Husband shoots wife outside LDS church in Lehi, UT

[_harmony]

I have a cousin who knew this man.

Does the cousin have any insight into what the hell is going on inside him?

[_harmony]

The article said he had no prior history of violence. Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't violent and just never reported.

You are correct.

It means he has not been arrested for domestic violence or another violent crime.

If he had, he would most likely have been given probation while he attended a batterers program. (I'm not sure about the laws in Lehi but in many areas of the country anyway).

I can pretty much guarantee this was not the first incident of abuse.

Again, it is very rare for a rational, emotionally healthy, non-abusive man to kill his wife.


~dancer~

The article says the police had responded to the home before for "civil problems". Is that the current euphemism for domestic complaints?

[Guest]

Absolutely! To even suggest that a protective order/restraining order should not have been sought is absurd in this case. The man was clearly disturbed and violent!

The article said he had no prior history of violence. Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't violent and just never reported.

So what? If the woman feared for her life or her safety then she had the right to seek it. There can be a THREAT of violence!

Is ANYONE doubting that she should not have reason to be fearful of this man?

What??? HUH?? I don't geddit. Please, someone explain to me that after a man shoots his wife why anyone would then try to make a case that maybe a restraining order was NOT appropriate in the situation?

I'm simply saying that the man wasn't necessarily "clearly disturbed and violent" before this incident. Maybe he snapped, and this is the first violent act he's committed? Probably not, but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that he was.

Edited to add:

The article says the police had responded to the home before for "civil problems". Is that the current euphemism for domestic complaints?

Oh you're right. The article says, Police had responded to the couple's home before on civil problems, but David Ragsdale has no previous criminal history.

Ok, mon, I take it back. It sounds like she had every right to be fearful.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Moniker,

So what? If the woman feared for her life or her safety then she had the right to seek it. There can be a THREAT of violence!

You are totally correct.

The very fact that this man could kill his wife is evidence that she had valid reason to be afraid and seek protection.

Of the dozens and dozens of cases of spousal homicide of which I am aware I cannot off hand think of even one where the man did not have a history of domestic violence/abuse.

~dancer~

[_Moniker]

Absolutely! To even suggest that a protective order/restraining order should not have been sought is absurd in this case. The man was clearly disturbed and violent!

The article said he had no prior history of violence. Of course, that doesn't mean he wasn't violent and just never reported.

So what? If the woman feared for her life or her safety then she had the right to seek it. There can be a THREAT of violence!

Is ANYONE doubting that she should not have reason to be fearful of this man?

What??? HUH?? I don't geddit. Please, someone explain to me that after a man shoots his wife why anyone would then try to make a case that maybe a restraining order was NOT appropriate in the situation?

I'm simply saying that the man wasn't necessarily "clearly disturbed and violent" before this incident. Maybe he snapped, and this is the first violent act he's committed? Probably not, but I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that he was.

I didn't state that he was violent at any point before hand. Yet, now we have clear undisputed proof that he is a violent man. So, for us to go back and second guess a judge, and the woman that was fearful for her safety, seems more than a tad bit *off* to me.

I can state he "is violent" -- because he murdered his wife. No where in my post did I talk about prior acts or behavior since I'm not privy to them. Yet, we can look at the events and see that

1. Wife files and receives order

2. Husband murders wife

Now, after those two events occurred why are we to go back in time and suggest that the protective order was not appropriate?

I feel like I've just tumbled into bizarro land. Seriously.

[_Scottie]

I didn't state that he was violent at any point before hand. Yet, now we have clear undisputed proof that he is a violent man. So, for us to go back and second guess a judge, and the woman that was fearful for her safety, seems more than a tad bit *off* to me.

I can state he "is violent" -- because he murdered his wife. No where in my post did I talk about prior acts or behavior since I'm not privy to them. Yet, we can look at the events and see that

1. Wife files and receives order

2. Husband murders wife

Now, after those two events occurred why are we to go back in time and suggest that the protective order was not appropriate?

I feel like I've just tumbled into bizarro land. Seriously.

** Just in case you missed it, I edited my post...

Edited to add:

The article says the police had responded to the home before for "civil problems". Is that the current euphemism for domestic complaints?

Oh you're right. The article says, Police had responded to the couple's home before on civil problems, but David Ragsdale has no previous criminal history.

Ok, mon, I take it back. It sounds like she had every right to be fearful.

[_Brackite]

I have a cousin who knew this man.

Does the cousin have any insight into what the hell is going on inside him?

Hello,
My cousin has mostly just said that he was basically a friendly and a pretty nice man to him at a job they both worked at.
I don't know or I am not sure yet according to my cousin, that he knew that there was anything really definitely wrong with that man.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony,

The article says the police had responded to the home before for "civil problems". Is that the current euphemism for domestic complaints?

Yep!

Hi Brackite... :-) Nice to see you!

Most people would be surprised at the guys who are convicted of domestic violence. People seem to think the only guys who are abusive are convicts, drug dealers, or otherwise crazy men.

Not so.

The majority of men who beat up their wives do not beat up their neighbors or co-workers.


~dancer~

[_Scottie]

Hi Harmony,

The article says the police had responded to the home before for "civil problems". Is that the current euphemism for domestic complaints?

Yep!

Hi Brackite... :-) Nice to see you!

Most people would be surprised at the guys who are convicted of domestic violence. People seem to think the only guys who are abusive are convicts, drug dealers, or otherwise crazy men.

Not so.

The majority of men who beat up their wives do not beat up their neighbors or co-workers.


~dancer~

Yeah, just like all Mormons aren't fine, upstanding salt of the earth types and all non-Mormons have piles of porn and a full bar. No kidding, my ex honestly believed this.

[_Trinity]

The very fact that this man killed his wife tells me the PPO was appropriate. It is extraordinarily rare for a man to kill his wife without prior abuse.

That's exactly what the mother's attorney said. She said she was dumbfounded and of all the cases she has worked, this case would have been the last one she would have thought to incite this type of violence.

Another thing that puzzled me about this case was that the wife filed for a protective order, and then had agreed to downgrade it if the husband would abandon the gun which he was legally licensed to carry.

I'm sure we will probably find out more as time goes on.