Friday, July 11, 2008

Foresight


Orlando "Foo" Guarino is suspected of asphyxiating his wife and two young children in Marianna. The now-deceased Ashley Guarino had a PFA against her estranged husband. She claimed that he had disclosed to her feelings that he may hurt the children and that he wanted her to see him kill himself. As of yet, we do not have the interview with a friend or family member who says that Ashley told them that Orlando was going to kill her... but there was a PFA and we have reams of cases where the eventual victim foretold her death at the hands of the person who ultimately was responsible.
I have an enormous confidence that the police and Steve Toprani will deliver justice. Going forward, though... is there any way to prevent these things from happening? It seems like Ashley did was she was supposed to do, but that PFA was little more than a piece of paper. Two innocent children. A beautiful, 22 year old girl. How do we protect them when they seek protection?

-ellipses

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Domestic violence cases are hard to counter given the normal emotions involved in any relationship. It's not unheard of for women who have obtained a PFA to let the man back in the house willingly, perhaps thinking that things have changed or that the visit will be a brief one. Abused women attempt to reconcile; wives of alcoholics hang in for years. Unfortunately, there are not enough police to put a guard on every woman who feels threatened.

July 11, 2008 at 8:45 AM  
Blogger Monique Ringling said...

E,
I had to place that photo on your post. This image says so much.

July 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I have been looking for a photo of Dreux, Orlando Jr. and Ashley all morning... I found pics of the kids, but not of ashley... The story ceased being about this fucking animal the moment they apprehended him. Now, the story needs to be about Ashley and her kids. But, of course I can't find a picture of her...

-ellipses

July 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM  
Blogger Administrator said...

Did you ever reply to any of my emails yesterday? If you did, I didn't get em. Our email has been acting up since yesterday afternoon. If you want photos, ask. You had to see today's front page. We led with all three of their photos then his smiling face under them. I'll send you the front page. Did you watch the video I took off his myspace.com page? I placed it in the story. It's Ashley and Dreux.

July 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM  
Blogger Monique Ringling said...

oops...I wasn't signed in to the correct blogger account.

Moe

July 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I had a work thing yesterday afternoon... i got your emails on my blackberry but really couldn't do much about it... I had seen all of the photos on KDKA last night but none on the web...

I did see the video and numerous pictures of him... the pictures you are talking about... were they in the hard copy or on the web?

I don't get a hard copy newspaper (sorry :-()... and I didn't see her pics on the site.

Thanks, though!

-ellipses

July 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM  
OpenID Wormie270 said...

Anonymous is right. My mom works with getting women (and sometimes men too) PFA's. More often than not, the women go back to their abusive husbands/boyfriends. The story states that Ashley was in the home she shared with Orlando. Does anyone know how she got there? Did she go there on her own free will?

I'm not saying that she's to blame. The picture of Orlando on the front page is sickening! He looks too happy to hear his family has been killed. . .which only shows his guilt. Anyone that would murder their own infant children do not deserve to live in my opinion!

July 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want to know the real shame about this case? That the police didn't shoot him down like the dog that he is. Now, we get to hear about how he is mentally deranged and how he doesn't deserve the death penalty because he didn't know what he was doing. . .

Blah, blah, blah.

Even if he does get the death penalty, he'll have years of appeals that will allow him to live out his days in the relative comfort of jail.

As for the domestic violence cases, this is a pretty typical case. The thought being, "If I can't have you, no one will." And they are almost impossible to stop. All you can do is sweep up after the mess.

July 11, 2008 at 5:26 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

On a visceral level, I share your views... however, I have to allow myself to be governed by reason and not by emotion and instinctive response. Therefore... let him have a trial and be judged by a jury of his peers... let him be found guilty and sentenced to death... and let him die 2 decades from now in a humane fashion... and let us lament the fact that 3 lives were lost in July '08... gasping for a breath that wasn't to be had.

-ellipses

July 11, 2008 at 6:28 PM  
Blogger PRIguy said...

Why should he die in a humane fashion?

