What is morally wrong was for the mother and/or father of the mentally deficient girl to allow her to gain possession of a weapon, and then to take it into public. They should be getting her help, and if its not treatable, they need to have her in a safe place.
As to the actions of the father whos daughter was assaulted? I don't think morals come into play. He was being a protective parent, which is absolutely right. However, what he should have considered is whether or not the restraining order would have any effect. If the other girl was that mentally ill, chances are that she wouldn't understand the order, especially while having a "psychotic episode".
I suggest getting the troubled child better help, giving the assaulted child mace to stop an attacker, and not trying to judge the morality of other people's actions, as we will all someday be judged by someone with a much greater wisdom than ours.
2007-12-22 22:38:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure it's right!
However, a restraining order only works well when the respondent is a rational thinking person. So, if this person is mentally unstable like you say, it's probably not going to do much.
P.S. Can't speark for all states, but in NC a restraining order does not require a criminal conviction. Restraining orders are more frequently issued in civil, not criminal, matters. A need for an order of that type in a criminal matter would more likely be taken care of with a person's release order when they are arrested and haven't been to trial yet. If they've been to trial and have been convicted, the restrictions will probably be taken care of in their judgement from the judge, not in a separate restraining order.
2007-12-22 22:13:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by justme 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because she is a danger to society and to his daughter in particular. It's unfortunate that the girl has psychotic episodes but it's not the father of the victim's fault.
2007-12-22 21:38:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by resignedtolife 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes.
Logic dictates that a situation where a knife is involved is potentially a threat to life. The first priority therefore, must be the safety of any potential victims.
Then, and only then is it appropriate to try and deal with underlying causes and to try and help the person who has the mental illness.
If it were your mother or sister or child who was the potential victim I am sure you would agree with me.
2007-12-22 21:39:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The father has every right to protect his child as best as he sees fit.
If that is his wish, then it is legal. It is the responsibility of the other girl to deal with her problem, take her medication, go to counselling and not be a danger to society. If she does these kind of things, she can easily end up in a special school with a bunch of unstable people, or in a padded room.
2007-12-22 22:21:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hell yea it was right. Her mental psychotic episode is apparently making her a danger to society and she should have been removed from the school. What I find odd, was that this was even a question.
2007-12-22 22:40:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's why we employ judges and magistrates. They review the case before granting a restraining order. Also, a restraining order can only be granted if there has been a criminal conviction so this girl is a criminal and criminals need to be controlled
2007-12-22 21:42:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by crazeygrazey 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
but she must have had the knife b 4 the episode,and if she is not in control of herself then her parents should be,shes lucky not to be put in an institution,and think how you would feel if she actualy stabbed one of your loved ones!!
2007-12-22 21:37:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by fozz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it's definitely right. A minor can hurt someone just as much as an adult can.
2007-12-22 21:52:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