The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Posts Tagged ‘protection’

Protection order had been issued in murder-suicide case

In domestic law on August 23, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Amplify’d from www.theindependent.com
The woman who was killed by her estranged husband on Monday had requested a protection order against him last week because he had threatened to take her life.

Margarita Rodriguez, 43, of 212 N. Grace Ave. filed the request in Hall County District Court on Aug. 11. The protection order against Antonio G. Rodriguez, 33, of 4954 W. Highway 30 No. 1 was granted, and a hearing was set for 4 p.m. this Thursday.

“Antonio came to the house where I am staying, and I am afraid for my life because in many occasions he has said he’s gonna kill me,” she wrote. “He has nothing to lose. He’s ill and receiving dialysis. He has hit me and there has been police reports, but the threats of killing has been done a lot.”

According to her description of his visit to the home, it occurred around midnight on Aug. 11.

She also wrote that he told her she owed her life to him because, “thanks to him, I am legal in this country.”

She wrote that her estranged husband, who was born in California, abused drugs and insulted and threatened her whenever he got drugs. She wrote that he used “dirty vocabulary and degrading words” to threaten her because she didn’t want to go back to him.

Hall County sheriff’s Capt. Gregg Ahlers said the protection order was served on Antonio Rodriguez at 4:50 p.m. Aug. 11 at the trailer house where he was living. According to the protection order, he also frequented a mechanic shop at 420 St. Paul Suite 1.

Margarita Rodriguez wrote that her estranged husband was 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighed 170 pounds. He was known to carry a rifle and use marijuana. The couple had two sons together, ages 8 and 9, according to the protection order.

Marleny Hernandez, a friend of Margarita Rodriguez, told The Independent that the couple, whom she referred to as Margarita and Antony, were married in 2002, but their union soon became troubled. She said Margarita Rodriguez, who also had three children living in Mexico, had filed for divorce. She also said the Rodriguezes’ children were at home and asleep at the time of the shooting.

No divorce proceedings involving the Rodriguezes had been filed in Hall County.

According to a press release from the Grand Island Police Department, officers were sent to 212 N. Grace on a report of a domestic disturbance at 4:57 a.m. Monday.

Officers found Margarita Rodriguez in the entryway of 211 N. Grace with a gunshot wound to the head and left leg. She was transported to St. Francis Medical Center and was pronounced dead at 7:18 a.m. Monday. The investigation has revealed that shots were fired at 212 N. Grace and 211 N. Grace, according to the press release.

At approximately 7:42 a.m. Monday, police began a pursuit of the suspect, Antonio Rodriguez. The pursuit began at Old Potash Highway and Diers Avenue and ended on Highway 281 between Highway 30 and Old Highway 30, according to the press release.

Antonio Rodriguez died of a single self-inflicted gunshot wound. No other shots were fired, according to the release.

Officer Butch Hurst said Rodriguez was driving a red Chevrolet pickup. He stopped “on his own” without the use of stop sticks by police, Hurst said.

Highway 281 from Highway 30 to Old Potash Highway was blocked off from approximately 7:42 a.m. to 2:53 p.m. Monday, he said.

The Police Department continued on Tuesday to investigate the death of Margarita Rodriguez. The death of Antonio Rodriguez was being investigated by agencies of the South Central Area Law Enforcement Services in preparation for a future grand jury, according to the Police Department’s press release.

Nebraska law requires a grand jury to be called whenever someone dies in police custody or while being taken into custody.

Although rather rare, a grand jury was convened within the last month in Hall County to hear the matter of an inmate death.

In late July, a grand jury determined the death of Tomas Gonzalez, 23, at the Hall County Jail was an accident.

According to court documents filed in district court on July 29, the grand jury found “there was no criminal conduct on the part of any individual that cause or contributed to” his death.

Gonzalez died on June 9 after being transported to St. Francis Medical Center from the jail. He had been arrested on June 7 and charged with possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Polk, an Omaha attorney representing Gonzalez’s family, said Gonzalez ingested meth when he was arrested.

Read more at www.theindependent.com

 

International human rights group takes up case of kids murdered by father; mom’s restraining order ignored by police (Castle Rock, Colorado)

In domestic law on August 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm

Those with long memories may remember this case. Dad SIMON GONZALEZ murdered his three young daughters back in 1999. The mother had already secured a restraining order against her ex-husband, but the police refused to enforce it. Daddy was later killed by the police when he fired gunshots through the police department’s window. The mother’s attempts to get justice in the U.S. have been unsuccessful. Now the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published its merits report on this case–and it is scathing.

The next IACHR Petition is the Mothers Day Petition filed May 11, 2007
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse/legal-documents/petition-to-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights

exhaustive investigation into systemic failures that took place related to the enforcement of Jessica Lenahan’s protection order, to reinforce through legislative measures the mandatory character of the protection orders and other precautionary measures to protect women from imminent acts of violence, and to create effective implementation mechanisms, among others.

A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this matter. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.

omplaints presented by Jessica Lenahan before the death of her daughters. The State also failed to investigate the circumstances of their deaths once their bodies were found. Consequently, their mother and their family live with this uncertainty, and the law enforcement officers in charge of implementing the law have not been held accountable for failing to comply with their responsibilities.



The Commission
encourages the United States to comply with the recommendations contained in the Merits Report, which include to conduct a serious, impartial and exhaustive investigation into systemic failures that took place related to the enforcement of Jessica Lenahan’s protection order, to reinforce through legislative measures the mandatory character of the protection orders and other precautionary measures to protect women from imminent acts of violence, and to create effective implementation mechanisms, among others.



A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this matter. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Commission established that the State did not duly investigate the com
which he was fatally wounded and killed. The deceased bodies of the three girls were found in his truck.

The restraining order was the only means available to Jessica Lenahan at the state level to protect herself and her children in a context of domestic violence, and the police did not effectively enforce it. The state apparatus was not duly organized, coordinated, and ready to protect these victims from domestic violence by adequately and effectively implementing the restraining order. These failures to protect constituted a form of discrimination in violation of the American Declaration, since they took place in a context where there has been a historical problem with the enforcement of protection orders; a problem that has disproportionately affected women since they constitute the majority of the restraining order holders.

ock Police Department during the evening of June 22, 1999 and the morning of June 23, 1999. In each of her telephone calls and discussions with the police agents, she requested efforts to locate her daughters and she informed them that she possessed a protection order against Simon Gonzales. Her contacts were met with a police response that was fragmented, uncoordinated and unprepared, and it did not respect the terms of the restraining order. That morning, Simon Gonzales drove his pick-up truck to the Castle Rock Police Department and fired shots through the window. There was an exchange of gunfire with officers from the station in the course of
Washington, DC, August 17, 2011 – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) made public today its merits report on Case No. 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (formerly Jessica Gonzales), United States, related to the duties of the State to respond to situations of domestic violence with diligent protection measures.

Jessica Lenahan, a victim of domestic violence along with her daughters Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca Gonzales, ages 7, 8 and 10, obtained a restraining order against her ex-husband from the Colorado Courts in May 21, 1999. Not knowing the whereabouts of her daughters, Jessica Lenahan had eight contacts with the Castle

IACHR PUBLISHES REPORT ON CASE JESSICA LENAHAN OF THE UNITED STATES
PRESS RELEASE

IACHR PUBLISHES REPORT ON CASE JESSICA LENAHAN OF THE UNITED STATES

Washington, DC, August 17, 2011 – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) made public today its merits report on Case No. 12.626, Jessica Lenahan (formerly Jessica Gonzales), United States, related to the duties of the State to respond to situations of domestic violence with diligent protection measures.



