Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-27-2005, 04:16 PM   #1 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Supreme Court: No police duty to protect holders of restraining orders from violence.

Quote:
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court's restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia. The case was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278).
The police don't have to protect you, they just have to fill out the paperwork and arrest your abusive ex-husband after your kids find your body. This is yet another case that supports my argument that you need to own means of protection if you expect to be protected. Combined with the past ruling that local authorities have no responsiblity to protect you from criminals, I would suggest that anyone who is in a high-crime area or who has been harassed by a violent person start looking at obtaining reliable means of personal defense.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 04:27 PM   #2 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Vermont
Why do we pay for police departments?
RAGEAngel9 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 04:49 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9
Why do we pay for police departments?
In minneapolis we pay cops to tell battered women that they're over reacting.
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:15 PM   #4 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
The police don't have to protect you, they just have to fill out the paperwork and arrest your abusive ex-husband after your kids find your body. This is yet another case that supports my argument that you need to own means of protection if you expect to be protected. Combined with the past ruling that local authorities have no responsiblity to protect you from criminals, I would suggest that anyone who is in a high-crime area or who has been harassed by a violent person start looking at obtaining reliable means of personal defense.
I like your post, probably because it's what I've been saying for years.

"Reliable means of personal defense" can be bars on windows, a dog, or a variety of other things. A great many people will automatically think "a gun," but in order for it to be reliable, you'll need training.

That said, it's hard to fathom the reasoning employed by gun banners.

Although I hate to bash cops, because I've known some nice, professional ones, there are enough dirty ones surfacing that I can't support law officers until they clean up their own ranks.

And until judges quit allowing them to lie with impunity.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
keep in mind they did not rule that police deparments *must* adhere to this low standard. frankly...if there was ever a case for being involved in local politics, the funding and governance of police enforcement in your area....this is it. police departments are funded locally, governed by civilians, and find their priorities by the leadership they are given.

i don't see any link between this ruling and a call for more gun ownership.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:37 PM   #6 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i don't see any link between this ruling and a call for more gun ownership.
You may not feel the need or wish to protect yourself and feel your local law enforcement will always be there before or at the very least the exact moment you need it. Please don't interfere with my wish or anyone else's to be able to protect themselves. To often I think people don't feel the need and want to restrict someone elses right to protect themselves. Not saying you would do a thing like that or anything ........
Thanks
scout is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:14 PM   #7 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: lost
I would like to think that this ruling was simply a way to protect police departments from lawsuits if they somehow failed to protect the person (despite having put forth a resonable effort). Unfortunately, I have a feeling that its more so that they can get away with not doing anything other than filling out the paperwork.

However, I agree with martinguerre that this doesn't mean that people should go get guns. Take the example that was given: mother with two kids, abusive ex-husband with restraining order. Mother buys a gun. Where does she put this gun? She has kids, so she can't put it anywhere where they might find it, which means she has to lock it somewhere, then hide the key in a seperate location. The ammunition for this gun has to be somewhere else. What are the chances that, if the ex-husband breaks into the house, that the mother would be able to get the gun, load it, and get both children together, before the ex-husband got to her? I'm guessing slim to none. So now you've got a messy situation, that now has a gun thrown in to the mix.

If you're really that worried, get bars on your windows and a 4 or 6-point door lock, and you're going to be just as safe as if you had a gun. Probably safer.
__________________
I'd rather be climbing...

I approach college much like a recovering alcoholic--one day at a time...



phoenix1002 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 11:20 PM   #8 (permalink)
rat
smiling doesn't hurt anymore :)
 
rat's Avatar
 
Location: College Station, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix1002
I would like to think that this ruling was simply a way to protect police departments from lawsuits if they somehow failed to protect the person (despite having put forth a resonable effort). Unfortunately, I have a feeling that its more so that they can get away with not doing anything other than filling out the paperwork.

However, I agree with martinguerre that this doesn't mean that people should go get guns. Take the example that was given: mother with two kids, abusive ex-husband with restraining order. Mother buys a gun. Where does she put this gun? She has kids, so she can't put it anywhere where they might find it, which means she has to lock it somewhere, then hide the key in a seperate location. The ammunition for this gun has to be somewhere else. What are the chances that, if the ex-husband breaks into the house, that the mother would be able to get the gun, load it, and get both children together, before the ex-husband got to her? I'm guessing slim to none. So now you've got a messy situation, that now has a gun thrown in to the mix.
Responsible gun ownership doesn't lie solely upon the mother keeping the children away from it. Rather, responsible gun ownership has its foundation in the education of those who own or live with those who own firearms. Hell, she should teach her children to shoot, proper gun safety techniques, and a proper respect for the dangers of firearms. The necessity lies with the mother to educate her children about firearms, have a reliable yet accessible area in which to stow it, and the will to use it in case it is needed.

Gun safes are for rifles, shotguns, etc. Handguns are by definition quick-reaction weapons, therefore they are useless if not easily accessible by the wielder in a time of need (could keep it in a locked nightstand drawer in her bedroom to which she and she alone has the key). Aids to this, as stated by previous posters are dogs (for early warning of prowlers), bars on windows (to prevent their usage as entry points), multi-deadbolt door locks (to hinder the ability to pry open or break the doorjamb in), and preferably a home alarm system that is set properly. Essentially, the gun shouldn't have to come into play, but if it does, there should be first lines of home defense to delay any prowlers/aggressors to allow her to get to the locked handgun in a reasonably short amount of time, thereby increasing the chances of the handgun even being worthwhile. An unloaded, locked up handgun is useless. A loaded, chambered, safed handgun, locked in an accessible location that can be reached in a hurry is a formidable obstacle in the hands of a trained user.

Quote:
If you're really that worried, get bars on your windows and a 4 or 6-point door lock, and you're going to be just as safe as if you had a gun. Probably safer.
Lastly, any purely passive set of defenses can be negated, and if you have no dynamic form of defense once those are circumvented, you're a trapped, sitting duck. France's Maginot Line was a fabulous "negation" of the German Army. That's why the Blitzkrieg went through Benelux. Bars and better locks are only the first line of home defense, and therefore, should not be relied upon as the last line of home defense. One thing that I believe a lot of people misunderstand about gun advocates and owners is that there is a deep-seated wish to never have to fire at another human being in anger. We don't want to have to shoot someone, we're just prepared to do so should the occassion arise, much as paid policeman. While I'm not an advocate of vigilantism, the ability to safeguard my possessions and my family are the pre-eminent reasons to own and safely use a firearm.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by clavus
To say that I was naked, when I broke in would be a lie. I put on safety glasses.

Last edited by rat; 06-27-2005 at 11:25 PM..
rat is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 11:41 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I wonder where this hypothetical newly-single mother of two would find space in her budget for a handgun, handgun training, trained guard dogs, bars for all possible entrances, and various electronic security devices? I also wonder exactly why the fuck we need cops who aren't willing to fulfill the "protect" portion of protect and serve?
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 02:40 AM   #10 (permalink)
Psycho
 
It's a common misconception that the police are there to "protect" you and your valuables. This last ruling is only one of many that clearly states the police are not responsible for your safety. It's clearly one of the primary faults of gun control.
scout is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 02:54 AM   #11 (permalink)
Submit to me, you know you want to
 
ShaniFaye's Avatar
 
Location: Lilburn, Ga
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
In minneapolis we pay cops to tell battered women that they're over reacting.

in my county we pay them to say that its my word against his and if I dont like his behaviour I should "fuck my mortgage" and move out

Whats up with the Supreme court lately?
__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!
ShaniFaye is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 06:11 AM   #12 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
What this ruling essentially says is that if there is a restraining i order in place, that police are not required to act as a personal bodyguard for the person who requested the order. Instead that if somebody violates a court order, such as a restraining order, and there is sufficient evidence to show that said person the order, that they have the option of arresting them for it. All the supreme court did was clarify the what was written into federal law. They also gave the states the option to require police to protect people who have requested and been granted such orders, but seriously, think about the logistics of doing so. Should we hire police officers to act as personal bodyguards to these people?
cj2112 is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 08:05 AM   #13 (permalink)
ARRRRRRRRRR
 
shalafi's Avatar
 
Location: Stuart, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
What this ruling essentially says is that if there is a restraining i order in place, that police are not required to act as a personal bodyguard for the person who requested the order.

Exactly! You can't reasonably expect law enforcement to follow around every person who is the subject of a restraining order to make sure they arent going to violate it. I may be mistaken but I believe that would fall under police harassment.
shalafi is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 08:28 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
It's a common misconception that the police are there to "protect" you and your valuables. This last ruling is only one of many that clearly states the police are not responsible for your safety. It's clearly one of the primary faults of gun control.
Well, perhaps if they didn't write "to protect and to serve" on the side of their squad cars. Perhaps "To let die and to pick up the pieces" might be more accurate.
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 10:59 AM   #15 (permalink)
big damn hero
 
guthmund's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, perhaps if they didn't write "to protect and to serve" on the side of their squad cars. Perhaps "To let die and to pick up the pieces" might be more accurate.

You'd have to write it pretty small, but I think you could fit it all on the car.
__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.
guthmund is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 04:35 PM   #16 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
It's funny to see everyone jump in and accuse me of saying something that I didn't say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i don't see any link between this ruling and a call for more gun ownership.
I don't see anything in my post that called for more gun ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix1002
However, I agree with martinguerre that this doesn't mean that people should go get guns. Take the example that was given: mother with two kids, abusive ex-husband with restraining order. Mother buys a gun. Where does she put this gun? She has kids, so she can't put it anywhere where they might find it, which means she has to lock it somewhere, then hide the key in a seperate location. The ammunition for this gun has to be somewhere else. What are the chances that, if the ex-husband breaks into the house, that the mother would be able to get the gun, load it, and get both children together, before the ex-husband got to her? I'm guessing slim to none. So now you've got a messy situation, that now has a gun thrown in to the mix.
In addition to my response above, I can add that nothing prevents her from keeping it on her person during the day and by her bed at night. A locked gun is as useful as a club but with less grip, which is why I have my trigger lock key JB-Welded onto the lock. She also has no reason to get the kids together where they're in harm's way.
Quote:
If you're really that worried, get bars on your windows and a 4 or 6-point door lock, and you're going to be just as safe as if you had a gun. Probably safer.
That qualifies as a reliable means of personal protection/defense.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:25 AM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
...... A locked gun is as useful as a club but with less grip, which is why I have my trigger lock key JB-Welded onto the lock..
I guess you don't have to worry about losing the key or fumbling around trying to get it in the hole while under duress. I may have to go buy some JB Weld....
scout is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:31 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
fhqwhgads's Avatar
 
Maybe it would benefit us to all put our personal feelings about police aside, and read what this decision says. (MrSelfDestruct even provided a link for us)

The issue before the court was whether or not Ms. Gonzales' 14th Ammendment right of the State to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" had been violated. She claimed that she had a property interest in the police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

According to the way that the restraining orders in Colorado was written, it stated that an officer "shall arrest, or, if an arrest would be impractical under the circumstances, seek a warrant for the arrest of the restrained person." In other words, arrest if you are able to, but if you can't (such as if the location of the offender is unknown), apply for a warrant. It's my understanding that this is what was done in this case... that the officer(s) enforced the restraining order by applying for a warrant for the violators arrest, because the whereabouts were not immediately known.

The question before the court was whether or not her due process rights, guaranteed under the 14th ammendment, were violated. I didn't read anything in there that says that the police do not have to enforce restraining orders. What I read is that the courts said that the enforcement of restraining orders is not a constitutional right covered by the 14th ammendment.
fhqwhgads is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:50 PM   #19 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
MSD...i don't think i accused you of anything. i read this thread considering your other posts on the board, and i think it's fair to say you advocate gun ownership and rights, a position which i respectfully disagree with. i'm confused about what the problem is here. would broader gun ownership be a reasonable response to this ruling, or not?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 05:06 PM   #20 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
MSD...i don't think i accused you of anything. i read this thread considering your other posts on the board, and i think it's fair to say you advocate gun ownership and rights, a position which i respectfully disagree with. i'm confused about what the problem is here. would broader gun ownership be a reasonable response to this ruling, or not?
The reason I phrased it the way I did (specifically excluding the mention of any sort of weapon) was to see who would assume by my posting history that I meant what you inferred. I fully expected the response to be what it was, but as I typed it, I was not thinking that everyone should be armed.

I don't think that broader gun ownership would necessarily be a reasonable response. If a person who was being stalked by a violent person felt that their life was in danger, was willing to use learn how to use a gun, and was willing to use lethal force to defend against that person, then yes, it would be appropriate. I don't think that the majority of US citizens are capable of using lethal force in self-defense because of psychological barriers built up during a lifetime of living in a culture in which life is considered sacred and precious. I am willing to take a life to save my own or the life of another, and therefore I feel that owning a gun is a reasonable means of personal defense if the police are not alerted in time and the locks on my windows and doors do not keep an intruder out of my home (this will be extended outside of my home once I have a pistol permit.)

On a side note, I don't think that universal gun ownership is the solution to anything other than overpopulation in a country whose adults annually recieve close to 100,000 injuries requiring emergency room treatment from plumbing fixtures, shopping carts, and key rings.

For those who are not willing to kill in defense, alternative methods of defending themselves are a necessity. An alarm system that will alert you and law enforcement to a break-in and hopefulyl scare off an intruder is a way to protect yourself. A loud, scary-looking dog (probably not a vicious one if you have kids) who isn't afraid to beat the hell out of someone who comes in through a window at night can probably respond to a threat faster than an armed person who has to wake up, arm him/herself, identify an intruder, and respond if necessary. The big mean dog is also less likely to incur the wrath of an anti-gun jury. Bars over windows, if equipped with an emergency release system in case of a fire, plus deadbolted doors are probably the most reliable way to keep you safe. Awareness of your surroundings and knowing how to react if you are confronted by a violent individual are your best means of defense.

If you are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself from lethal force or serious harm, and you are responsible enough to safely own, maintain, and use a firearm, then I would suggest finding training in their use and buying a gun. If any of those don't apply, then stick with preventing situations in which a gun could help you. Guns aren't a magical solution to the crime problem, but in the right hands they can be a great asset.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 06:11 PM   #21 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, perhaps if they didn't write "to protect and to serve" on the side of their squad cars. Perhaps "To let die and to pick up the pieces" might be more accurate.
Sorry, you've got it all wrong!!

Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 07:13 PM   #22 (permalink)
I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot!
 
raeanna74's Avatar
 
Location: Upper Michigan
I know many are saying it's another reason for acquiring a gun. Though I advocate gun use for protection, I've sold guns for that purpose, and I have already begun to teach my 5 yr old daughter the principals of gun safety I personally would not turn to it first in the case of self defense. There's a few rules I have been told by more than one person, including law officers that I met frequently when working in gun sales. They are:
1. You should never use a weapon that you aren't prepared to use. A moments hesitation could be deadly.
2. Never depend on a weapon that you don't know WELL.
3. First choose a weapon that cannot be turned against you quickly. This particular rule is important. Anything that you hold in your hands to use against an assailant can be used against you. UNLESS you are using your body.

I believe every woman (and man, but women moreso) should have SOME self defense classes. The more the better. Practice it (I am preaching to myself here since I have not practiced in a while) and be prepared to use it. The confidence it gives you alone emanates from you as you walk in a deserted parking lot and attackers may hesitate because of that attitude alone.

Edit: typos
__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Last edited by raeanna74; 06-30-2005 at 12:31 PM..
raeanna74 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 09:24 PM   #23 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
The reason I phrased it the way I did (specifically excluding the mention of any sort of weapon) was to see who would assume by my posting history that I meant what you inferred. I fully expected the response to be what it was, but as I typed it, I was not thinking that everyone should be armed.
Okay...so you knew that thats how it would be taken, but meant something else. So...becuase i "fell" for that...you're upset? Now i'm really confused. Frankly, i still think that your remarks contained an endorsement of broader gun ownership, though not universal gun ownership. do you not want people to reconsider the social training that makes them unwilling to trade another's life for their own safety?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 04:20 AM   #24 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
They also gave the states the option to require police to protect people who have requested and been granted such orders, but seriously, think about the logistics of doing so. Should we hire police officers to act as personal bodyguards to these people?
You pretty much added the "voice of reason" I was going to put in this thread. The ruling by the Supreme Court said that under these circumstances, the fact that the police didn't act as a bodyguard is not the grounds for a lawsuit.

I've worked hundreds of domestic cases, and in each divorce filed, there is an automatic restraining order attached to the summons going to the defendant (it affects the plaintiff, too). It doesn't matter if the parties are being extremely civil to each other at the time, it goes into place without any special request. Why? So the police can have that extra tool in their arsenal in dealing with domestic situations as they arise without being sued for harassment.

Consider this all-too-common fact situation: Wife files for divorce and husband gets served with the papers. He decides to go to the house to get his personal effects and clothes. While there, they exchange heated words but no blows over who will get to keep the goldfish (or something else that in retrospect seems trivial). She calls the cops. When they arrive, they are at a house where both parties are owners and neither have broken any law--it's not illegal for a couple to argue about goldfish. Still, the restraining order gives the police the authority to remove him from the premises, and the discretion to arrest, warn or persuade the hubby to leave. They aren't going to follow him home and watch him 24/7--we don't have the money to pay them to do that--but they have extra powers because of the restraining order.

I can see a situation where the police could be held liable (and I've not read the most recent case, so what I'm about to say may have been covered in that). Take a fact situation like that alleged by the family of Nicole Brown Simpson, where the police refused to arrest OJ because he was a celebrity. Despite repeated warnings and perhaps court orders to prohibit such conduct, the police didn't arrest him to take him before the judge that issued the restraining order. At some point, there could be liability for the failure of the police to protect as the court had directed (again, unless this has been specifically removed by the most recent case). There are local celebrities in each community, and I don't mean just the TV weatherman. The difference would be in being held liable for failing to make any effort to protect versus failing to be around the clock bodyguards.
__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.
AVoiceOfReason is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 01:34 AM   #25 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
The California Supreme Court says that business owners have a duty to call 911. (Personally, I think you'd have to be scum not to call).

It's just that the police don't have a duty to show up.

Link

Quote:
Metropolitan News-Enterprise



Friday, July 1, 2005



Page 1



California Supreme Court Rules:

Businesses Must Take Measures to Protect Patrons From Attack



By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer/Appellate Courts



The proprietor of a business is required to undertake “minimally burdensome” measures to protect patrons from third-party criminal attacks, even when those attacks are not particularly foreseeable, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In a long-awaited 5-2 decision, the justices reversed a ruling of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which had overturned an $81,000 jury verdict in favor of a bar patron who said he was assaulted by gang members in the defendant’s parking lot.

The case was sent back to the Court of Appeal so that it may consider issues left unresolved by its 2003 opinion. And in a companion case, the justices unanimously ruled that a man beaten up in the parking lot of a restaurant can sue the establishment’s owner because employees failed to call 911.

Parking Lot Fight

The Fifth District case grew out of a suit by Michael Delgado, who claimed that John Joseph followed him out of Trax, a restaurant and bar in Turlock. He confronted Delgado and, when it appeared there would be a fight, Joseph called out in Assyrian to other men in the parking lot.

Joseph and his group, which Delgado said numbered at least a dozen, kicked and beat him before Joseph—who later pled no contest to assault—hit him several times with a baseball bat, causing him to be hospitalized for 16 days.

In reversing the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the assault was unforeseeable as a matter of law because the bar, though it had experienced ordinary “bar fights” inside and outside the premises, had no history of gang fights or of gang attacks on individual patrons.

But Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the high court, said there was a special relationship between the business and its patron, and that the duty was breached when the Trax security guard learned that trouble was likely and failed to take simple steps that might have prevented it.

The chief justice distinguished Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, in which the court held that the owner of a shopping plaza had no duty to provide security guards who might have prevented the rape of an employee of one of the stores.

The costly burden of providing such guards, measured against the very low foreseeability of the rape-there had been some burglaries and purse snatchings at the center, but no prior sexual assaults, the court noted-was held to require a conclusion that no such duty existed.

But George rejected the contention of Trax and its amicus, the Pacific Legal Foundation, that Ann M. always requires “heightened foreseeability” before a business proprietor can be found liable for failing to protect a patron from third-party crimes.

Turning to the facts of Delgado’s case, the chief justice wrote:

“[W[e conclude...that under the circumstances it was foreseeable that an assault would occur absent separation of Joseph and his group from plaintiff [and] that defendant had a special-relationship-based duty to respond to the unfolding events by taking reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps in order to address the imminent danger that [the security guard] perceived, and, specifically, in order to accomplish the separation that he had determined was necessary.”

The guard could have, for example, tried to talk Joseph and his group into staying inside after Delgado left, at the guard’s direction. And he could have checked to see if the outside guard—who called 911 while the assault was in progress—was at his post and in a position to help if a fight broke out, the chief justice said.

Justices Ming Chin, Marvin Baxter, Carlos Moreno, and Kathryn M. Werdegar concurred.

Kennard Dissents

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, dissented. “Unlike the majority, I am of the view that the business owner could not have foreseen this vicious assault and thus did not owe a duty to protect him from such an attack,” Kennard wrote.

In the companion case, the justices agreed with the Court of Appeal, which overturned a summary judgment in favor of the owner of Victoria’s Mexican Food, in the Nestor area of San Diego.

Plaintiff Charles Morris said he was waiting outside the shop at about 1 a.m. while some friends went inside for food. The plaintiff said he and two other friends were attacked in the parking lot by members of the Nestor street gang, one of whom said the shop was in the gang’s territory and Morris and his friends could not eat there.

After his friends came out, he said, a fistfight ensued, and one of the gang members went into the shop, grabbed a knife from the kitchen, went back into the parking lot, and stabbed Morris. Morris said he attempted to flee, but the gang member pursued him and stabbed him several more times.

Police came after Morris’ friends called 911 from a pay phone at a nearby Jack in the Box.

A police officer who investigated the incident related that an employee of the eatery admitted allowing the gang member into the kitchen, saying he became afraid when the gang member came in yelling and demanding a knife.

Evidence showed that there had been no prior stabbings or shootings outside or inside the taco shop, although there had been some fights, as well as harassment by gang members, and police had seen gang members congregating there. There was also testimony that employees were aware of the fights and gang presence and did nothing about it.

George agreed with the Court of Appeal that once the fight broke out, the employees had a duty to call 911, at least to the extent that they could do so without endangering their own safety. Whether they reasonably feared for their own safety, he said, is a question of fact that must be decided at trial.

Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Werdegar concurred. Brown and Kennard concurred separately, distinguishing the two cases by saying the burden of calling 911 may have been so minimal that the employees had a duty to do so under the circumstances.

The cases are Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 05 S.O.S. 3252, and Morris v. De la Torre, 05 S.O.S. 3266.



Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 05:22 AM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
fhqwhgads's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
The California Supreme Court says that business owners have a duty to call 911. (Personally, I think you'd have to be scum not to call).

It's just that the police don't have a duty to show up.

Personal opinion on police, I guess, since it wasn't in the article....
fhqwhgads is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 06:32 AM   #27 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Massachusetts
I still think the best option is to encourage self-help in cases such as these. There's no better way to discourage nut-jobs from going after people than to help the people gone-after from defending themselves. That's the whole point of having an informed, self-sufficient citizenry. We shouldn't need the police to hold hands of people; we need them only when something has happened that ordinary people can't help. If he's violating the restraining order, shoot him. Or sue him.
RusCrimson is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 09:48 AM   #28 (permalink)
kel
WARNING: FLAMMABLE
 
Location: Ask Acetylene
Just nevermind. Really just not worth it
__________________
"It better be funny"

Last edited by kel; 07-02-2005 at 09:49 AM.. Reason: Just never mind
kel is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 07:29 PM   #29 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhqwhgads
Personal opinion on police, I guess, since it wasn't in the article....
Uh, no, it's well-established in the courts that the police have no duty to show up, whether or not there's a restraining order.

If you're really interested, it shouldn't be hard to google.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 11:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: on the road to where I want to be...
I don't know why everyone is making a big deal about this. If a violent person is coming over to your house and you have a restraining order against them, if you call the police, they are booking ass over there. No police officer or 911 service is going to tell you to piss off. Imagine if someone called 60 minutes with that? It would take 2 weeks of that policy before the outcry would be deafening.

Your restraining orders are safe, don't worry. It's just erasing a liability.
__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become
kangaeru is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 07:14 AM   #31 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by kangaeru
I don't know why everyone is making a big deal about this. If a violent person is coming over to your house and you have a restraining order against them, if you call the police, they are booking ass over there. No police officer or 911 service is going to tell you to piss off. Imagine if someone called 60 minutes with that? It would take 2 weeks of that policy before the outcry would be deafening.

Your restraining orders are safe, don't worry. It's just erasing a liability.
I would be interested in seeing something relatively official to support your statement.

Here's the support for mine, starting with the precedent-setter. I chose a site which agreed with the court ruling. It's quite lengthy, so I included the most relevant part, with a link to the rest.

Link

Quote:
Appeal from the Superior Court, Joseph M. Hannon and William C. Pryor, JJ.

Stephen A. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Corp. Counsel, with whom Judith W. Rogers, Corp. Counsel, and David P. Sutton, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on the petition, for appellees.

Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and KELLY, KERN, NEBEKER, HARRIS, MACK and FERREN, Associate Judges. Page 2

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6). However, in a split decision a three-judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

Appeal No. 79-6

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a. m. call with the proper degree of urgency; Page 3 the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.

Appeal No. 79-394

On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 p. m., appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head breaking his jaw.

A Metropolitan Police Department officer arrived at the scene. In response to the officer's direction, appellant's companion ceased any further efforts to obtain identification information of the assailants. When the officer then failed to get the information, leaving Nichol unable to institute legal action against his assailants, Nichol brought a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia.

The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 79-6, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed. We hold that Judge Hannon was correct and adopt the relevant portions of his opinion. Those portions appear in the following Appendix.[fn1]

Judge Pryor, then of the trial court, ruled likewise in No. 79-394 on the basis of Judge Hannon's opinion. In No. 79-394, a police officer directed Nichol's companion to cease efforts to identify the assailants and thus to break off the violent confrontation. The officer's duty to get that identification was one directly related to his official and general duty to investigate the offenses. His actions and failings were solely related to his duty to the public generally and possessed no additional element necessary to create an overriding special relationship and duty.[fn2]

Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims - a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police - adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation. See Falco v. City of New York, 34 A.D.2d 673, 310 N.Y.S.2d 524 (App. Div. 1970), aff'd, 29 N.Y.2d 918, 329 N.Y.S.2d 97, 279 N.E.2d 854 (1972) (police officer's Page 4 statement to injured motorcyclist that he would obtain name of motorist who struck the motorcycle was a gratuitous promise and did not create a special legal duty); Jackson v. Heyman, 126 N.J. Super. 281, 314 A.2d 82 (Super.Ct.Law Div. 1973) (police officers' investigation of vehicle accident where pedestrian was a minor child did not create a special legal duty to child's parents who were unsuccessful in their attempt to recover damages because police failed to identify drivers of vehicle). We hold that Judge Pryor did not err in dismissing No. 79-394 for failure to state a claim.
If you want more, you can research:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 07:19 AM   #32 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
kangaeru...i think this is where funding/priorities are important. in Minneapolis, there are some crimes that simply do not recieve a response anymore. most are pretty low key stuff...but on a busy night, officers are instructed to do triage, and select more important cases. while an armed person is probably always going to get lights and sirens and the whole nine yards...i think it's important to make sure that the community is both funding and guiding the police towards a community involvement model...where local beat cops can help prevent the little stuff and make a safer enviroment where hopefully some of this more egregious stuff just doesn't happen.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 08:11 AM   #33 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Maybe more suited to Tilted Humor, but it has a point:

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE

From Karine Rocher, English teacher, I.E.P.S.C.F.-Uccle, Belgium

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed.

George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked, “Is someone actually in your house ?”

“No” he replied.

Then they said all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available.

George said “Okay”, hung up, counted to 30 and phoned the police again.

“Hello. I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all.”

Then he hung up.

Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response unit and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips residence.

Of course, the police caught the burglars red handed. One of the policemen said to George :

“I thought you said that you'd shot them !”

George said : “I thought you said there was nobody available !”
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 03:56 PM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
fhqwhgads's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Uh, no, it's well-established in the courts that the police have no duty to show up, whether or not there's a restraining order.

If you're really interested, it shouldn't be hard to google.

I guess where we differ is the use of the word "duty". I don't consider duty to come from a legislative act, or a judicial edict. If you need a judge or a law to get you off your ass and do your job, you have no business being a police officer. I see duty as something that comes from within, not from someone else telling me what I need to do. I believe that in this world there are sheep, there are wolves, and there are shepherds. The shepherds have a duty to protect the sheep from the wolves, not because a law or a judge tells them that they have to, but because it's the right thing to do.

That's what "duty" means to me, and that's why I became a cop. So, I disagree, and say that the police do have a duty to respond... maybe not legislatively, but personally....
fhqwhgads is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 06:13 PM   #35 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Okay...so you knew that thats how it would be taken, but meant something else. So...becuase i "fell" for that...you're upset? Now i'm really confused. Frankly, i still think that your remarks contained an endorsement of broader gun ownership, though not universal gun ownership. do you not want people to reconsider the social training that makes them unwilling to trade another's life for their own safety?
I'm not upset, I'm just observing reactions and commenting out loud. By this point, we all know how I feel about the subject and to discuss it further is arguing semantics. If I hadn't wanted to see a few reactions, I would have inlcuded my second and third posts in the first. I wanted to see how people interpreted it, and I seem to have been quite unclear in explaining all of this. You didn't "fall" for anything, you answered from the point of someone who has seen what I've said in the past. I also got to see responses from people who haven't read my posts extensively. I hope that clears up what I was thinking. The reason I responded directly to your post is that it was the one that most directly made a statement that I wanted to address with the other half of what I was thinking.

Yes, my response does condone broader responsible gun ownership, and yes, I do want people to reconsider the social training that has led some to feel that a criminal's life is more important than that of an armed would-be victim.
MSD is offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 07:06 PM   #36 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhqwhgads
I guess where we differ is the use of the word "duty". I don't consider duty to come from a legislative act, or a judicial edict. If you need a judge or a law to get you off your ass and do your job, you have no business being a police officer. I see duty as something that comes from within, not from someone else telling me what I need to do. I believe that in this world there are sheep, there are wolves, and there are shepherds. The shepherds have a duty to protect the sheep from the wolves, not because a law or a judge tells them that they have to, but because it's the right thing to do.

That's what "duty" means to me, and that's why I became a cop. So, I disagree, and say that the police do have a duty to respond... maybe not legislatively, but personally....
I get the impression you're a good one.

Even though I've met a bad one, I shouldn't paint you all with the same brush.

My apologies for doing so. I just wish we could improve things somewhat.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 07:33 PM   #37 (permalink)
Cunning Runt
 
Marvelous Marv's Avatar
 
Location: Taking a mulligan
Maybe there would be more time for real police work if this kind of thing wasn't going on.

Link

Quote:
Man Sues For Right To Be Drunk

Jul 8, 2005 12:17 pm US/Eastern
BOSTON (AP) A man arrested when police showed up to break up a New Year’s Eve party at a friend’s house has filed a lawsuit, arguing he had a constitutional right to get drunk on private property as long as he didn’t cause a public disturbance.

Eric Laverriere, 25, of Portland, Maine, was taken into protective custody by Waltham police and locked in a cell for nine hours until the effects of the alcohol wore off.

Legal experts said his lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in Boston, is the first to challenge a state law allowing police to lock up drunk people against their will for their own protection.

Laverriere argues that the Massachusetts Protective Custody Law was written to combat public drunkenness and that the police had no right to use it to take him from a private residence. He also says he had planned to spend the night at his friend’s and wasn’t going to be driving anywhere.

“One thing people should be able to do is drink in their own house,” Laverriere told The Boston Globe. “That’s the beauty of the land of the free.”

Waltham Deputy Police Chief Paul Juliano declined to comment on the suit on the advice of the city’s legal department.

Several lawyers said they believe police have the authority to take inebriated people into custody, but they said it was the first time the law has been challenged on the grounds that one has a constitutional right to get drunk on private property.

The Protective Custody Law, enacted in 1971, replaced a Colonial-era law that made public drunkenness a crime. It authorizes police to hold people against their will for up to 12 hours if they are drunk and a danger to themselves or others.

Attorney Leonard Kesten, who has defended police departments in civil-rights cases, said if officers are investigating a crime or responding to an incident and discover that someone is drunk and posing a danger, they are obligated to take that person into protective custody.

Police have been sued for failing to take people into protective custody who later died from alcohol poisoning or killed others in drunken-driving accidents.

Laverriere said that he drank several beers, but wasn’t drunk, when officers arrived at his friend’s duplex saying someone had thrown bottles at a passing police cruiser.

When the partygoers denied throwing bottles, Laverriere said, the officers became angry, prompting him to pick up a friend’s camera and start videotaping. Laverriere told the Globe that Officer Jorge Orta ripped the camera from his hands and threw him to the floor, injuring his shoulder.

Laverriere said he told police he had been invited to spend the night at the house, but the officers insisted on taking him into protective custody.

One police report says that Laverriere appeared intoxicated and expressed “displeasure” at being told he had to leave the party. He was then taken into custody. The report says he fell to the floor while resisting Orta’s efforts to handcuff him.
Marvelous Marv is offline  
 

Tags
court, duty, holders, orders, police, protect, restraining, supreme, violence

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360