NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes I am accused on here of being a mere apologist for the judiciary, particular the Supreme Court. My real life acquaitences would find that very funny.

Anyway, although the Kelo decision got most of the attention in these forums and it and the Ten Commandment decisions got most of the press attention, the truly outrageous recent decision was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-278.html), No. 04-278 (June 27, 2005), which gutted the usefulness of restraining orders and leaves domestic violence victims on their own for protection.

In short, Ms. Gonzales sued her town in Colorado for violating her civil rights (under 42 U. S. C. §1983) when the town's police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The legal issue turned on whether, under Colorado state law, Ms. Gonzales was entitled to enforcement of the restraining order, thereby creating a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Tenth Circuit had found that she did, because a Colorado statute established the state legislature's clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order's recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent (Ms. Gonzales) had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.

A majority of the Supreme Court held that Ms. Gonzales did not have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. In other words, she had no right to police enforcement of the restraining order and could not sue for the failure to enforce that allowed the murder of her children -- even if the failure to enforce was a deliberate official policy. Her claim is dismissed without a trial (the Court ruled that, even assuming all her facts were true, she had no case).

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.

The facts of the case are outrageous (ciations omitted, bold and capitals in the original):

Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order.

The restraining order had been issued by a state trial court several weeks earlier in conjunction with respondent's divorce proceedings. The original form order, issued on May 21, 1999, and served on respondent's husband on June 4, 1999, commanded him not to "molest or disturb the peace of [respondent] or of any child," and to remain at least 100 yards from the family home at all times. The bottom of the pre-printed form noted that the reverse side contained "IMPORTANT NOTICES FOR RESTRAINED PARTIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS." The preprinted text on the back of the form included the following "WARNING":

"A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME ... . A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER."

The preprinted text on the back of the form also included a "NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS," which read in part:

"YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER."

On June 4, 1999, the state trial court modified the terms of the restraining order and made it permanent. The modified order gave respondent's husband the right to spend time with his three daughters (ages 10, 9, and 7) on alternate weekends, for two weeks during the summer, and, " 'upon reasonable notice,' " for a mid-week dinner visit " 'arranged by the parties' "; the modified order also allowed him to visit the home to collect the children for such "parenting time."

According to the complaint, at about 5 or 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, respondent's husband took the three daughters while they were playing outside the family home. No advance arrangements had been made for him to see the daughters that evening. When respondent noticed the children were missing, she suspected her husband had taken them. At about 7:30 p.m., she called the Castle Rock Police Department, which dispatched two officers. The complaint continues: "When [the officers] arrived ... , she showed them a copy of the TRO and requested that it be enforced and the three children be returned to her immediately. [The officers] stated that there was nothing they could do about the TRO and suggested that [respondent] call the Police Department again if the three children did not return home by 10:00 p.m."

At approximately 8:30 p.m., respondent talked to her husband on his cellular telephone. He told her "he had the three children [at an] amusement park in Denver." Ibid. She called the police again and asked them to "have someone check for" her husband or his vehicle at the amusement park and "put out an [all points bulletin]" for her husband, but the officer with whom she spoke "refused to do so," again telling her to "wait until 10:00 p.m. and see if " her husband returned the girls.

At approximately 10:10 p.m., respondent called the police and said her children were still missing, but she was now told to wait until midnight. She called at midnight and told the dispatcher her children were still missing. She went to her husband's apartment and, finding nobody there, called the police at 12:10 a.m.; she was told to wait for an officer to arrive. When none came, she went to the police station at 12:50 a.m. and submitted an incident report. The officer who took the report "made no reasonable effort to enforce the TRO or locate the three children. Instead, he went to dinner."

At approximately 3:20 a.m., respondent's husband arrived at the police station and opened fire with a semiautomatic handgun he had purchased earlier that evening. Police shot back, killing him. Inside the cab of his pickup truck, they found the bodies of all three daughters, whom he had already murdered.

On the basis of the foregoing factual allegations, respondent brought an action under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the town violated the Due Process Clause because its police department had "an official policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations" and "tolerate[d] the non-enforcement of restraining orders by its police officers." The complaint also alleged that the town's actions "were taken either willfully, recklessly or with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton disregard and deliberate indifference to" respondent's civil rights.