Jessica Lenahan, a victim of domestic violence along with her daughters Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca Gonzales, ages 7, 8 and 10, obtained a restraining order against her ex-husband from the Colorado Courts in May 21, 1999. Not knowing the whereabouts of her daughters, Jessica Lenahan had eight contacts with the Castle
Rock Police Department during the evening of June 22, 1999 and the morning of June 23, 1999. In each of her telephone calls and discussions with the police agents, she requested efforts to locate her daughters and she informed them that she possessed a protection order against Simon Gonzales. Her contacts were met with a police response that was fragmented, uncoordinated and unprepared, and it did not respect the terms of the restraining order. That morning, Simon Gonzales drove his pick-up truck to the Castle Rock Police Department and fired shots through the window. There was an exchange of gunfire with officers from the station in the course of which he was fatally wounded and killed. The deceased bodies of the three girls were found in his truck.



The restraining order was the only means available to Jessica Lenahan at the state level to protect herself and her children in a context of domestic violence, and the police did not effectively enforce it. The state apparatus was not duly organized, coordinated, and ready to protect these victims from domestic violence by adequately and effectively implementing the restraining order. These failures to protect constituted a form of discrimination in violation of the American Declaration, since they took place in a context where there has been a
historical problem with the enforcement of protection orders; a problem that has disproportionately affected women since they constitute the majority of the restraining order holders.

The Commission established that the State did not duly investigate the complaints presented by Jessica Lenahan before the death of her daughters. The State also failed to investigate the circumstances of their deaths once their bodies were found. Consequently, their mother and their family live with this uncertainty, and the law enforcement officers in charge of implementing the law have not been held accountable for failing to comply with their responsibilities.



The Commission
encourages the United States to comply with the recommendations contained in the Merits Report, which include to conduct a serious, impartial and exhaustive investigation into systemic failures that took place related to the enforcement of Jessica Lenahan’s protection order, to reinforce through legislative measures the mandatory character of the protection orders and other precautionary measures to protect women from imminent acts of violence, and to create effective implementation mechanisms, among others.



A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this matter. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.








0
comments:









Post a Comment




















Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




N° 92/11

Read more at dastardlydads.blogspot.com

 

Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders

In domestic law on July 24, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Amplify’d from www.xyonline.net

Summary

Myth:

  Women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence and rape, including to gain advantage in family law cases. And women use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children.

Facts:

  • The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.
  • Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.
  • Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.
  • Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.
  • Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

Note that this fact sheet is also available in PDF. (See below.)

The myth

Fathers’ rights groups assert that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence. In its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association (2004, pp. 11, 38) states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any actual violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.

The facts

The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.

There is no doubt that family court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this reflects the fact that domestic violence often escalates at the time of separation. Australian data from a national survey in 1996 show that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996, p. 8).

Similarly, North American research documents that the risks of nonlethal and lethal violence are highest for women when they are leaving the male partners with whom they have been living in an intimate relationship (DeKeseredy et al., 2004, p. 677). Separated women are at elevated risk of violence by men, whether physical, sexual, or lethal, relative to women in intact unions (Brownridge, 2006), and women are at risk of increasingly severe violence when separating from violent partners (Riggs et al., 2000). The risk of post-separation violence decreases with the passage of time since separation, and is greatest in the first two or three months after the commencement of the separation, at least from homicide data.

Further situational variables influence post-separation violence. Leaving a marital or cohabiting relationship or trying to leave it increases women’s changes of being physically or sexually assaulted especially if they are connected to men with patriarchal and/or sexually proprietary attitudes (DeKeseredy et al., 2004). Women are at greater risk of post-separation violence if they are more ‘available’ for victimisation: if they live in the same city as their former partner, and at risker times such as court appearances and exchanges of or visits to children (Brownridge, 2006). The presence of a new partner can be either a risk or a protective factor, as can children. For example, joint custody may become an opportunity for conflict and violence, may increase opportunities for violence at visitation and the exchange of children, and children may be used as tools for violence by abusive men (Brownridge, 2006).

The relationship between pre- and post-separation violence is shaped by other variables such as the duration of the union and the severity and frequency of pre-separation violence. There is evidence that post-separation violence often is a continuation of violence that occurred during the relationship and that a substantial proportion of such violence is a new phenomenon (Brownridge, 2006).

Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.

Existing research finds that most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims. Two studies have examined rates of substantiated allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings, and they find that allegations are substantiated in 63 to 74 percent of cases (Shaffer and Bala, 2003; Johnston et al., 2005). The remainder are unsubstantiated – where either there is insufficient information to support substantiation or where there is a determination that the allegation is false.

A Canadian study of family law cases in which written decisions were produced over a three-year period identified 42 recorded cases of spousal abuse alleged against men. Seventy-four percent of these were substantiated. Only two cases of spousal abuse alleged against women were identified, one of which was substantiated (Shaffer and Bala, 2003). However, as the authors note, in the cases where the courts found the allegations to be exaggerated or unfounded, in some instances the courts gave no reasons for this conclusion, and in at least some cases, judges failed to recognise the existence or seriousness of actual abuse (Shaffer and Bala, 2003).

A US study drew on documentary records describing 120 divorced families referred for child custody evaluations and custody counselling, collected over 1989 to 2002 from family courts within San Francisco Bay Area counties. Multiple allegations of child abuse, neglect, and family violence were raised in the majority of cases. Allegations were assessed on the basis of detailed interviews with family members, information from professionals, and analysis of written documentation. This study found that 63 percent of allegations of abuse by one adult of another (including domestic violence and substance misuse) were substantiated (Johnston et al., 2005). Allegations were more likely to be substantiated against men than against women (67 versus 55 percent). In other words, counter to some popular perceptions, men rather than women were more likely to make allegations of domestic violence (and substance abuse) in family law proceedings which were not substantiated. However, this study cannot determine rates of false allegations, as it could not distinguish among ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations between those which were false and those which could not be determined due to lack of evidence (Johnston et al., 2005).

Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.

The evidence is that rates of intentionally false and/or malicious accusations of rape are very low. For example, the most recent British study determines that only three per cent of rapes reported to the police were either ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ false allegations (Kelly et al. 2005). Australian studies are similar. For example, in an analysis of 850 rapes reported to Victoria Police over three years, only 2.1 per cent of reports were identified by police as false (Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault 2006: 5). Three earlier studies in Australia, based on police data from 1986 to 1990, find rates of false reports of sexual assault of 1.4 per cent, 4.8 per cent, and 7 per cent (VLRC 2004: 112).

Some other studies claim that rates of false allegations of sexual assault are much higher. However, as a recent review notes, there is considerable diversity in definitions of falsity, in how allegations are judged to be false, and in methods for collecting data regarding the extent of false allegations (Rumney 2006: 130-132). For example, some studies which find apparently high rates of false rape allegations take at face value the judgements made by police officers on the basis of stereotypical assumptions regarding rape victims and their responses to victimisation (ibid: 142).

There is no doubt that false allegations of rape and domestic violence sometimes are made. At the same time, there is nothing to suggest that these are common or that women make them more often than men (Davis, 2004). In addition, false allegations of violence and abuse are far less common than false denials of their perpetration (Jaffe et al., 2008).

Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.

There is further evidence that most allegations of domestic violence express women’s genuine concerns for their and/or their children’s safety. Research in Australia finds that women going through family court proceedings and living with domestic violence do not routinely take out protection orders in response. In a study of 176 files in which children’s matters were contested, while 95 of the files (54 per cent) included evidence of domestic violence Apprehended Violence Orders had not been obtained in over a third of these (Melville & Hunter, 2001, pp. 127-128).

In addition, women often only take out protection orders against domestic violence as a last resort after being subjected to repeated and serious victimization (Melville & Hunter, 2001). Among young women aged 18 to 23, women are more likely to seek legal protection if they have experienced more severe levels of violence (e.g. including being beaten, choked or shot at), have been injured, and have children (Young et al., 2000, p. 3). Earlier research into the use of apprehended domestic violence orders found that the majority of complainants had experienced physical violence on more than one occasion (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997).

Legal authorities themselves reject the view that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence. For example, bodies such as the Criminal Law Review Division of the NSW Attorney-General’s Department reject the view that women use protection orders in family law proceedings to gain a tactical advantage (Simpson, 2000, p. 18). In New Zealand, reviews by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice find no evidence to support the claim that women are making strategic use of protection orders, based for example on false allegations of domestic violence, to gain strategic advantage in family law cases (Davis, 2004).

In fact, Australian research finds that most women who have experienced violence in relationships still want their children to have some contact with the other parent, but what they seek (and often do not receive) is an arrangement which ensures safety for their children and themselves (Kaye et al., 2003).

Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

The Australian evidence is that protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence. An early study in New South Wales found that the vast majority of complainants experienced a reduction in violence and abuse from the defendant in the six months after the order was served on the defendant, and over 90 per cent reported that the order had produced benefits such as reduced contact with the defendant and increased personal safety and comfort (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997). Finally, research among young women aged 18 to 23 and subjected to violence by intimate partners found that “preventive strategies for young women at the early stage of a relationship can eliminate, or at least reduce, physical violence by a partner” (Young et al., 2000, p. 5). The severity of violence was reduced after legal protection, but the benefit was not as marked unless women sought help from the courts as well as the police.

References cited

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Women’s Safety Australia (cat. no. 4128.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Brownridge, D.A. (2006). Violence Against Women Post-separation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5): 514-530.

Davis, W. (2004) Gender Bias, Fathers’ Rights, Domestic Violence and the Family Court. Butterworths Family Law Journal, December: 299-312.

DeKeseredy, W. S., M. Rogness, and M. D. Schwartz. (2004). Separation/divorce Sexual Assault: The current state of social scientific knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9: 675-691.

Jaffe, Peter G., Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, and Nicholas Bala. (2008).  Custody Disputes Involving Allegations of Domestic Violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3): 500-522.

Johnston, J. R., S. Lee, N.W. Olesen, and M.G. Walters. (2005). Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-disputing Families. Family Court Review, 43: 283-294.

Kaye, M., J. Stubbs, and J. Tolmie. (2003). Negotiating Child Residence and Contact Arrangements Against a Background of Domestic Violence. Families, Law and Social Policy Unit, Socio-Legal Research Centre, Research Report 1, June.

Kelly, L,, J. Lovett, and L. Regan. (2005). A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London.

Lone Fathers Association Australia. (2004). Protection orders legislation review. (ACT). Discussion Paper: Comments by Lone Fathers Association. (Australia). Inc. Canberra.

Melville, A., and R. Hunter. (2001). ‘As everybody knows’: Countering myths of gender bias in family law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1): 124-138.

Riggs, D. S., M. B. Caulfield, and A.B. Street. (2000). Risk for Domestic Violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10): 1289-1316.

Rumney, N.S. (2006). False Allegations of Rape. Cambridge Law Journal, 65: 128-158.

Shaffer, M., and N. Bala. (2003). Wife Abuse, Child Custody and Access in Canada. In R. Geffner, R. S. Ingelman, & J. Zellner (Eds.), The effects of intimate partner violence on children  (pp. 253-276). New York: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Simpson, R. (2000). Incidence and Regulation of Domestic Violence in New South Wales (Briefing Paper 4/2000). Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Library.

Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault. (2006). Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria 2000-2003: Summary Research Report. Melbourne: Office of Women’s Policy.

Trimboli, L., and R. Bonney. (1997). An Evaluation of the NSW Apprehended Violence Order Scheme. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

VLRC. (2004). Sexual Offences: Law and procedure: final report. Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission.

Young, M., J. Byles, and A. Dobson. (2000). The Effectiveness of Legal Protection in the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Lives of Young Australian Women. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 148: 1-6.

Contact

This Fact Sheet may be circulated. It may be reproduced with acknowledgement to Dr Michael Flood. Direct correspondence to mflood [at] uow.edu.au.

Attachment Size
Attachment Size
False Accusations DV Rape 2010.pdf 21.93 KB

Read more at www.xyonline.net

 

Murder-suicide: Woman had sought protection from former SLED agent

In domestic law on July 24, 2011 at 11:52 am
Amplify’d from www.postandcourier.com

MONCKS CORNER — The man accused of killing a woman and then himself Friday had just resigned as an agent from the State Law Enforcement Division days earlier in light of allegations he had assaulted the same woman after she ended their relationship.

Authorities say Charlie Boyette, 61, shot Mary Ann Cox, 44, as she was leaving work about 5:30 p.m. at the Southcoast Community Bank on East Main Street. He then turned the gun on himself. Both were dead when police arrived on the scene, investigators said Friday.

Cox had sought help from authorities before the shooting.

Cox told Berkeley County sheriff’s investigators on Monday that she had been in a romantic relationship with Boyette for more than a year and that he became upset when she tried to end it on July 4th, according to an incident report released on Saturday.

Cox told investigators she didn’t want the investigation into an alleged assault to go any further but asked that he not contact her any more.

Deputies told Boyette to stay away from Cox and forwarded her complaint to SLED Chief Mark Keel, who suspended Boyette. Keel asked the sheriff’s office to investigate the allegations because of their severity and to avoid a conflict of interest, according to a statement released by SLED Saturday.

Boyette resigned Wednesday in a letter his attorney sent to Keel.

Boyette was hired by SLED in 2000 and was a supervisor in the state agency’s intelligence department.

photo
photo

See more at www.postandcourier.com

 

A couple’s attempt at reconciliation for the sake of their young son ended tragically Sunday night in a murder-suicide in Silver City.

In domestic law on June 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Amplify’d from www.scsun-news.com

Victor Roman, 42, shot and killed his girlfriend, Trudy Huerta, 35, and then turned the gun on himself, according to authorities.

Silver City police were called to the 4200 block of Kiva Place, on a report of shots fired at 8:03 p.m. Upon arrival, officers found Huerta lying on the ground in front Building 1 in the complex with a gunshot wound to the middle of her back, according to a police incident report. Two shell casings of what appeared to be shotguns rounds were located just south of Huerta’s body, the report states.

Roman was found nearby sitting in gold Honda with the engine running, slumped over the steering wheel, a gunshot wound to face and a black shotgun resting across his chest, authorities said. Both Huerta and Roman were pronounced dead the scene by EMS.

Silver City police said Huerta was attempting to stop Roman from taking their son from the apartment when the crime occurred.

Huerta had an order of protection against Roman going back to 2001. Huerta had taken out another protection order against Roman but later dropped it saying, “He threatened me if I wouldn’t because he was on parole at the time,” court documents state.

On May 5, in court documents, Huerta wrote that she wanted to terminate the protection order against Roman because “we are going to go to counseling to get along for my son, our son. He (Victor) is going to get help. We love each other and need to make this work for our family but still need to support his child. We love each other very much!!!”

Most recently the couple had each filed protection orders against one another in March. On March 19, Huerta was arrested for battery on a household member and on March 24, Roman was charged with violating a protection order.

Roman was sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison in May 2003 on five felony charges, said Shannon McReynolds, acting public information with the New

Huerta leaves five young children, ages 1, 9, 12, 14, and 17. Huerta was employed at Burger King and worked the second shift. Roman worked occasionally for All Glass MD in Silver City.

Read more at www.scsun-news.com

 

%d bloggers like this: