By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Jason P. Woodbury
By Dulce Paloma Baltazar Pedraza
By Ray Stern
Ex's baggage: It's no surprise to me that Donna Van Dyke experienced a delay in having her order of protection served. ("Beaten By the System," John W. Allman, June 21) An order of protection may well be the most abused and misused court document there is.
Often, an order of protection is nothing more than a tool used by divorcing women to get their X2B husbands out of the house. Sometimes these orders have been obtained under false pretenses, when in fact there is no violence or any other form of abuse occurring -- it's easier for some women to have the police or sheriff's department inform their husbands they're being divorced.
Orders of protection are easily obtained and require no proof of wrongdoing. In fact, the City of Tucson graciously provides this form online. (An order of protection is good anywhere.) The word of the accuser is enough to obtain one, and the accused has no recourse in defending himself against the accusation.
Presumably, law enforcement personnel would be aware of this and act accordingly. An officer assigned to serve these papers would have no way of knowing whether the order was bona fide or just another instance of a woman working the system and using the sheriff's office as her messenger. The officer wouldn't know whether the people were married or not, either.
This is certainly a major waste of taxpayer dollars, when an order of protection is nothing more than a detail of a divorce action. Yet, in every municipality in the country this abuse goes on every day, as they are flooded with orders of protection, both valid and contrived. Public servants with more important things to do have become errand runners for the divorce industry, and until radical changes are made in the family court system, this will continue.
Bear in Mind
Ms. Heater, I would like to assure you that not all hunters are this barbaric. The first rule every hunter should learn is a love and respect of nature. Also, aside from the obvious safety rules, they should also be taught to never take a shot unless you are absolutely 100 percent positive you can make a clean, quick, and humane kill.
The matter in which this bear was taken was indeed unacceptable. Sloppy methods like the ones demonstrated by this jackass pay tribute to his lack of skills. That he had to empty his rifle at point-blank range, and even then failed to put the animal out of his misery, that the animal had to sit and decompose, that this man has the gall to argue for possession of the carcass, is truly disgusting.
Every day, our rights as hunters are threatened by the government, and the actions of morons such as this provide them a strong argument, indeed. Let the animal stay with the Great Alaskan Bush Company. The so-called "hunter" doesn't deserve him.
Stuff it:I can't believe this guy (Tony Fabriger) actually wants sympathy for losing his stuffed bear to that nude joint. Why should I feel sorry for you? The bear never belonged to you in the first place. And the gruesome way Mr. Fabriger describes how the bear met his death leaves me wincing.
I think Mr. Fabriger should be hunted down the same way, make sure he's good and dead and get all the fat off the skin, too, then stuff his ass.
Veg-a-Matic:I'm glad to read that P.E.T.A. has directed a campaign at Phoenix restaurants. ("Meating Adjourned," Spice, Carey Sweet, June 7) I traveled to Europe recently and was so impressed by the consideration that restaurants abroad pay to vegetarians. Phoenix sorely lacks places for vegetarians to eat. Many restaurants serve "vegetable" items that are cooked in chicken broth and spiced with "natural (beef) flavors." It's difficult to determine what truly is vegetarian, and asking waiters doesn't help much. I asked different waiters at the same restaurant about items being vegetarian and got different answers each time. If P.E.T.A.'s campaign can make it easier for me to get a good vegetarian meal, hooray for them!
Firing lines: I'd like you to consider the difference between a gun owner and a criminal with a gun. ("Unpackin' Mama's Pistol," Edward Lebow, June 7) Please consider a principal difference between myself and the people you seek safety from. When I retired to Arizona, one of the first things I did was to read up on the state and local gun laws, something I'm pretty sure criminals don't do. Could you imagine how difficult it would be for me to drive from Mesa to my friend's home in Yuma while complying with each town's "sensible" gun laws? If I'm stopping to read their little sign that says "No guns," and complying, isn't it safe to presume that I'm not there for trouble? Really now, if putting up little signs quoting laws prevented crime, why doesn't 7-11 save money on video cameras and just put up a little sign that says "No robberies"?
This issue of guns in public is about cultural bigotry. Many people are not accustomed to firearms; everything they know about firearms and the kind of people who have them is from the news and TV/movies. Their lack of understanding makes them afraid, so they believe in stereotypes and preconceived notions. If the library and museum are places of enlightenment and learning, why are they so afraid of people who have different values and customs? What if the fellow dressed in camouflage and carrying a hunting rifle was there at the library to make sure he was in compliance with state fish and game regulations on his way to camp?
Shoot from the hip:A very nice article. The part about the man that showed up wearing showed up in hunting fatigues and had a hunting rifle is the type of person that gives every law-abiding person a bad name.
Lets be real here, there is absolutely no need for someone to do that. I have had a CCW [permit to carry a concealed weapon] for going on eight years now. Ninety-five percent of the time when I leave my house I am carrying and you would never know it, and that's the whole idea. I don't know if it was for shock value that he did this or just to show that he can. But it gives the other 99.95 percent of normal, law-abiding gun owners a bad image.
People who do these things need to think of what impression they give to other people. Now if I had seen this person in a public place I would have been concerned as to what he was going to do. I have about 10 sets of "hunting fatigues" left over from my days on active duty and about the only time they come out is for yard work.
I think that the state should have written the law better so that if you had CCW and the weapon was in fact concealed that the "No Firearms" sign would not apply to you, but if you were carrying openly that you would have to abide by the sign. I think the gun lockers are a bad idea. Every time a weapon is removed from its holster the chances of an accidental discharge (I call them negligent discharges because they cannot go off by themselves) increases. I think it would be better off to leave them in the holster concealed and the only person that would know would be the person carrying it.