Leo's and their responsibilities

This is a discussion on Leo's and their responsibilities within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have read a lot on this board (and others, too) about personal responsibilities regarding defense. I agree it rests with me alone. But I ...

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Leo's and their responsibilities

  1. #1
    Member Array rightdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada
    Posts
    46

    Leo's and their responsibilities

    I have read a lot on this board (and others, too) about personal responsibilities regarding defense. I agree it rests with me alone. But I also see a lot of references to a scotus decision about leo's having no legal responsibility to defend someone from attack, or something like that. Does anyone have a case they can reference? I would prefer to use this argument if I can back it up with actual case law.

    Thanks from a newbie. Great board also.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array SteveinNEPA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tobyhanna,PA
    Posts
    469
    LONG READ here is a link to it AND the full story posted here for those who cant open the link

    THE SUPREME COURT: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York Times


    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.
    BETTER TO BE TRIED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6
    Hesitation kills faster than a bullet.
    If your head is up your *$$ you are unaware of danger. You are in the perfect position to kiss it goodbye.
    Open Carry LAW for Pennsylvania
    http://www.thecrimsonpirate.com/rtkb...pdate_2009.pdf

  4. #3
    Member Array Bandolero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    267
    Castle Rock v Gonzales is a significant case on the topic:

    CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES

  5. #4
    Member Array rightdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada
    Posts
    46
    Thanks to both!

  6. #5
    Member Array skot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    185
    Another reference is South v. Maryland.

    From Wikipedia...

    Protection of individuals
    The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled numerous times since 1856 that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto "protect and serve". Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1856 (South v. Maryland) and the most recent in 2005 (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,752
    Shoots the crap out of "to protect and to serve" doesn't it?
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on our responsibilities as CCL holders
    By Divebum47 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 6th, 2009, 06:33 AM
  2. Our rights, Our Responsibilities, and the Liabilities
    By Kaymen in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 7th, 2008, 10:02 PM

Search tags for this page

1856 south v. maryland

,
leos responsibilities
,
maryland enforcement of peace orders mandatory arrest
,
south v. maryland
,
south v. maryland overturned
,
wikipedia south v. maryland
Click on a term to search for related topics.