July 11, 2008 at 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant that as a sort of sarcastic concession. In that, to maintain the moral high ground, we have to assure that his punishment is not cruel or unusual. Basically, his punishment has to be emotionally sterile. The satisfaction has to come from the macro rule of law and not from personnal vengeance. It sucks, but it is a mark of civility.
Ellipses

July 11, 2008 at 8:36 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

These PFA cases seemed to be difficult to police. The actor involved in the case has already shown disrespect for others, so there is no reason to believe he/she will abide by a judge's order.

At the risk of being flamed out, allow me to open some discussion about the matter from a different viewpoint. I am coming to the conclusion that many of society's ills stem from dysfunctional family units. This observations applies to these kinds of cases in the more obvious ways, but also to education, crime and attitudes the prevail in today's culture.

As decades have passed, the family unit of husband, wife, and children has slowly disintegrated. What could be the most significant cause of this breakdown? I'm sure that many reasons could be advanced to support the argument, but one for my focus is the lack of male leadership. The men of America have defaulted upon their duties as husbands and fathers. Far too many consider themselves merely sperm donors to the process, and then flake off into their own world, without a hint of responsibility. Men have not stepped up the roles they once held, leaders in the household. This includes not just providing financially, but also for emotional and spiritual leadership.

Why is this so? Why have men in the US abrogated their duties and responsibilities? In recent years, one can attribute it to the lack of two parent homes, a pattern that was common a few decades ago. Now, there are so many households without a father figure for a wife to rely upon, or children to be supported.

Parent is not only a noun, but a verb. Being a parent requires action, involvement, sacrifice, and selflessness for the sake of others. Perhaps in this age of narcissism the sacrifice and selflessness part of that set are gone. Far too many folks are "out for themselves," without regard to being the husband and father. When households are single parent households, most of the time, the single parent is female. Oh yes, perhaps the father has some custody time. But, for the most part, the raising of the children is left to the mother. This means that males growing up in these households do not have a masculine figure in the house as a role model.

We have even gone so far as to create a new identity for family. Two homosexuals together call themselves a family unit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where there is not a masculine, or feminine, influence in the household, children are missing some early training on how to deal with others. I know to homosexual men living together not far from me, living with two boys in the house (8 and 12?). When I see these two boys, I ask myself, "How will these two boys grow up learning to respect and treat a woman?" I don't intend to make this a slam on homosexual lifestyle -- there are plenty of other opportunities to travel that path.

What I do want to try to understand is why the American male has lost their desire to be responsible husbands and fathers. When the household breaks apart, the children are often the losers. And, the cycle goes on because they then have a skewed perspective on how a family should function. The masculine influence is lost, and the boys in the household are incapable of understanding what they should be like when teens, and then as adults.

I believe some recent statistics on births outside of a husband/wife relationship has reached 75% in some sectors of our society. This is horrible! How can we expect children from these situations to understand how to function later as part of a family unit?

I'm just asking the question here -- has the feminist movement of the past 40 years dealt this blow to the male influence? With so much talk about equality, the males are often slighted, and have been unwilling to stand up for their roles. This does not mean in any way that males need to oppress women, children, or any others. But, without a clear leadership role in the homes, the males have lost their way.

I'm afraid the problem has migrated down to elementary and middle school levels. Boys are being pushed aside, so that girls "can be equal." Recent reports (can't find one right now) have address the changing attitudes towards young boys in the school system. Even in high school, so much emphasis has been placed on "equal for boys and girls," the boys have ended up on the short end of the stick. They are left with a view of being pushed down, and carry that attitude forward into later seasons of life.

Anyway, this is a long way of speaking to the triple murders this week. Clearly, this family was a dysfunctional one. The outcome was murder of three people. Not all dysfunctional units end this way. But far too many have undesirable outcomes, manifesting in poor educational performance, recreational sex, teen pregnancy (won't even go there in this post), gangs (looking for acceptance that is not found in the home), and crime.

Men, step up to be husband, fathers, and leaders of the household. If more men did so, I believe many of our society's woes would be cured.

July 11, 2008 at 8:43 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I guess I can try to elaborate on a parallel issue...

While the feminist movement had a lot of positive outcomes, it seems to have positioned itself nicely into what I have been saying about a lot of benevolent actions: unintended consequences that may outweigh the intended benefit. The "liberation" of women freed women sexually, professionally, and individually. Women were not necessarily bound to the role of child-bearer. They were freed to embark on careers. They were freed to define themselves on an individual level (without a prerequisite man). However, sexual liberation ended up conflicting with the idea that we should de-objectify women. My next statement is in no way directed to the deceased Ashley Guarino, it is completely independent of the original discussion topic. When women are free to be as sexual as they wish without the fear of inevitable motherhood, they are then free to indulge in excess. Bluntly put, sexual liberation created "ho-culture." Combine that with the overt minimizing of the importance of men in the traditional male role, and you create a scion of male "ho's"... Women are free to seek free love, and men are free to provide it. Even though women still experience wage inequality, the potential earning power for women today far exceeds what it was when we were in the "traditional" era. Therefore, in the event of being caught up in motherhood, a woman at least has hope that she can raise a child successfully on her own... it is an economic possibility. Then, another combination comes into play: non-dichotomous individualization. The woman, now with child, now with hopes of providing on her own, has a realistic chance of defining herself as a single mom... society has created the schematic wherein she can be the mother, be the bread winner, and be herself independent of a man. As a lot of us can see, this would be one hell of an act to pull off, but the virtues of it are drilled into us every day. The single mom is on a level that no man can attain.

Back on the topic of Ashley... yes, this family was dysfunctional... but they were only recently separated. I don't think that the aforementioned analysis of society plays into this singular, tragic event. This evil lies squarely on Orlando Guarino's shoulders... it could have played out exactly the same way in 1950 as it did this week.

It does seem apparent that the PFA only really protects people who are at less risk than those who end up dead. That piece of paper does not stop someone from stabbing, strangling, or shooting. It only allows for police intervention and subsequent confinement... When the perpetrator wants to harm the victim, they can do so very easily before intervention can occur. When it's a one shot deal, the stakes are higher... I am sure that he was aware that if he just beat her up, he would be imprisoned and forcefully kept from her. So... that left one option.

-ellipses

July 11, 2008 at 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, guys, but this crap about women's lib being to blame for the breakup of the "family unit" is just that -- crap. I grew up in family unit where the father worked and the mother did not. Dad expressed his fatherly duty by ignoring the four kids except to act as the dispenser of punishment when he got home and one of us had acted up in his absence. he never took time to talk to us, never took time to instill moral values or to show any kind of attention until my mother threw him out of the house when I was 13. Then he suddenly became very interested in everything I did. When my mom let him come back, he went right back to the same old pattern. So don't hand me this "masculine presence" baloney.

And this role of men as leaders of the household is bull as well. One of my best friends is married to an old-line male who defines his role as head of the household as impregnating her, then refusing to hold down a job that paid enough to allow her to actually raise the child. After she went to work so she could have enough money to raise a family, he blissfully sat at home most days of the week waiting for her to come home from work so she could cook "his" dinner, iron his shirts and clean the house. And he had the cojones to say he was worried that she was working too hard. Now he's "retired." Mom is still working. If anyone needs a PFA, it's her.

Boys being passed over to favor girls? No one seemed to be bothered too much for most of the history of this planet, when women were treated as property and subjugated by "head of household."

And I see that the male dominated families in the Middle East are just doing great. This garbage about women being the vessel through which the male essence is propagated makes me sick.

I know plenty of single moms who have raised fully functioning children, and I know a few single dads who have done likewise. I also know a few homosexual couples raising kids without any signs of a problem from within or without.

Marriage -- male-male, male-female or female-female -- is a partnership, as is raising children. "Head of household" is an antiquated term invented by men that no longer has relevance is this society.

BTW, I'm male.

July 13, 2008 at 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not saying that women's lib caused these problems... the problems existed before. But now, there is not the societal push toward that idealized nucleic family, so you have same problems, but more fragmentation. The men you are describing are the same men as what I am talking about... except that in my schema, they are out on the roam...

