SCOTUS to battererd women: Hire a private security guard


PDA






davec
June 27, 2005, 03:42 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050627/D8B017TG0.html

Of course thats following decades of precedent that the Government is under no obligation to protect any one individual.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg re-asserts that idea

It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement
for the ordinary citizen.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Still consistent.

So what should the complainant have done, to protect her family?

Respondent certainly could have entered into a contract with a private security firm, obligating the firm to provide protection to respondent’s family; respondent’s interest in such a contract would unquestionably constitute “property” within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. If a Colorado statute enacted for her benefit, or a valid

I'm glad poor, and middle class battered woman everywhere are sleeping easier tonight in the fact that the highest court in the land has individuals on it who want them to hire private security guards to protect them from abusive husbands.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOTUS to battererd women: Hire a private security guard" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dolanp
June 27, 2005, 03:49 PM
I certainly feel sorry for the Colorado woman, but realisticly how can police enforce every restraining order 24/7? They can barely keep up with crimes that are in progress or already committed.

TheEgg
June 27, 2005, 04:10 PM
I certainly feel sorry for the Colorado woman, but realisticly how can police enforce every restraining order 24/7? They can barely keep up with crimes that are in progress or already committed.

They can't of course. The point is that BECAUSE they can't and BECAUSE the SC and others rule this way, it should then be required that all laws that unduly restrict the right and/or ability of individuals to protect themselves must be eliminated (such as no CCW, must retreat, etc.)

The logic is simple. If the state can't protect us, then we must protect ourselves. The state therefore must not prevent us from doing so, in any manner.

rick_reno
June 27, 2005, 04:15 PM
Of course the solution is to hire a security service - that is the only solution those elitists in Washington could possibly arrive at.

Jay Kominek
June 27, 2005, 04:20 PM
Background on this case: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=130560

Joejojoba111
June 27, 2005, 04:44 PM
"Of course the solution is to hire a security service - that is the only solution those elitists in Washington could possibly arrive at."


Wait wait wait I don't think so! Your security service is all black? That's a proble. Well, maybe if they all meet the minimum height requirement it's ok. But you better not try and dress them like civilians so they blend in.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 27, 2005, 04:56 PM
Three dead kids.
Sad.

Who did momma think would stop the SOB? She probably knew him better than anyone?

BTW, has anyone ever sued a government for being denied the right to own a handgun, (you know, like in Chicago, where 24 people were shot in 12 hours)?

The Grand Inquisitor
June 27, 2005, 05:01 PM
Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, John Harlan....ect .. are turning over in their graves. The last month has lead to a deluge of awful and horrible rulings.

It's great to see that the multimillionares in the SCOTUS are so connected with the American people that they think we can all hire private security when we need it.


edited per foolish wordchoice

Jay Kominek
June 27, 2005, 05:26 PM
The last month has lead to a dearth of awful and horrible rulings. This ruling is perfectly consistent with decades of case law and statute. See JPFO's "Dial 911 and Die." This is why so many people on this forum have guns, instead of happily knowing 911 will be there to help them.
Three quarters of the population would need to be engaged in law enforcement to provide 24/7 security to the remaining one quarter of the population.
As it stands, there are thousands of citizens per on-duty law enforcement officer, even in densely populated areas. Tens of thousands in less populated areas.
If the court didn't rule the way it did, people would be able to sue the government every time an offense was commited against them which the police were unable to prevent.
Now, personally, I'd laugh myself to death if the government allowed itself to be sued out of existance. But I expect that isn't actually a desirable outcome for most people.
It's great to see that the multimillionares in the SCOTUS are so connected with the American people that they think we can all hire private security when we need it. That was obviously a silly comment on the part of the Justice, but it has no bearing on the sensibility of the ruling.

RomanKnight
June 27, 2005, 07:15 PM
"(...)neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection"
Another communist collectivist ruling from SCOTUS. We, the People, have no individual right to police protection. But we have the duty and obligation to pay our taxes, to support the same police force. Then, why have police at all, if they do NOT have the duty and obligation to protect you, me, him, her, John Doe and Suzy Homemaker? I understand police cannot be there 24/7, cannot protect everyone, all the time. But they ought to have the duty to protect individuals members of the public, and not just society at large. How about we take cops who waste time and resources for victimless crimes (like drug and traffic cops), and use them to protect/bodyguard those who have demonstrated to a court that they need protection? Every time .gov wants more money "for more police to make you safe", say no, and show them this ruling!

Jeeper
June 27, 2005, 07:21 PM
This result is 100% in line with prior ruling and common sense. If you could sue the government for failing to protect you then you could sue them for anything. Any other ruling would be moronic and a financial nightmare for everyone.

Hawkmoon
June 27, 2005, 07:23 PM
Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, John Harlan....ect .. are turning over in their graves. The last month has lead to a dearth of awful and horrible rulings.
According to my desktop Websters, "dearth" means "scarcity" or "famine."

Did you perchance mean "deluge"?

TallPine
June 27, 2005, 07:27 PM
The point is that the police (in general) while refusing to take responsibility for your safety (for practical reasons) at the same time prevent or discourage you from having the means for your own protection.

Even where guns and CCW are legal, the standard line is "get a restraining order and call us if he violates it, but don't ever take the law into your own hands ... blah blah blah"

How about if the police take all those guns remaining unclaimed after a criminal investigation/trial and make them available free or low-cost to poor women who are being stalked? That, and repeal all gun possession and carry laws everywhere!

:fire:

Jay Kominek
June 27, 2005, 07:39 PM
The point is that the police (in general) while refusing to take responsibility for your safety (for practical reasons) at the same time prevent or discourage you from having the means for your own protection. So? The correct solution is for the police to stop doing that.

