High court nixes restraining-order suits

During it's last day before going on thier summer vacations, the Supreme Court has rulled that the police cannot be sued for not doing enough to enforce restarining orders. This ruling caused a lot of fear and trepidation on local city goverments as they believed that if the ruling had gone the other way, it would have open the floodgates.
The case which spawned this rulling is, Castle Rock, Colorado, v. Gonzales, 04-278 in which Gonzales alledges that the police did not do enough to protect her children from her husband. As a result, her three children were abducted from her front lawn and were killed by their father.



This gives new meaning of "To Protect and TO Serve". About two years ago in Dallas TX, a woman repeatedly requested an escort from the Dallas police department so that she could get her belongings from an apartment that she had shared. The police refused and the woman was killed by her estranged husband.
Another incident also in Dallas, the DPD failed to again enforce a restraining order and a husband / father murdered his 2 daughters, while on the phone to his wife.
If the court system can hold a civilian libel for failing to follow a court order, why is there an exemption in place for those who are supposed to uphold the laws and the court rulings?
Another win for the goverment. You know the one, The goverment against the people.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by kenshiro2012]

[edit on 27-9-2005 by DJDOHBOY]

It's a well known fact that the police are reluctant to intervene in domestic disputes, including enforcement of restraining orders.

I think the big fear on the part of cities was because they know the cops are reluctant to act. Now the Supremes have given them carte blanche to do even less.

Good luck trying to stay safe if you have a violent partner ...

Lord knows the police are reluctant to DO THEIR JOB. Just want to write speeding tickets, bust minor drug dealers and eat donuts I guess. Maybe these ladies ought to get some friends called Mr. Smith @ Mr. Wesson or maybe Mr. Glock.

Maybe these ladies ought to get some friends called Mr. Smith @ Mr. Wesson or maybe Mr. Glock.

That's the smartest thing I've seen written on this board in a long time. The courts ruled many years ago, in a case in Washington, DC, that the police have no obligation to protect any one person. Therefore, the police cannot be held accountable, even if they fail to intervene during the commission of a crime. Given this trend, I would hope to see a rise in NRA membership, but, of course, that is unlikely given the liberal media's decades-long smear campaign against the organization.

[edit on 2005/6/27 by GradyPhilpott]

Walk up and ask any police officer if he is obligated to protect you from harm under any and all circumstances - the answer will surprise you.

It is up to the individual to protect themselves - the Korean store owners during the LA riots are a great example as are hurricane andrew survivors in florida who had to protect themselves and their property for quite awhile afterwords.

There are so many protection orders written everyday that it should be obvious to all that law enforcement hasn't a prayer of enforcing them.

Wait a minute...you guys honestly believe that police are here to protect the individual?...Police are here for society as a whole...do you have any idea how many OOP are in NYC....more then the 35k cops...If police "guarded" individuals all day then they'd have no time for in progress crimes, car accidents, ringing alarms, and the billion other things they do...Police are called when an OOP is violated...and when a particular complaintant has a greater chance of being harmed (like confirmed violence in the past leading to the order of protection), they are put on a high propensity (priority) list and have cops come and check there homes regularly...I just dont understand what the problem is...