July 13, 2008 at 3:58 PM  
Blogger Roger said...

Anonymous, ...

Thank you for your reply. In your first two paragraphs, you reinforced my points with good examples. You discount the actions of these men. I say they abrogated their responsibilities as husband and father. That was exactly my point. You've cited examples where these men (don't intend to be insensitive to your father, but you already have done so), have not done the duties as their roles required. The masculine presence was there, but was very poorly handled.

Your post indicates that you don't understand what genuine household leadership by husband and father looks like. Just being in the house doesn't do it. Taking inappropriate actions, or avoiding other actions, does not do it. Just because in these examples the outcome was not favorable does not make the principle of the matter invalid.

Your comments about women being subjugated by "head of household" also tells me that you don't understand the notion of leadership, and spousal submission. The husband is just as much to submit to the wife, as the wife is to the husband. In fact, the husband has even greater submission requirements than the wife.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that "women being the vessel through which the male essence is propagated." I don't even know what you mean by such a statement.

Sure, you can find examples of children who have persevered through dysfunctional households. But, you will find statistics to reinforce the idea of a stable husband/wife household as being a better environment for fostering educational performance, lower crime rates, etc. Have said that, there is no question that just because a husband/wife are together under the same roof means a family unit is not dysfunctional. In my experience, far too often the roles of the husband and wife are not well understood when entering a marriage relationship. After children, the conflicts in roles intensifies, and the children are often the target of these problems. I see many, many households where the husband and wife are strong together, have very well adjusted children who do well educationally (some are home schooled), and they are a model. The key ingredient that I observe is a strong male leadership, understanding his role, a strong, assertive wife, understanding her role, both spouses being submissive to each other.

Marriage is a relationship between a man and woman, no matter what some states may call homosexual partnerships. I've not even going there in this thread.

What has been antiquated in our society? Mankind has not changed in millenniums. The same characteristics exhibited now in mankind were shown to exist long, long ago. Attributes such as anger, bitterness, love, jealousy, oppression of others, pride, arrogance, loyalty, servanthood, etc. have never changed. I read so many of these threads that somehow in 2008, we are "enlightened." Really? Oh to be sure, manifestations of the basic character traits have changed. But, the basic attributes that characterize mankind to himself, and his relationship to others, has not changed. I fail to see any "enlightenment" in mankind in our age.

Your post has only negative things to say about the situation. I see nothing being offered as a remedy. Does this mean that the present situation is fine, with no need of changes? I hear the cry for changes from all walks of life, from the lower socio-economic ranks where families have very little meaning any longer, to the upper echelons where drugs and alcohol are commonplace in the teen ranks. The cries are "we have to do something to stop this." Are you suggesting otherwise in your post? I don't want to make wrong assumptions, but because nothing positive is offered, you might think the present state of the family unit is fine.

You've made criticisms of many different points. What is your frame of reference? What forms your worldview? What is the source of absolute truth for you? Since you dislike what was offered, you obviously have a different source of wisdom and truth. You have some belief system that drives your thoughts. Can you share with us, please?

July 13, 2008 at 9:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the reasons for lack of a better system for PFA's is the near universal use of them now in divorce cases, even when there is no actual abuse.
In return, men have responded by claiming the mother has abused the children.
This has left everyone with a jaded view towards most PFA's. They don't say it, they just deal with it in that fashion. The abuse of those that seek to gain advantage through the process.
In addition, there are instances of spousal abuse by women towards men. These cases are treated for PFA's with a higher level of skepticism, even though the problems are generally the same.
The case that we are discussing though is more related to social-economic and other factors. The mother was much younger than the murderer. He had a history of criminal activity, yet she had chosen to be in a relationship with him at the start.
She made the fatal mistake of going to his residence, believing him probably to have changed.
Tragic case but much too common in a poor, economically challenged area with high drug use.

July 14, 2008 at 8:13 AM  
Blogger Roger said...

