“Chinika Hursey got a protective order against her ex-husband, Dominick Hursey, in March after she told police he threatened to kill her,” abc2news.com reports. “The order required he stay away from his ex-wife’s house and turn over any guns he had.” The cops came a knockin’ on Mr. Hursey’s door . . .

On March 27 officers went to Hursey’s house and asked him to surrender any guns. He claimed he didn’t have any. The officer search Hursey and didn’t find any guns and didn’t see any in plain sight in his Owings Mills home, but didn’t have a warrant to search the home.

On April 2 police say Hursey broke into his ex-wife’s home in Randallstown and [shot and] killed 36-year-old Chinika and her boyfriend, 36-year-old Steven Campbel.

A protective order offers no real protection against a killer. Adding a gun confiscation element to a protective order is nothing more than security theater. A killer can get access to a firearm even if he’s prohibited from owning or legally purchasing one. And if not that, something else equally — yes equally — lethal.

I know the antis will see the Hurley homicide case as proof that all states should have firearms confiscating “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (what used to be called Gun Violence Restraining Orders). Screw due process. The only problem here: the cops lacked the legal authority to turn over Mr. Hurley’s house.

So what if the boys in blue had and discovered and confiscated Mr. Hurley’s firearms? It’s naive in extremis to think that a man capable of killing his ex-wife and her boyfriend in front of his own children would have been deterred by the simple loss of his firearms. Assuming, that is, he hadn’t thought ahead and hidden a gun where the cops couldn’t find it.

If someone poses an imminent, credible threat of grievous bodily harm or death to another person, if that threat can be proven in court with the accused having the right to challenge his accusers, that person should be removed from society. Then again, law enforcement attempts at pre-crime convictions are bound to fail. And the practice sets the stage for government abuse.

At the end of the day, we must defend ourselves. Any law that removes the ability to protect innocent life by force of arms — without due process — is a bad law. In fact, I reckon this story would have been better presented as It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use. And therein lies the tale.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

46 COMMENTS

  1. An Order of Protection is only as strong as the thickness of the paper it is written upon.

    • The same thing can be said for all laws. Despite murder and theft being against the law, criminals seem to do it anyway.

  2. A protective order offers no real protection against a killer. Adding a gun confiscation element to a protective order is nothing more than security theater. A killer can get access to a firearm even if he’s prohibited from owning or legally purchasing one. And if not that, something else equally — yes equally — lethal.

    There are countless simple and cheap options available to the determined stalker/ex-husband. He could go to almost any hardware store and purchase some steel flat stock for $6 which he could then quickly and easily sharpen into a heavy, wicked machete. One blow from that to his victim’s neck and she is dead. Of course the determined stalker/ex-husband could just as easily purchase $15 in galvanized pipe, epoxy, and a nail from that same hardware store to make a highly effective slam-fire 12 gauge shotgun. Needless to say that is guaranteed to kill his intended victim. Then you have various options with vehicles, poisons, chainsaws, gasoline and matches, and who knows what else.

  3. Clearly this is why universal registration is necessary-err, UBC. With records. Then if there’s a hole in those records, registration with penalties for not reporting sales or theft.

    Then gun violence will finally be solved. I mean, California has all that, and look at how safe San Bernardino elementary schools are!!

    • Disregarding the 14 people killed by terrorism in San Bernardino, this school incident has another angle, and that is the school has security measures in place, however, the subject was apparently well known to the victim and thus, probably well know to the school employees. That does not mean that the school was privy to the reason not to admit the killer. Many women are reluctant to share messy details of a relationship breakup. Furthermore, such revelations can lead to dismissal from the place of employment (although that is hard to do with teachers in California).

      As for San Bernardino, when I attended the County Sheriffs Academy in the late 1970s, the area was so bad that air units would avoid flying over the city due to the number of bullet holes the aircraft sustained. Patrols were doubled up and backups on any situation were the norm.

  4. That will be used as proof that if they only had universal gun registration that tragedy could have been avoided…

  5. Regardless of the woman’s faults, her ex-husband didn’t have the right to murder her or her boy friend.

    • That’s both true and irrelevant to the comment above.

      The point is that with a name like that, it implies a an inhabitant of subculture rife with violence, especially domestic violence for its dehumanization of women.

      Tacky comment? Perhaps. I have several of my own just as tacky or more waiting in the bull pen ready to post. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you are a woman who gets murdered, the killer was most likely an intimate partner. If you are a black person who gets murdered, the killer was most likely another black person. If you are a black woman who gets murdered, well, you draw the Venn diagram.

      • I think it’s relevant insofar as most people can summon enough humanity to take a break from making poor-taste jokes at the expense of what, for all we know, is an innocent victim of murder.

        But this is the internet so…

      • It is more realistic to say, although what you say is true, that if a woman is murdered it is going to be her male partner who did the killing. Men kill women far more often than the reverse; It is a life hazard of being female, and race has little bearing.
        If there hadn’t been a photograph of the victim with this article, I might have been mildly amused by her first name; However, seeing her face puts a whole different light on the matter: This was a beautiful young woman with a lovely smile, and her death disgusts me. So does the comment posted above.
        ‘Poor taste’ is an understatement.

  6. It’s unreasonable to think that someone wrongfully accused of something that would have their firearms taken away would NOT want to kill the accuser and the taker(s). You would HOPE (and change) that their angst would be satiated and stop there, but it would also be unreasonable, at that point, to demand a suit for peace or stoppage of their total annihilation of not only those two parties but of those that stood by to let it happen.

  7. The lesson that seems to be continuously missed by so many people is that the government cannot protect you from dangerous people.

  8. It’s a beautiful name and a beautiful woman. If I was her boyfriend, I would have protected her.
    Home carry people. Home carry. That’s the moral here.

  9. It’s Maryland, folks. Mary-land. M-A-R-Y-L-A-N-D. It’s a “MAY ISSUE” state. See those letters which spell “MAY” right there in the very NAME of the state? As a practical matter, the name of the state just as well be “Wontland” because unless you are well-connected or know somebody who is, you won’t be able to get a CCW permit is this misbegotten nanny state. We’re just California on a different ocean, with the same stupid anti-gun Democratic politicians at the helm of both houses of the Leftistlature and a 2/3 majority in both. And our Attorney General? He would be the former State Senator who was the driving force behind the nefarious “Gun Safety Act of 2013”. Ain’t that just peachy?

  10. So no due process, no finding of guilt, no proof of injury from domestic abuse, and the police come to take your guns? WTF is that nonsense? I would have nicely told the officer to pound sand through my closed and locked door.
    If the courts want to make people safer then instead of a worthless piece of paper loan the person seeking protection a gun and training on how to use it. At least they will have the ability to protect themselves.

    • Don’t be mislead by Robert’s hard on for “extreme risk protection orders.” Although the story is a bit vague, all indications point to a conclusion that she sought and obtained a “domestic violence restraining order”, not an “extreme risk” restraining order. They are different, although obtaining them–and the safety they provide–is about the same. The difference is this: A DVRO is issued to protect an ex “significant other” from violence by the other partner. By contrast, the purpose of an “extreme risk” protective order is to protect a crazy person from harming himself/herself or others. The latter has its origins in California (big surprise) to give close family members an opportunity to have the police disarm a person who the police decline to take into custody on a “5150 hold” (i.e., an involuntary presentation to a mental health facility as a risk to himself or others due to a mental condition).

      There is also nothing in the story that suggests that Chinika obtained a temporary order as opposed to a permanent order. A temporary order can be issued without the presence of the other party and based on sworn affidavits. [Such orders have universally been upheld against due process attacks.] These are short term fixes. A permanent order requires notice and an opportunity to be heard (i.e., the opportunity to present evidence, to be represented by counsel, etc.) These can last indefinitely. I imagine that he police did not have a search warrant either because they didn’t think they’d need one and didn’t bother, or the ex-wife did not know if her ex actually owned any guns, without which there would be no evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant on probable cause. Although Maryland does maintain a registration system, hubby could have obtained his gun out of state or illegally, in which case the system would not have provided the necessary evidence.

    • Don’t kid yourself.

      There are plenty of lefty Dems who are racist themselves.

      I should know my friend is one and he openly admits it.

      • The Dems always were and always will be the party of racism. From slavery to the KKK, to segregation – all part and parcel of the Democratic Party machine. And if you don’t believe that’s the way it is today, just look at how great all the black communities are doing in Democratic strongholds like Detroit, Chicago, etc.

      • I DON’T HAVE TO KID ANYBODY, CONSERVATIVES ALSO SEEK TO KEEP PEOPLE OF COLOR FROM VOTING.

        AND TO Gov. William J Le Petomane IT’S BLATANTLY OBVIOUS HOW WELL ALL THE RED STATES ARE DOING UNDER THEIR REPUBLICAN LEADERS, NOT!

        • Lay off the caps lock. It’s considered rude here on the internets. Also, if voter id laws are racist, then there are plenty of racist Democrats in all those blue states that have them.

        • Voter ID is something blacks and whites have in common. Both favor it by overwhelming margins.

        • Knowing that it will do little good for someone who can’t find the ‘Caps Lock’ key, voter ID is NOT a means of voter suppression; It is a means of ensuring that only those entitled by citizenship and age to vote do so.
          At virtually ANY polling station, one can register on site on the day of voting; If one has no ID, a vote can be cast subject to later verification. Citizens allegedly too poor to buy an ID can obtain a FREE identification card from state or city government suitable for voting; Those who are bedridden, unable to leave the house, nursing home, hospital, or whatnot can register by mail, ask for assistance from a polling agent, or vote absentee by mail subject to verification later.
          In other words, ANYONE, if they are a legal-age citizen, can vote–and get help from government to ensure that they can do so.
          Anyone who claims to want to vote, but does not do so, nowadays is merely making an excuse.
          That, or they are too stupid to vote–which means that they would vote ‘Democrat,’ which is the same thing.

        • I am in favor of requiring identification to vote. As an aside, when the voter registration laws were passed, the turnout among minority (particularly Blacks) skyrocketed. So if the “Racists” here were trying to “suppress” it didn’t work very well.

  12. I hope your IP is blocked by TTAG and you never are allowed to post here again. You piece of sh!t. The woman is dead, have some respect. Your username is equally as disgusting.

    • Grow up and as Vito Corleone said:

      “Act like a ‘man'”

      That name signifies a member of a culture known for it’s dysfunction, it’s a fact and crime statistics don’t lie. My question is “was she a ‘prohibited’ person herself?” as that may explain why she didn’t arm herself.

      As for my screen name maybe you find it “offensive” because the idea of having a stumbling, stuttering, drooling, attention-seeking halfwit wearing a leaky adult diaper on your knee turns you on

      • “….. before her mental capabilities were compromised she was a generally pro-gun representative”?

        So what you’re saying is that a person with “compromised” mental faculties has not only appointed herself an “expert” in firearm rights but is also allowing herself to be used by the anti-gun lobby in their effort to strip American’s of their 2nd Amendment Rights while at the same time demanding those that she and her allies consider suffer from some ill defined “mental impairment” be disarmed all as she, one of the “special” (and I mean REALLY “special”) people, gets to keep HER firearms? Yeah I see how THAT works and I have no sympathy for the squeaky puppet and that IS what she IS, a “puppet”.

      • I thought she didn’t have the mental capacity to ‘appoint herself’ anything? Do you hate mentally incapacitated children because of their parents views?

        I, like most everyone else here dislike you because you give the rest of us a bad name. You’re a Chipotle Ninja with a keyboard. Your attempts at wit work to undermine our rights far more than the efforts of Mark Kelly. This is why you’re reviled around here.

      • Your inability to recognize the level of evil our enemies will stoop to in their never-ending well financed campaign to strip us our 2nd Amendment rights is why we are almost always on the losing end.

        The fact is you and many others lack the both the intellectual faculties and intestinal fortitude for the fight, you are NOT willing to employ the most effective means to destroy our opposition and permanently derail their disarmament campaign, I on the other hand know just who and what we are fighting and am willing to do the necessary dirty work for you.

        Our aim in addition to expanding our 2nd Amendment Rights must be to make so that the Garbly Giffords and Neil Heslins (Newtown convicted felon/deadbeat “dad”) and the rest of the Victimhood Clan of the USA refuse to appear in public to spew their lies for fear of being made a laughingstock by every legislator and citizen they dare address.

        Sadly many elected representatives particularly those who claim to be “on our side” neglect to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them on a silver platter at hearings fearing that they will be labelled as “heartless” and “mean” by the biased Liberal Media, the Left’s propaganda office, in the Global Disarmament Campaign.

  13. Unless you go before a judge and get your first name changed, your parents probably picked it for you.

    I’ll note that she had been married. To a scumbag, granted, but she did in fact get married. She also divorced him. I don’t know why but based on this story I can make some guesses, and assuming I’m correct have to applaud her fortitude and determination for getting her and her kids out. Neither of those actions – getting married and then having the courage to leave a bad relationship – are characteristic of – how did you put it? – “… a member of a culture known for it’s dysfunction.”

    You also said “it’s a fact and crime statistics don’t lie.” Statistics describe groups as a whole, not individuals within that group. You, personally, can’t be 23% punched out, even if internet jackanapes who choose tacky screen names are 23% likely to be punched out in real life.

    But by all means, continue to spew vile and thoughtlessness. Maybe you’ll forget yourself one day and pull that in person, and your personal statistic will go from “0” to “1.”

  14. People need to understand that an order for protection is a very necessary thing. No it won’t save you when the creature comes knocking, but when you are in Court trying to handle things such as your Divorce and working on having that person arrested, having applied for that order gives you legal teeth. It also defines who is the victim in this particular situation. If you do not, then the opposing Lawyer points out that you not having bothered with this step proves you were either not serious or the threat was not. It’ll bite you if you don’t go through the legal motions. It’s a matter of covering ALL of your bases. Of course another one of the bases is arming yourself in case the creature ignores that order. That piece of paper won’t protect you when it hits the fan but will help protect you when the Creature’s Family is trying to sue you AFTER you have defended yourself.

  15. Hey, if we’re going to decide that we can deprive someone of their fundamental rights without due process based on a domestic complaint, let’s just do it right and imprison people without due process based on domestic complaints. As critics of ERPOs note, they aren’t very useful at stopping people from obtaining weapons and doing violence. Obviously, we should just lock up any target of an ERPO, just to be sure they can’t hurt anyone.

  16. this is such a hypocritical article. you say screw due process then say the real problem is they couldnt get a warrant to search his house but you are the one saying that them getting a warrant is a travesty of these peoples rights based solely on heresy. make up your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.