davec
Member
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050627/D8B017TG0.htmlWASHINGTON (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.
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/....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.