Accused rapist has his dad send threatening note, police say

[kpete]

Accused rapist has his dad send threatening note, police say



According to an affidavit:

On July 27, the victim's daughter found a letter taped on their apartment door.

Ronnau wrote, "I told you what I would do if I ever lost you."

He also wrote, "There have better not be another man ever cuz when I get out all hell will break loose. I don't care how long it takes for me to get out. You don't want to know how or what I will do if I find out you've been with another man."

He added, "Please please don't take any of this as just words."

Police spoke to Ronnau's father, who confirmed he delivered the letter to the victim's residence for his son without knowing its contents, the affidavit states.

The victim requested an order of protection.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/accused-rapist-has-his-dad-send-threatening-note-police-say/article_72f4e0ab-4e39-5bb9-8e13-619c17952f6a.html

[bettyellen]

1. knowing his son kidnapped this woman and raped her, he runs this errand? WTF. Revoke his bond.

Give her an order of protection against his entire family.

[magical thyme]

4. Denial...it's not just a river

Apparently the victim and rapist had lived together off and on for some years. Maybe daddio just thought it was a little lover's spat?

That said, I don't understand why daddio isn't being charged with harassment. Stupid creep.

[IdaBriggs]

10. Because being choked into unconsciousness and then raped while unconscious is a "lover's spat"

to some people.



(Not aimed at you, but at the family of the rapist who probably believe that.)

[magical thyme]

11. problem is the family likely believed the rapist's lies instead of the victim.

but, yeah...(head bashing brick wall here, but it's disappeared from my smilies!)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. "the victim's daughter found a letter taped on their apartment door". There may not be enough

evidence to convict the father, but his method of delivery seems to indicate that he knew that the letter would not have been a welcomed one.

[Just Saying]

2. Maybe dad can have the adjoining cell.

So scary! I hope they put the son away for a very long time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Can we please get some gun-controllers to weigh in on this and say that civilians should not

own firearms for self-defense, not even for self-defense in the home?

Somehow, it seems that this guy is serious and that a rape victim who is threatened by him should have the option to own a firearm for self-defense.

[Beaverhausen]

5. As long as she doesn't fire a warning shot...

[bettyellen]

6. I think it's more important to take guns out of these people hands- his and his fathers.

Statistically much more likely they would use her own gun against her if she had one.

[ceonupe]

7. If he gets out in 5 years or so

And violets the law get gun and kicks in her door statics won't mean shit.

The fact is if this guy tracks her down and makes good on his threat she should atleast have the option of being armed.

In my town after the first wave of troops started coming back 3 women were killed in the same nebihorhood 2 by the men they divorced/were divorcing and one by a guy who just wanted out to start life with new chick (intentionally called her this as she was involved in the plot and knew of it). Granted in one case the married woman she did not see it coming as she was on a wall with husband who had fellow solider jump out of bushes and slice her throat but the other 2 were stright up kick in door rape and execute or just execute.

And if you want to research this happened in Fayetteville, NC in middle/upper middle class nebihorhood of hillendale/country club north.

[Scuba]

9. What color law? Huh? And he wanted to start a life with a baby hen?

Hope you like pizza.

[ceonupe]

14. Scuba

I called her a chick instead of other more mean words. The side girlfriend knew of the plot before and after. She did not get charged because she gave up the information on the husband

[Mojorabbit]

13. As a woman I'd rather take the odds that I would not be one

and have protection at the ready.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. As a "gun controller"

I am totally in favor of the woman having a gun. What I oppose is the rapist having a gun, which seems to be fine with a lot of anti-gun control advocates.

[frylock]

15. this

[LWolf]

12. Sure.

Civilians should not own firearms for self-defense in the home.

Are you happy now?

I actually, though, don't want to keep civilians from owning firearms for hunting or for self-defense, so I guess your wish is pretty damned empty.

Personally, I object to living in a state of fear, and I object to the idea that I have to depend on a gun to defend me. I know that guns kept for "self-defense" are statistically more likely to injure or kill accidentally than to actually defend the gun owner against attack.

