't have been asked in the first place. it is no different than if he had phoned her and asked "do you want to be friends?". you have to have proof to present to the court in order to get a restraining order in the first place- the guy is abusive; he is harassing her. no, she is not guilty of anything except the misfortune of getting tangled up with an abusive man in the first place

Continuing contact, is emotional abuse, it is saying, "You can't escape from me."

Even a "friend request" is considered "contact - direct or indirect" under a restraining order. As for how Facebook works, if you make even a friend request, you are contacting that person.

Exactly what mallster said. No contact means NO CONTACT -- no text, no Facebook, no waving hello on the street, no eye contact in the store (in fact, if he enters the same store she is in, he has to leave), no calling up her friend and asking them to pass a message to her, no calling her phone with an unknown number (it's called phone records, it will show up!!), etc. In NYC, they put on the bottom of all full/stay away orders, "No third party contact, no contact whatsoever." I work as a domestic violence victim advocate and this happens constantly -- it amazes me the excuses some people come up with.

Think of it like making a phone call. Most people have caller ID (especially if you have a restraining order on someone). If the person you have the no-contact order keeps calling you but you see the number on the ID and don't answer, that person still gets in trouble for violating the no-contact.

Anyone can send a message to someone on FB. You don't have to be accepted as a friend. The recipient of the message can then block the sender, if they want to. If she did block him, which I'll bet she did, he probably just created a new identity and sent her a message again.

Yes, she was contributory in the transmission! Any Restraining Order works both ways and both parties must stay away from each other, not just the one restrained by the Order!

First off it never said she accepted the invite. Second just sending it out was a violation of his restraining order and he was very well aware of it. If he sent the request the police would have gone into his computer and read the statement in the article to prove he had even done so before arresting him. Nothing in the article says his wife knew what was on his post. And lastly he admitted to doing it! So he's right where he belongs!

yeah... that's like someone showing up at your door knocking but being told that you don't have to let them in, you can ignore them...

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.. If you give an inch, they'll take several thousand miles! :-(

YES I TOTALY AGREE WITH YOU. I AM A FACEBOOK USER AN MY EX IS ON FACEBOOK. BUT I WILL NOT SEND HIM A FRIENDS REQUEST AN I DONT WANT ONE FROM HIM. AN YES YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO EXCEPT A FRIENDS REQUEST OR YOU CAN CLICK IGNORE. I FEEL THERES MORE TO THE STORY, THAN WHATS GETTING TOLD. AN ALSO I THOUGHT IF THERE WAS A RESTRAINT ORDER, THEN IT WAS FOR NEITHER PARTY TO HAVE ANY KIND OF CONTACT.

According to the article, she did not approve the contact, she just reported the attempt. His legal trouble depends on what was in the court-ordered domestic violence injuction. From the sound of the article, it was the "contact" clause. Most likely, if this poor woman had to take a restraining order out against this guy, and the courts approved it, there was good reason. My suspicion is that he was trying to intimidate her by letting her know that he can still get to her one way or another. Certainly would not like to run into this guy in a dark alley.

it didnt say she accepted the friend request, he was just trying to contact her.

Why do you keep saying "I mean" ??? Why don't you say what you mean in the beginning so someone does not have to keep reading to find what the heck your trying to say.............

Now, we know that the ex-husband is a complete moron of a man because he did not understand that "No Contact" means "No contact." But why don't you, another moron of a man explain to the rest of the world too as to what is it about "No contact" that you do not understand.

What do you not understanda bout this? Why and how is your thinking so convoluted? The order is for no contact, that means he can not even attempt or try to contact her. Nothing, Nada, Zip. She is guilty of nothing but having married a not too smart person. You on the other hand...please go back to school and learn.

What is it that you don't understand? A no contact order is just that no contact. nothing, zip, nada...not by phone, computer, carrier pigeon, messenger or computer. I think that is pretty clear.........HUH????

He did contact her by sending the friend request. Period. Like leaving a note on her door. She doesn't have to read it. He contacted her with it though. That's what Friend Requests are...initial CONTACT with people!

Someone said she was contributory in the transmission??? And you came up with that conclusions how? No don't tell me--the explanation has to be as dumb as the original statement.

The writer or blogger said the winner was most likely NOT the person sitting in jail. We know he's a little love struck to say the very least. But just becase she got the restrainging order doesn't mean she isn't a totally wacko as well or cheated on him after taking advantage of him. WE ONLY HAVE THE BLOGGERS VERSION AND FEW LINES OF EXPLANATION OF THE WHOLE STORY. Maybe this guy is better off in jail than getting her back into his house!!! He may be the winner by being kept from his own forlorned stupidity.