Jump to content

Who will protect you when you need, but you.

Rate this topic


zybathegeek

Recommended Posts

When the need arises, who is going to protect you and your family other than the constitutional provisions of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Certainly not law enforcement, a fact so sadly illustrated by the Broward PD's inaction in the recent slaughter of innocents in the Parkland HS.

 

As much as we want to rail against their cowardice, Broward PD, and indeed PDs across the country do NOT have a constitutional duty to protect citizens.

 

Thus ruled by the Supreme Court.

 

What say you anti-2nd Amendment folks.?

 

Quote
nytimes.com
 

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Linda Greenhouse
6-7 minutes

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.

In another ruling on Monday, the court rebuked the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, for having reopened a death penalty appeal, on the basis of newly discovered evidence, after the ruling had become final.

The 5-to-4 decision, Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, came in response to an appeal by the State of Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit removed a convicted murderer, Gregory Thompson, from the state's death row.

After his conviction and the failure of his appeals in state court, Mr. Thompson, with new lawyers, had gone to federal district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his initial lawyers had been constitutionally inadequate. The new lawyers obtained a consultation with a psychologist, who diagnosed Mr. Thompson as schizophrenic.

But the psychologist's report was not included in the file of the habeas corpus petition in district court, which denied the petition. It was not until the Sixth Circuit and then the Supreme Court had also denied his petition, making the case final, that the Sixth Circuit reopened the case, finding that the report was crucial evidence that should have been considered.

In overturning that ruling in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the majority said the appeals court had abused its discretion in an "extraordinary departure from standard appellate procedures." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor joined the opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied on rules to the exclusion of justice. Judges need a "degree of discretion, thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears," he said. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined the dissent.

 

 

 

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 mins ago, Livefreeordie said:

Who are the anti 2nd  Amendment folks you're asking?

Since you raised your hand...

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When the need arises, who is going to protect you and your family other than the constitutional provisions of the 2nd Amendment?"

 

The Department of Defense?

 

The second Amendment does not guarantee a right of "protection".   It only affords one a means of protection for a "State", specifically "...the security of a free state..."

 

"Castle Rock Police

Message from the Chief of Police 

I’m honored to welcome you to the Castle Rock Police Department webpage.  The safety and security of our residents, visitors and business owners is our number one priority.  I am proud of the dedicated men and women of our department, who work diligently every day to provide a high level of service to our community."

 

I understand the ruling with regard to Due Process and the "polices constitutional duty" WRT due process.   But I also think they dropped the ball on this one.   

 

I get it, if the woman was armed, she could have shot the estranged husband as he kidnapped the kids.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 mins ago, KnewBee said:

"When the need arises, who is going to protect you and your family other than the constitutional provisions of the 2nd Amendment?"

 

The Department of Defense?

 

The second Amendment does not guarantee a right of "protection".   It only affords one a means of protection for a "State", specifically "...the security of a free state..."

 

"Castle Rock Police

Message from the Chief of Police 

I’m honored to welcome you to the Castle Rock Police Department webpage.  The safety and security of our residents, visitors and business owners is our number one priority.  I am proud of the dedicated men and women of our department, who work diligently every day to provide a high level of service to our community."

 

I understand the ruling with regard to Due Process and the "polices constitutional duty" WRT due process.   But I also think they dropped the ball on this one.   

 

I get it, if the woman was armed, she could have shot the estranged husband as he kidnapped the kids.....

 

 

KB, you are right, it does seem they dropped the ball, however, the Supreme Crt arguably ruled this way to protect the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Personally I side with them, ultimately it comes down to that old saw, 'better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6". 

 

Regrettably we increasingly live in an age where the moral principles that underscore respect for the sanctity of human life are being diminished daily, and absent a return to that respect, the continuance of the 2A is a direct reminder that peril awaits those who would do us harm.

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnP would never carry a gun.

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 min ago, fish'nmagician said:

your gun can't protect you,

YOU protect you.

Guns don't kill people. People do. 

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 mins ago, Mokes said:

Guns don't kill people. People do. 

Bull **** Mokes. I'm forced to keep all my guns locked up in heavy duty metal containers with locks on them so they don't  go on a killing spree.:mad:

fishinambition  Posted June 30 ·After a decade and a half of trolling and disrupting the website, frank's finally fed up with Tim's bull****

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zybathegeek said:

KB, you are right, it does seem they dropped the ball, however, the Supreme Crt arguably ruled this way to protect the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

??????  That had NOTHING to due with the ruling.  Read the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

it's your son's house, his rules.....

It's the law stupid.

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bass Ackwards said:

Bull **** Mokes. I'm forced to keep all my guns locked up in heavy duty metal containers with locks on them so they don't  go on a killing spree.:mad:

 

 

11 mins ago, fish'nmagician said:

it's your son's house, his rules.....

You're so smattt Frank :th:

7 mins ago, Mokes said:

It's the law stupid.

And good common sense. Guns are just an inanimate object, they need a liberal to do the devils work or a conservative to do god's work.

fishinambition  Posted June 30 ·After a decade and a half of trolling and disrupting the website, frank's finally fed up with Tim's bull****

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need protection. I can fight, I never leave home with my sidearm and a blade. 

I'm pretty poor choice for a criminal to attack. I'm also smart enough to be aware of my surroundings. Its a good way to stay alive.

 

"The toothless, braindead, *********, geriatric mouthbreathers around here love their "safe space". It is the only place in the world where they feel like winners, the gracious thing to do, would be to let them enjoy their delusional reality."

-Numbnuts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...