I'm a 53 yo female. I live alone. I have never owned a gun. I have never felt like I needed one for "self-defense." If I were the woman in this story, I would do a number of things in response to this threat:

1. Restraining orders against perp and father.

2. Get a lawyer.

3. Charge dad and son with criminal threats.

4. Move.

5. Install a good security system in new place.

6. Keep track of son's progress through the system, and be aware of when, if ever, he is released.

7. Keep track of dad's location.

8. Make sure my neighbors know about the situation.

9. Get a dog.

10. Take martial arts and/or other self-defense classes that don't require firearms.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. In your view, does she have to do all these? Or only one, such as getting a retraining order?

She's already done that.

In fact, she also trying to get him restrained, at least temporarily, in another location by getting him convicted. A prison.

And exactly why do you want to take away her option of owning a firearm?

* Because you've never owned a gun?
* Because you have never felt like you needed one for self-defense?
* Because she can do all the things that you say that she should do?

[LWolf]

18. In my view,

she doesn't HAVE to do any of them, not from my list of what I would do, or yours. She's free to do what she thinks will work.

Please: either point out where I suggested that I wanted to "take away her option of owning a firearm", or acknowledge your disingenuous use of hyperbole.

I'm guessing that you won't. You can't do the first, because I didn't, and you won't do the second, because you don't really care about what this, or any other woman does to protect herself, at least not for the purposes of this conversation. I suggest that your only point is to jump in to a topic that is not about gun ownership and MAKE it about gun ownership.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Just look at the context of posts #3 and 12.

At #3, I said

"Can we please get some gun-controllers to weigh in on this and say that civilians should not
own firearms for self-defense, not even for self-defense in the home?"

"Somehow, it seems that this guy is serious and that a rape victim who is threatened by him
should have the option to own a firearm for self-defense."

At #12, your response was

"Sure."

And you expressly added

"Civilians should not own firearms for self-defense in the home."

Your subsequent double-talk (beginning with "I actually ...&quot doesn't negate what you said. This is verified by your long list of what you would have the rape victim do.

You even claim to have special knowledge to support your disapproval. Knowledge which others do not have. Knowledge which may be based solely upon faith and imagination:

"I know that guns kept for "self-defense" are statistically more likely to injure or kill accidentally than to actually defend the gun owner against attack."

[LWolf]

20. My response in # 12 was a gift.

You requested it. I pointed out quite clearly that I posted it because you wanted someone to, and that I didn't agree with it. Why did you want someone to? So you could make the topic about guns. Knowing that I didn't agree with that statement, you jumped in to argue it anyway. So I guess I opened that door for you. You should be thanking me.

My long list is not what I would have the, or any, rape victim do. It's what I would do in similar circumstances. It's not "double talk." It's entering the conversation about what women in that position can do, and it's acknowledging that getting a gun doesn't have to be at the top of the list, or even on the list. There are other things that women can do, as well, which are not on my list and not gun-related. Why would you ignore that fact?

As for "faith and imagination:"

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.

Source
Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract

OBJECTIVE:
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182


Am I really the only person you can find to have this argument with? The person who said:

"I actually, though, don't want to keep civilians from owning firearms for hunting or for self-defense," and then went on to express my personal opinion and choice for my life, not for all people? Do you not want gun ownership to be a choice? Do you want to mandate that all citizens keep firearms in their homes for purposes of self-defense? If not, why would you care that I don't choose to, and have other options, and that I state that?

Meanwhile, I'm off to run errands and visit the local dental torture chamber. Have fun.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Skewed statistics. The statistics do not measure the firearm ownership which deters some would-be

criminals such as home-invaders. Millions of firearms owners who lawfully own firearms in the home for self-defense never need to shoot anyone. That doesn't mean that the firearms are not owned for self-defense. It is illogical for anyone to believe that the firearms are not owned for self-defense.

This rape victim should be able to choose for herself whether to own a firearm for self-defense or not. It is common for firearms to be safely owned in American homes, and millions of Americans do. No one should disapprove of her choice if she chooses to own a firearm for self defense by relying upon cherry-picked statistics to say that they "know that guns kept for "self-defense" are statistically more likely to injure or kill accidentally than to actually defend the gun owner against attack."

This entire string is about the rape victim. She has the right to choose to defend herself and is not limited to the choices that you said that you would make.