Victim identified in fatal Parkville shooting
The shooting came in a Parkville apartment complex in the middle of the afternoon on Sunday, and after the shots rang out, the gunman didn’t appear to be in a hurry to make his getaway.
In the initial stages of the investigation, police said they didn’t feel there was anything random about the shooting.
Police have now identified the victim as 27-year-old Shakeia Allen, and court records suggest that in recent months, police had been to her former home on Bayberry Road for multiple domestic disturbances.
In late February, police responded to a report that her ex-boyfriend had assaulted her while she was trying to move her things out of the home.
When they arrested him the next day, he surrendered a handgun that he had holstered inside his waistband.
While police still haven’t named a suspect in her murder, just last week, a hearing for a protective order involving both parties was dismissed when they failed to appear in court.
She says she got a restraining order.
The news says she didn’t.
Either way, the threat of violating a restraining order wasn’t enough to stop (presumably) her ex from murdering her.
I am not victim blaming.
She did what she was told to do by society.
A court order and a piece of paper, however, is meaningless to someone intent on causing harm.
You are your first and last line of protection.
This is why shall issue is important and Constitutional Carry is ideal.
When someone threatens you enough to make you get a court order against them, you need to be prepared for the chance that they will ignore it.
There are two types of people in the world, one, knows a person has a right to own another person, and the second, knows no one owns anyone. And there are people who want to be owned and there are people who don’t want to be owned. When a person, for whatever reason or lack of reason, leaves the absolute law of Personal Autonomy, the single lynchpin of Morality is fractured, and all manner of immorality ensues, of which the ultimate end is murder.
.
To not have been forced to learn Morality, (I say ‘Forced’ because no one is born with this personal discipline and no one naturally accepts learning it) during one’s formative years of three to twelve years of age, either will desire to be owned by, or will desire to own, other beings.
.
Elohim The Creator ultimately owns all created beings and is unique in that He gifted only Human Beings with Freewill. The freewill to force Morality on their offspring. To engage in the promotion of freedom or slavery. This is most understood in the truth of The Passover.
Knowing a bit about the process of getting a restraining order, let me chime in with my $0.02. (Note: These are the rules for my home state, but it’s likely pretty similar everywhere.)
.
She probably applied for one. Generally speaking, the courthouse will issue an emergency protective order on her statement alone, and they will send a deputy to serve him notice. The courthouse will also schedule a hearing to determine whether the emergency order should be lengthened to a “proper” temporary restraining order (TRO) and what the specific terms of the order should be — the date, time, and location will be on the notice served. That hearing happens relatively quickly, usually within 14 days of the initial application and emergency protective order.
.
Both parties are expected to appear at the hearing — she to make her case why he’s an ongoing threat to her, and him to make his case that he’s not (she’s lying, or she’s overreacting, or whatever) — and the judge decides whether extending the order is warranted based on the circumstances, testimony, and evidence provided. If the order is extended, it usually lasts one year, and the courts will schedule another hearing close to the end of that year to determine if it needs to be extended again, and so on and so forth. Permanent protective orders are extremely rare.
.
Naturally, if only one party or the other appears at the hearing, they tend to win by default. If neither party shows up, the judge doesn’t have any evidence or testimony to go on, and so he/she will dismiss the emergency order.
.
That’s what it sounds like happened here. My guess is, she applied for and received the emergency order, but then neither party appeared at the hearing, so the judge dismissed it.
.
She says she had one, the news says she didn’t. Due to the particulars of how these things work, it’s very likely they’re both right.
Didn’t l know that. Thank you.
No problem. It’s useful info to know in case anyone here ever needs to apply for one.
.
Just to be clear, I’ve never been directly involved in the process. I know what I know because a lady-friend of mine, back in the day, needed to apply for one against her ex and she asked me to tag along for moral support. As part of that support, I looked up the relevant State laws around them.
.
My friend didn’t win at the hearing. The judge was very fair, heard both sides, and determined that both parties had established enough separation between them that the year-long TRO was not warranted. He did tell my friend to apply again if that changed … not that it would have helped her if the ex suddenly became violent … but last I heard (it’s been some years and I’ve since lost touch with everyone involved), they had both moved on with their lives.
.
But seeing the process up-close like that was certainly enlightening.
.
———
.
As an afterthought: It’s also important for us in the gun-owning community to understand this process — just in case — since someone with an active TRO against them is usually a “prohibited person” for the duration of the TRO. If you ever get served with that emergency order, it is vitally important that you attend that hearing and make your case, and may even warrant hiring an attorney to represent you; your gun rights hang in the balance.