• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The police have no obligation to protect individuals

Sven_1982

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

A few examples:


Ladies, do not bother to obtain a useless piece of paper that some folks call "restraining order". Police officers are exempt from legal action, even if their refusal to enforce a valid restraining order results in death.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04—278.Argued March 21, 2005–Decided June 27, 2005


Ladies and gentlemen, can it be stated clearer than in the case of California?

California Government Code
845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. (...)


There are other court decisions declaring no obligation on behalf of the police to protect individuals:

Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)

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)
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)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)
 

ProguninTN

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
416
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I am very familiar with the case law that you have mentioned, and I share your opinion that restraining orders are just pieces of paper with no physical power to stop a threat. However, I don't think that we should totally give up on them, yet. They could be important pieces of evidence down the road. If for some reason, the party uses force to defend himself/herself from the other party, violation of the restraining order could be used in addition to other evidence to support a reasonable fear of one's life. Because of this, I think that restraining orders should still be sought, but I agree they cannot stand alone. One mustsupplement them with additional means such as a bodyguard or even better: defensive weapons (such as firearms).

ProguninTN
 
Top