Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Advocates Against Domestic Violence Blame Denial Of Protective Order For Woman's Death

A double-homicide and suicide arising out of a domestic dispute this morning has advocates against domestic violence blaming the denial of a protective order for today's tragedy. According to WISH-TV, April Wills requested a protective order against her ex-husband, Carl Wills. Instead of being granted a traditional protective order, Marion County granted Wills what is known as a "non-violent contact order."

"Most other counties don't even entertain the idea of a non-violent contact order because a non-violent contact order is an order that says it's okay to have contact with somebody as long as it's not violent," said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Advocates tell WISH-TV that there has been a growing trend in Marion County to issue a "non-violent contact order." In addition to beating another woman last fall, Carl Wills had the following run-ins with his ex-wife over the last several months according to the Star:

In June 2007, Wills knocked on the door of his ex-wife’s Winterberry Drive apartment. When she did not answer, according to a report, he slashed a tire on her car.

In April 2007, Wills kicked in the door of April Wills’ apartment in the 3600 block of Green Ash Court, according to another report, and fled the scene before police arrived.

In January 2006, police arrested Wills for domestic battery after he reportedly punched April in the face and body at an apartment in the 4200 block of Majestic Lane.

Not surprisingly, Wills had a prior conviction for reckless homicide from 1992. According to the Star, he served 7 years of his 8-year sentence.


Concerned Taxpayer said...

Anybody who thinks that a piece of paper ("Protective Order") will stop someone from committing violence lives in liberal la-la land.

Obviously, this man was going to continue committing violence until he was physically stopped.

mr. jackson said...

You know Mr. Gary, that protective orders are needed in our community. My issue is with women that use them illegally and they never suffer any reprocussions for lying. My sons mother lied and and they gave her one against me. Her sisters told her it would look better for her while we went through our custody battle. They placed my son on the order as a protective order as a protected order; so I wasnt able to see my son for an entire two months. So Mr. Gary, I think the orders are needed, but we have to find a way to police the process. Maybe requiring a police report is filed at the time of incident. Not someone simply walking into the CC building lying, and leaving with a order in thier hand. Thank you again for publishing real facts that lead to engagement within the mind.

Mann Law, P.C. said...

Let's see they are contending that a no contact order as opposed to a no violent contact order would have saved her. As I see it, he violated the order that was issued. As concerned taxpayer said the piece of paper was not going to stop this guy. She had a piece of paper saying he couldn't do what he did in addition to the law. When a person is willing to kill themselves no court order is going to stop them. Also if he had a prior felony conviction he was violating the law by having the gun.

Indy4U2C said...

Soft judges make hard criminals!

I saw a judge make a comment in Domestic Violence court that she was reluctant to permanently take away a woman's "right" to "protect herself" in a matter that was heard after that woman pointed a gun at her boyfriend.

Marion County judges are far too soft on crime.

Mann Law, P.C. said...

You have no clue what you are talking about. The last thing you can accuse judges of in Marion County is they are soft on crime. In fact they could be seen as an arm of the police and prosecutor's office.

Unknown said...

I knew a judge who was in domestic violence court. The first case she had where the man was accused of violence against the woman, she was ready to throw the book at him. She granted the protective order.

The next time they were in court together holding hands. She said she learned a lesson. Very often the problem isn't the "system" but the people in it. Judge Certo was interviewed and he said she requested that protective order allow for non-violent contact because they had kids together. Again, SHE requested the order she was given.

At some point, people need to stop blaming the system and start blaming the people involved.

Indy4U2C said...

True Conservative: You wrongfully say I have "no idea what you are talking about." I said in my post I saw it with my own eyes...in the Domestic Violence courtroom. What do you know about Marion County courts and the softy judges?

Let's see, I saw a man CONVICTED by a Marion County liberal judge of a felony crime....it was the TENTH time that criminal committed the SAME CRIME. Do you think he got the max? No, he did not!!!

I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

Mann Law, P.C. said...

If it was the person's 10th felony as you contend then if the prosecutor had charged a habitual on the 3-9 this person would have been doing 30 years plus as an ahbitual. So either your "facts" are wrong or the prosecutor didn't file the correct charge.

Indy4U2C said...

True Conservative:

The right charge was filed, the conviction was entered....and the softy Marion County judge did NOT give the max.

You sound more like a True Liberal, deflecting responsbility from where it lays.

Mann Law, P.C. said...


(h) The court shall sentence a person found to be a habitual offender to an additional fixed term that is not less than the advisory sentence for the underlying offense nor more than three (3) times the advisory sentence for the underlying offense. However, the additional sentence may not exceed thirty (30) years.

shall means shall. for the 3rd assuming at most a d felony nonsuspendable is that would have been 4.5 years; for the 4th it would have been 4.5 years etc. So assuming this person kept committing class d felonies he would have served by law at leat 35 years. Of couse if you truly know what you are talking about you would know that the statute has been lessened (the prosecutors realized too many in prison and pushed for the change) so if he were 18 when he was arrested and then convicted before next crime he would be at least 53 now. This also would assume he was arrested charged and convicted on the same day (something you probably advocate). Of course assuming as you do the prosecutor always is right So his first would have been in the 70's or 80's when the habitual was a mandatory 30 years plus the underlying crime so we if you are right whihc you obviously are not he would have been in prison on the first habitual still. As to being a conservative you obviously don't know what that means. A true conservative is one who belives the government should not be trusted not one who blindly thinks police are always right (maybe you think the ones the prosecutor has charged really didn't commit those crimes) then you must be a police officer. Otherwise you are a prosecutor's employee who doesn't understand the arguments you make contradict themselves. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, due process etc. They also belive judges should have discretion, compassion and common sense. They do not argue when people are released due to constitutional violations that they have gotten off on technicalities. Illegal searches and arrests of people in their homes are burglarly except whent hey are performed by police.

Unknown said...


I'm with you. What I've seen too often in Marion County is that the judges and the prosecutors work in tandem. If the judges were truly "soft" they'd throw out some of the ridiculous charges that the prosecutor's office puts on people to try to get leverage against the defendants. Actually, no that wouldn't make the judges "soft." It would mean they were doing their jobs.

Indy4U2C said...

True Conservative: Your post is irrelevant to the case I observed. Fact: Felon convicted of same crime for the 10th time. Fact: Liberal Marion County Judge did not give the max. How can there be a mitigating factor? (Answer: there were none)

Mann Law, P.C. said...

my last post to you as a friend once said don't argue with a person who is clueless (actually he used another term but I will soften it) as he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. If you knew anything about the law you would know that these sentences are nonsuspendable i.e. the judge does not have a choice and your fact scenario could not have happened as the judge would have had no choice but to send this guy away basically for life. Of course, you and I know you are not correct adn you have been caught making up a story adn got called on it. If the prosecutor charged and proved habitual this could not have happened as you say.

Indy4U2C said...

True Conservative:

You blow smoke to obscure fact, just like a left-wing liberal.

The prosecutor charged with the felony, not habitual.

I was there, I saw it. You know not what you write about.