A Complete Waste of Space

....best to let him go ahead and kill a half-dozen people:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-court ... im-n152696

From your provided link.....

"Haskell and his ex-wife were living together in Cache County, Utah, before their separation. She petitioned a court for an order of protection in July 2013. The judge granted the order, and Melannie Haskell filed for divorce the following month.

In October, the protective order was dismissed when the couple agreed to a mutual restraining order in the divorce and custody arrangements involving their children.

Do ya ever read anything completely? Then he committed this crime in Texas.

Old Pudfark sez: " I'd bet ya talk dirty to yourself when wanking off....just, to sound convincing. "

Pudfark wrote:From your provided link.....

"Haskell and his ex-wife were living together in Cache County, Utah, before their separation. She petitioned a court for an order of protection in July 2013. The judge granted the order, and Melannie Haskell filed for divorce the following month.

In October, the protective order was dismissed when the couple agreed to a mutual restraining order in the divorce and custody arrangements involving their children.

Do ya ever read anything completely? Then he committed this crime in Texas.

Old Pudfark sez: " I'd bet ya talk dirty to yourself when wanking off....just, to sound convincing. "

Why didn't you bold the part about the mutual restraining order? Didn't fit yer come back?
Selective bolding?

RD. You have no knowledge about what you speak.

MRO is a standard verbage in any custody order (permanent or otherwise) and also in any decree. It's standard out of the book verbage.

This is a standard restraining order that normally suffices. If you have a freak asshole, NOTHING will get in his way. It's just the way life works.

Mine states:
VI. Other Provisions
There are the following other provisions:
6.1 Derogatory comments. Each parent is restrained-from making any derogatory comments about the other parent to or in front of the child and from entering the other parent's residence without invitatio!1. Neither parent shall permit others to make derogatory comments about the other parent to or in the presence of the child.

6.2 Telephone Contact. The child shall have reasonable telephone contact privileges with the parent with whom she is not then residing without interference by the other parent. Each parent shall have reasonable contact privileges with the child.

6.3 Participation in Events. The child shall be accompanied by the parent with whom she is residing with respect to school, athletic, social and religious events. The other parent shall not be limited from attendance at such events providing that such attendance is not disruptive to the child's participation and does not interfere with the other parent's residential time. Each parent shall be responsible for keeping himself or herself advised of school, athletic, social and religious events in which the child participates.

6.4 Inability to Comply. Each parent shall notify the other at least 48 hours in advance of his or her inability to have scheduled residential time with the child.

6.5 Affections. Each parent shall exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact between the child and the other parent and to foster a feeling of affection between the child and the other parent. Neither parent shall not do anything which would estrange the child from the other, which would injure the opinion of the child as to the other, or which would impair the natural development of the child's love and respect for both of the parents.

6.6 Access to Information. Each parent shall have equal and independent authority to confer with school, daycare, and other programs and provider with regard to the child's progress and each shall have free access to school, daycare, and other records, including, but not limited to, copies of report cards, school meeting notices, vacation schedules, class programs, requests for conferences, results of standardized or diagnostic tests, notices of activities involving the child, sample of significant school (etc)...

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Pudfark wrote:From your provided link.....

"Haskell and his ex-wife were living together in Cache County, Utah, before their separation. She petitioned a court for an order of protection in July 2013. The judge granted the order, and Melannie Haskell filed for divorce the following month.

In October, the protective order was dismissed when the couple agreed to a mutual restraining order in the divorce and custody arrangements involving their children.

Do ya ever read anything completely? Then he committed this crime in Texas.

Old Pudfark sez: " I'd bet ya talk dirty to yourself when wanking off....just, to sound convincing. "

Why didn't you bold the part about the mutual restraining order? Didn't fit yer come back?
Selective bolding?

I guess I expect more from you guys at this point.

Respectful nod yer direction Sir Tolwyn.

BTW since I posted the quote above from the link?
The article has been edited.
Sneaky little liberals there....what I'd call an "in-credible" source of news.

Edit: Since the original link was edited by NBC to remove the accurate information,
I'm including this link to the real truth. BTW fuck nbc.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... -wife.html

"Ronald Lee Haskell, 33, was a "recent resident" of the Logan area and "had several involvements with the Logan City Police Department and was incarcerated in the Cache County Jail in 2008," the Cache County Sheriff's Office confirmed Thursday.

The Haskells were married in California in 2002. They separated in June of 2013. They have four children together between the ages of 3 and 11.

In July of 2013, Melanie Haskell filed for a protective order against her husband in 1st District Court in Logan. In August she filed for divorce.

In October, both parties agreed to drop the protective order and enter into a "mutual restraining order."

Old Pudfark sez: " NBC is flat ass caught on this...the original link that Slick posted was made public at 10:14 this morning and when you look at the link now it shows 2:somthing this afternoon and Slick started this thread with the 10:14 link at 1:30 this afternoon. I am most definitely NOT blaming this on Slick, it falls squarely and fairly on NBC. "

Tolwyn wrote:This is a standard restraining order that normally suffices. If you have a freak asshole, NOTHING will get in his way.

I absolutely agree with you.
A standard restraining order will not stop a freak asshole. That's a given.
But a protective order will not stop a freak asshole either. That's a given.
This isn't about what type of order was in place, this is about what happened.
I asked Pud why he bolded one and not the other because I surmise that he thought one served his purpose and the other didn't. He has a bit of a history of doing that in case you hadn't noticed.
Any order that was in place was meaningless in this instance. Yet Pud bolded one and not the other. That's why I asked.
Pud just didn't understand.

bottom line was this: the guy was such a threat to the family that he couldn't even meet with the kids without a shrink present. He should NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO POSSESS A GUN. Period.

Pudfark wrote:BTW since I posted the quote above from the link?
The article has been edited.[/b]
Sneaky little liberals there....what I'd call an "in-credible" source of news.

Their board is hacked!

callmeslick wrote:bottom line was this: the guy was such a threat to the family that he couldn't even meet with the kids without a shrink present. He should NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO POSSESS A GUN. Period.

Well, yeah ... and then there's THAT!