Anonymous ...

Are there two here by that handle? Is the one posting July 13, 3:13 p.m. and the one posting July 14, 8:13 a.m.? If you are the same, why is the second post so different than the first, and does not address the questions of my post?

I remain interested in answers to the questions of my post. The answers would help to understand the 3:13 p.m. posting.

July 14, 2008 at 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Captain said...

Has anyone considered the role of the courts and their officers including the lawyers on both sides? I would suspect the lawyers are contributing heavily in this societal problem. As with so many problems lawyers tend to "junkify and muddy" the waters in too many fashions. It would appear to me that the mother was in serious need for legal assistance (assuming she could not afford counsel.) Where are all of the advocates for mothers and children of abuse at in this womans obvious need? Why arent the judges being asked to gain a stronger hold on such possible events especially since he had a predetermined disposition and a substantial criminal background? Any juvenile records should be made available in any PFA case, support, domestic dispute and abuse cases in my opinion. I cannot say one perspective I have read here of the many is stronger than the other. Obviously the system is seriously flawed especially as it would concern the mother and children all too often they were, are, and will be the victims in this scenario.

I know the costs are enormous, but there has to be a way to protect our children no matter how they got on this earth. Is the price of a life of your daughter, son, or grandchild worth the price of protecting them? The lawyers although cannot take the entire blame unfortunately, I do place them square in the crosshairs because they have violated the morality and sensibility of protecting those who need it most the helpless and/or weaker in my opinion. And the judges generally speaking are too afraid to lay down the hammer in fear of losing their precious position be it elected or appointed. Our Supreme Court has had many chances to uphold and support legislation so help prevent this and they have chosen little or no action unfortunately.

I am sure this expletive animal is guilty and agree 100% with those who share same perspective. He should get the death penalty, but why not allow the inhumane inhumane treatment? That my friend Ellipses I understand the civility of, but should not apply here. I suspect you agree with me in principle but also understand the humane aspect too. It/He should be killed an eye for eyes so to speak. Nothing we do to him will even register because he has no soul. And anbody who chooses to defend him (his family included) is of the same in my opinion. How can he possibly be defended other than criminally insane? But dare I say again our justice system has some flaws.

As for PFA's they are a joke in all states. The cops say they take them seriously but they cannot as they are too undermanned and underpaid to begin with. As with the addage it take society to raise a child as it should also take society to protect the weak, the forgotten and the children.

The mother chose this animal to procreate with and its too bad her choice was a rotten one. I am not blaming her as the psychopaths can hide their ultimate goals and sickness as well as anybody. But she asked for help and it was not given nor not enough was given. Where were her family, friends, her fucking lawyer??? I think there are many decent, honest, passionate lawyers who try to do good and the right thing all the time, but for each good there are hordes of the opposite.

I cannot offer how to change the system because I do not know as so much is in need of change. But if the laws were changed to insure that death begets death the souless would meet the devil more often than not -- and right after sentencing in a very public fashion. Then justice would be as timely as possible. In the meantime, we will feed, clothe, and provide healthcare to this scum.

If women would be able to truly arm themsleves on behalf of their children, there would be alot fewer of these events. I for one would support any woman (upon proof of course) who killed any former, ex, etc who threatened her life or the life of her children. And the same goes for men on the pother side of the coin. Wackos are not limited to men alone!!

The laws need changed and the lawyers need to feel some of the anguish they set loose in this country. Thats a place to start.

As for dysfunctional familes - we may never fix that problem no matter what we do as a society. In some small insignificant way we all have a dysfunctional family.

I hope the bastard dies in prison long before he gets to trial by as much an inhumane fashion as he went about killing those we today mourn. I hope whoever kills him in prison is never found out as I would not want those who did a favor to society (albeit a criminal themselves) to be further punished for doing something as a society we failed to do ourselves.

But, as luck would have it our system will protect him and ultimately forget about the victims except on the anniversary of their brutal deaths. Thats the most shameful part of it all the laws will ultimately protect him from us -- society!!

July 15, 2008 at 3:59 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home