Look, folks, despite the sensationalistic headlines, the court was asked whether or not this woman was allowed to sue the cops. Say she sued the cops, and she won. ...where do you think the money to pay out her claim comes from? Not the magical money fairies, thats for sure. It comes from the tax payers. (Hey there RomanKnight, this is why you're completely backwards when you call it a collectivist ruling.) If you could sue the cops, and win, for their failing to protect you, it would create a de facto victim reimbursement fund. If that isn't collectivist, I don't know what is.

Go read Dial 911 and Die, folks. The Supreme Court changed nothing at all with this ruling. Things are exactly the same as they've been for decades.

Standing Wolf
June 27, 2005, 08:03 PM
The point is that the police (in general) while refusing to take responsibility for your safety (for practical reasons) at the same time prevent or discourage you from having the means for your own protection.

Well, yeah, sure, but real socialism means the commoners all share the misery equally.

RomanKnight
June 27, 2005, 08:42 PM
Collectivist "thinking": the society/community has "rights", not the individual.
Community needs police protection, not you, the tax-paying citizen.
The ideal solution would have been for a jury of 12 of Gonzales' peers to be presented will all the facts in this case, and decide. They could tell Gonzales to take a hike, or award her mucho$.
Right now, .gov does not have to protect us individually, does have the right to take our private property for private -not public- use, does have the right to regulate/control everything we do/grow/consume/plant...

rbernie
June 27, 2005, 08:51 PM
I'm sorry to sound cold-hearted, but I read today's news as reaffirmation that individual responsibility is still required of us.

I'm really very sorry for the kids - breaks my heart, really - but that's not the point. The point is that the MOM is responsible to keep the kids safe, not the police. Hiding behind a piece of paper is and always will be a fools errand, and the louder we can shout this from the rooftops the healthier we'll all be as a society.

Zach S
June 28, 2005, 08:56 AM
Reminds me of one of Oleg's pics. The caption said something like "an ounce of protection beats a pound of restaining orders." Of course, the lady was holding a shotgun...

Master Blaster
June 28, 2005, 09:20 AM
Marie Antoinette:

If the peasants have no Bread then let them eat cake.


Justice O'Conner:

If the peasants have no police protection let them hire a private security guard.

:neener: :cuss:

Two years ago we had a woman who got a restraining order against her X who had been stalking and threatening her. She specifically told the judge her husband had a shotgun (the only gun they owned) and where it was(the hall closet in his townhouse) , and that he had threatened to kill her with it several times So police went to the husband's house and he was not home, they left him a note to come on down and turn in his gun. Two weeks later, she was shot to death with the shotgun in the parking lot of the NewCastle County PD headquarters after her X husband chased her there. The X then turned the shotgun on himself.

pax
June 28, 2005, 09:46 AM
The Supreme Court changed nothing at all with this ruling. Things are exactly the same as they've been for decades.
:confused: I thought the SC only takes cases where the existing case law is not clear, or where there is a possibility that an existing law will be overturned, or where the issue at stake is new territory in some other way.

Otherwise, the court would be more glutted than it is, and standard SC decisions would read something like: "yes, murder is still illegal." "Yes, murder is still illegal." "Yes, murder is still illegal." ad infinitum.

So what, exactly, did the SC rule upon? The issue of whether cops are obligated to protect any individual citizen has been settled case law for many years.

pax

DirksterG30
June 28, 2005, 10:07 AM
This is why I rely on 1911, not 911.

BeLikeTrey
June 28, 2005, 10:21 AM
This is a useable case. This is another bit of ammo that can support self defense. Tragic yes, but lets not let it be for nothing.

SteveS
June 28, 2005, 10:39 AM
So what, exactly, did the SC rule upon? The issue of whether cops are
obligated to protect any individual citizen has been settled case law for many years.

I haven't read the case yet, but I can say that the SC has said that the police can be liable under certain circumstances for failing to protect. This is usually when there is some type of "special relationship" between the police and the victim, such as when they have said they would provide protection or if they are an informant.

My guess is that they wanted to clarify that a restraining order is not such a relationship.

GunGoBoom
June 28, 2005, 11:37 AM
And I'm quite sure Ruth Bader would uphold any disarmament law that comes down the pike (as if the scotus would take a dead nuts 2a case) - won't affect her, as she can afford as much private security as she likes, to go along with the fedgov free public security she gets. Educated beyond her intelligence. That deserves some letters to her from a few of us....

The key difference in this case distinguishing it from the long line of precedent which establishes that, absent any legislation to the contrary, police, either state or federal, have no *general* duty of care in protecting any individual member of the public, is that in this case, the reports say that there was a specific Colo. law that imposes a specific duty of care upon to police to use "all reasonable means" or some similar language, to enforce civil VPOS....the question is not what the precedent says, because that only applies to the highly distinguishable case of no specific duty. Here, a statute gives rise to a higher standard of duty. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'll sure be interested to find out how the court concluded the police used all reasonable means to protect her in this factual scenario.

And what makes no sense whatsoever on the surface to me, given the reports of the Colo. statute, is this quote from that opinion blip: Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement. First, a judge never ASSUMES anything, period, especially a scotus member, one of the 9 most esteemed judges in the land, with a whole staff of researchers and law clerks each assigned to them and at their disposal. And 2nd, I thought that was precisely what WAS at issue, the Colo. statute imposing the higher duty. So wth....time to dig into this opinion and see what's going on here.

If you enjoyed reading about "SCOTUS to battererd women: Hire a private security guard" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!