Clearwater woman was denied protection from ex. Two days later, he killed her.

[Sancho]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/02/16/clearwater-murder-suicide-domestic-violence-audrey-petersen-anna-paulina-luna/

Two days before police say Audrey Petersen was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend, she filed for a temporary injunction seeking protection from him, court records show.

In the petition, Petersen wrote that Scoza repeatedly sent her unsettling text messages over a weeklong period about their relationship. She also wrote that Scoza had handguns “in his condo and possibly in his car.”

Clearwater police say Scoza forced his way into Petersen’s home on the 2300 block of Hillcreek Circle East, in the Countryside area, shortly after 8 p.m. As Petersen fled to a neighbor’s house, Scoza shot her multiple times before shooting and killing himself in the same neighbor’s yard, police say.

In September 2021, when Luna was running for Congress, Loar dismissed a temporary stalking injunction against Luna’s opponent, who Luna said had plans to kill her. In Luna’s case, Loar said she dismissed the injunction because the law requires two instances of harassment in order for an injunction to be upheld.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Permanut]

1. Just wondering what a temporary injunction would have done to prevent this..

So often these legal actions, restraining orders and such, are just meaningless pieces of paper to the offender.

[Zeitghost]

2. In this case, probbly not

He was willing to die over it, so it's unlikely that the threat of punishment for breaking a court order would have stopped him.

[Srkdqltr]

3. I understand what you are saying. But

Anytime someone goes into a long winded explanation of what everyone else should do to be secure about guns than say, I know how to use them and I have a lot of guns, you loose all the moral high ground to me. It says that you value the guns.
If you keep guns than everyone should be able to also. And that is a death sentence for some.

[slightlv]

4. I dunno about that completely.

Could be just trying to admit this country has a problem thats never going away and trying to find a way to work within that framework for a better direction. I hate Guns. I'm a veteran and I'm not afraid of them, only the idiots holding them. Guns only have one purpose no matter what kind of gun it is... To kill. Sometimes that's justified. Most times not.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. Personally, I am of the

"Let's confiscate all guns" opinion.

I know, that's not really feasible or practical, but still. If people didn't have guns (think about other countries here) then far fewer shootings and deaths would occur. Hmmm. What a novel idea. Fewer guns. Maybe even no guns. Fewer gun deaths. Maybe even no gun deaths. I know, what a silly idea.

I have never lost anyone to a gun death. My closest connection to what happened the other day in Kansas City is that I used to live there, and I'm a fan of the Chiefs. It's important to understand that the shooting had NOTHING to do with the Chiefs, but was entirely some kind of stupid local dispute. And involved guns.

If guns were taken away, these things wouldn't happen. And honestly, are guns more important than lives? Apparently a lot of people think so. I only wish they would lose someone to a gun. Yes, I do.