August 30, 2001
7:24 AM   Subscribe

Louis Joy, a corporate motivator and teamwork author, responded to his wife's restraining order Friday with a kamikaze plane attack that destroyed his house the next morning at 7:45 a.m. Overlooked detail of plan: His wife and daughter were not home at the time.
posted by rcade (16 comments total)
Interesting reporting style. I love the hard-hitting details like:

"There was no sputtering,'' said Seroskie, who stuck her hand out the window to try to wave the "annoying'' plane off. [Gee, that usually works.]

Conway said the crash rattled her home down the street, making a water glass on her nightstand shake.
[Wow, must have been a terrific explosion to cause such dramatic effects.]

"A pilot who was here this morning told me that kind of plane doesn't just crash into a house. You'd have to aim it." [So the plane must have had its special anti-house-crashing program intentionally disabled.]
posted by Tubes at 7:48 AM on August 30, 2001

You'd have to aim it.

Wild, so if he crashed near the house, the plane should have swerved out of the way of it's own accord.

Damn faulty controls.
posted by Cavatica at 7:53 AM on August 30, 2001

"Mr. Joy is an innovator, and has developed leading edge systems used to achieve quantum leaps in performance."

He certainly has.
posted by Mocata at 7:54 AM on August 30, 2001

My first impulse was to say something snide. But the guy is dead, and it serves as a reminder that wealth and success in one's career are no guarantee of happiness. I'm glad no one was at home.
posted by gimli at 7:54 AM on August 30, 2001

a reminder that wealth and success in one's career are no guarantee of happiness...

Yes, that pesky stupidity DOES tend to get in the way...
posted by rushmc at 7:59 AM on August 30, 2001

From The Washington Post: On Friday, Jo Joy sought and obtained the restraining order on Milford District Court. Judge William Drescher granted her request Monday to seal records, including an affidavit explaining why she wanted the restraining order.

"The affidavit contains information that would prove to be extremely damaging to the petitioner's daughter in light of her tender years," according to a motion filed by Mrs. Joy's lawyer, David Lauren.

That sentence right there tells me pretty much everything I need to know. Glad he's gone.
posted by Scorch at 7:59 AM on August 30, 2001

This does bring up an interesting point; sometimes the results of getting a restraining order are worse than not getting one. That piece of paper is not a magical shield, and depends on the recipient actually respecting the law and the consequences of breaking that law. Thankfully, no one was home when this idiot decided to prove how dangerous he truly was.

For an interesting read, try "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin De Becker. This book goes into trying to assess the mentality of the person who won't let go - and whether a restraining order will truly make them stay away (it will in most cases) or will simply make things worse. Also, some good common-sense approaches to the most effective way to defend oneself; recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations altogether.
posted by hadashi at 8:48 AM on August 30, 2001

That sentence right there tells me pretty much everything I need to know. Glad he's gone.

Umm Scorch, how does it tell you these things? For a start it might have said that Mrs Joy was busy banging the entire neighborhood, all at the same time. You don't think perhaps you might be leaping further to conclusions than good sense allows?

Let's face it, you do NOT know and it does NOT tell you a thing. Sheesh, some people are so quick to "know" what isn't known.

As for Mr Joy's flying skills, well I'm glad he was able to pick out which house was his. Or did he do the old MASH "five o'clock Charlie" trick and paint a giant target on some sheets and tape it to the roof?
posted by Option1 at 8:55 AM on August 30, 2001

First of all Option1, an affidavit filed by Mrs. Joy requesting a restraining order would NOT have stated that she was busy banging the entire neighborhood. That would be unlikely to convince a judge to grant an order against Mr. Joy, don't you think? An application for a restraining order and supporting affidavit must make claims about the person against whom the order is sought (Mr. Joy!) An order that demands physical distance between the Petitioner and the Respondent must make claims of fear of physical danger. Common sense.

Second, rarely will a court seal a document unless there is something contained therein that will directly affect the wellbeing of a child, usually because the allegations involve the child. Court documents are public record and there must be a very compelling reason to seal them. Most of the time the only thing that will compel the Court is protection of a child.

Finally, my professional experience in this area tells me plenty about that sentence. No, I don't KNOW and chances are no one will KNOW, and all the better for the child. If I'm wrong, great. If I'm right, then yeah, I'm glad he took himself off the face of the planet. Makes good sense to me.

Sheesh, some people are so quick to bash others for their opinion.
posted by Scorch at 9:27 AM on August 30, 2001

The point of a restraining order is not just to keep the person away, but so that you can call the cops if they bother you and the cops have a legal right to do something about it other than say "leave!"
posted by bob bisquick at 11:35 AM on August 30, 2001

His wife, Jo, 43, with the couple’s 8-year-old daughter, Angelica, was staying at a motel when the court granted her a temporary restraining order, citing danger of abuse, officials said.

The domestic violence petition was granted Friday night, and Amherst police removed Joy from the home later that night.

Jo A. Joy’s attorney, David Lauren of Nashua, was able to seal the reasons why Joy sought the domestic violence petition, which also granted her custody of their daughter.
posted by Scorch at 12:08 PM on August 30, 2001

My point still stands Scorch - You do NOT know, so stop claiming you do.
posted by Option1 at 1:21 PM on August 30, 2001

I did not claim to know. I said I have seen all I need to know. What part of that is difficult for you?
posted by Scorch at 2:08 PM on August 30, 2001

opinion1: i know.

because my dog told me. so there.
posted by jcterminal at 2:19 PM on August 30, 2001

Mr. Option, while we are talking about it: Are you claiming that you KNOW that I don't KNOW? Because if you KNOW that I don't KNOW then that would mean that YOU KNOW. So why not share it with us? Since you KNOW, you know.
posted by Scorch at 2:31 PM on August 30, 2001

this reminds me of a 1994 incident here in St. Louis
posted by hipstertrash at 4:16 PM on August 30, 2001

« Older Rapatronic photographs   |   why technology is failing us [and how we can fix... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments