MSD

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.

RAGEAngel9

Why do we pay for police departments?

filtherton

In minneapolis we pay cops to tell battered women that they're over reacting.

Marvelous Marv

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.

martinguerre

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

scout

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

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.

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...

rat

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.

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.

__________________

filtherton

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?

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.

ShaniFaye

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!!

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. 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?

shalafi

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.

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.

guthmund

You'd have to write it pretty small, but I think you could fit it all on the car.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

MSD

It's funny to see everyone jump in and accuse me of saying something that I didn't say.

I don't see anything in my post that called for more gun ownership.
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.
That qualifies as a reliable means of personal protection/defense.

scout

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....

fhqwhgads

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.

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?

__________________
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

MSD

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.

Marvelous Marv

Sorry, you've got it all wrong!!

raeanna74

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.

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?

__________________
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

AVoiceOfReason

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.

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.

Link

fhqwhgads

Personal opinion on police, I guess, since it wasn't in the article....

RusCrimson

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.

kel

Just nevermind. Really just not worth it

__________________
"It better be funny"

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.

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.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Marvelous Marv

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

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)

martinguerre

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

Marvelous Marv

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 !”

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....

MSD

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.

Marvelous Marv

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

Maybe there would be more time for real police work if this kind of thing wasn't going on.

Link