The new law allows anyone to seek court-ordered protection from a stalker in which the judge will decide in their favor based on the preponderance of evidence (quoted here). Before this bill was passed, Idaho only provided protection to stalking victims in a domestic situation from a relative or significant other. Questions come to mind about why the state would only protect victims in a domestic situation, and not provide protection in any other type of case.
The passing of this legislation was spurred after a Boise man plead guilty to aggravated battery, first-degree stalking and assault with use of a deadly weapon (here).
"Wirfs, 36, was accused of making repeated telephone calls to Makaela Zabel-Gravatt, 32, leaving threatening voice messages, sending her text messages and showing up at her place of employment and home. In one phone message, Wirfs allegedly threatened to kill Zabel-Gravatt... Family Members of Zabel-Gravatt said she sought court order against Wirfs."
The original article I looked at names the victim and simply describes her as a "a North End woman" who was shot by Wirfs. The article also mentions that the bill was voted as 31 for and 3 against before the Wirfs stalking trial ended and the perpetrator was charged.
I looked further for more news coverage on the case and found two other articles. This article says Wirfs was one of Zabel-Gravatt's clients at the salon she worked at. He had been a client for years but then started to threaten and harass her before the shooting a few months later. Another article describes Zabel-Gravatt as a mother of four, adding a little more to her story. It is finally made clear in this article that Zabel-Gravatt is still alive and was shot in the hip.
The news coverage on this story is horrendous. Only the last article mentioned in this post describes the victim in any detail, let alone mentions she is still alive. This article gives the victim more of a story.
I think the most important aspect to consider in this case is that the House didn't feel as strongly about the proposal before the Wirfs charge was made. The police didn't take Zabel-Gravatt's calls seriously enough to follow through with a restraining order against Wirf or give Zabel-Gravatt any sort of protection against his harassment. Before Wirfs shot Zabel-Gravatt, it is obvious her cries for help were seen as her just being annoyed at a guy calling her. This case perpetuates the stalking myths that stalking is annoying and if you ignore a stalker long enough, they'll go away. This case proves the opposite of that and it is very sad that it took violence for the harassment to finally be taken seriously. I'm glad Idaho finally passed this law, but it's scary to think 28 other states have similar legislation and do not intervene unless the stalker is a family member (mentioned in the first article).
No comments:
Post a Comment