The legal issue turned on whether, under Colorado state law, Ms. Gonzales was entitled to enforcement of the restraining order, thereby creating a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

At the time of the conduct at issue in this case, Colorado had a statutory provision describing "peace officers' duties" related to the crime of violation of a restraining order that read as follows (emphasis per Court opinion):

"(a) Whenever a restraining order is issued, the protected person shall be provided with a copy of such order. A peace officer shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.

"(b) A peace officer shall arrest, or, if an arrest would be impractical under the circumstances, seek a warrant for the arrest of a restrained person when the peace officer has information amounting to probable cause that:

"(I) The restrained person has violated or attempted to violate any provision of a restraining order; and

"(II) The restrained person has been properly served with a copy of the restraining order or the restrained person has received actual notice of the existence and substance of such order.

"(c) In making the probable cause determination described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), a peace officer shall assume that the information received from the registry is accurate. A peace officer shall enforce a valid restraining order whether or not there is a record of the restraining order in the registry." Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-6-803.5(3) (Lexis 1999) (emphases added).

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that this statutory provision--especially taken in conjunction with a statement from its legislative history, and with another statute restricting criminal and civil liability for officers making arrests--established the Colorado Legislature's clear intent "to alter the fact that the police were not enforcing domestic abuse retraining orders," and thus its intent "that the recipient of a domestic abuse restraining order have an entitlement to its enforcement." 366 F. 3d, at 1108. Any other result, it said, "would render domestic abuse restraining orders utterly valueless." Id., at 1109.

Justice Scalia called that sheer hyperbole and the Court majority concluded the statute did not make enforcement of restraining orders "mandatory." Scalia stated that "a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature." He noted that there would be situations where immediate arrest was not possible, because the abuser has fled the scene -- so arrest could not be mandatory. :rolleyes: He concluded that Colorado had not created an " entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders."

As the dissent emphasized and Scalia admitted in passing, SCOTUS usually defers to interpretations of state law by the regional Court of Appeals. SCOTUS also could have certified the question to the Colorado Supreme Court. Instead, it has simply flatly denied the entitlement or any right.

Anyway, a restraining order now does not entitle you to any protection or action by the police. They may willfully disregard it. It is an almost worthless piece of paper.

That is outrageous. And a slap in the face of the millions of victims of domestic violence that play by the rules instead of taking the law into their own hands.

Thus individuals concerned for their safety and livelihood should be able to carry concealed weapons, to defend themselves. Sometimes you have to take the law into your own hands.

Sometimes I am accused on here of being a mere apologist for the judiciary, particular the Supreme Court. My real life acquaitences would find that very funny.

Anyway, although the Kelo decision got most of the attention in these forums and it and the Ten Commandment decisions got most of the press attention, the truly outrageous recent decision was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-278.html), No. 04-278 (June 27, 2005), which gutted the usefulness of restraining orders and leaves domestic violence victims on their own for protection.

In short, Ms. Gonzales sued her town in Colorado for violating her civil rights (under 42 U. S. C. §1983) when the town's police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The legal issue turned on whether, under Colorado state law, Ms. Gonzales was entitled to enforcement of the restraining order, thereby creating a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Tenth Circuit had found that she did, because a Colorado statute established the state legislature's clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order's recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent (Ms. Gonzales) had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.

A majority of the Supreme Court held that Ms. Gonzales did not have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. In other words, she had no right to police enforcement of the restraining order and could not sue for the failure to enforce that allowed the murder of her children -- even if the failure to enforce was a deliberate official policy. Her claim is dismissed without a trial (the Court ruled that, even assuming all her facts were true, she had no case).

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.

The facts of the case are outrageous (ciations omitted, bold and capitals in the original):



The legal issue turned on whether, under Colorado state law, Ms. Gonzales was entitled to enforcement of the restraining order, thereby creating a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

At the time of the conduct at issue in this case, Colorado had a statutory provision describing "peace officers' duties" related to the crime of violation of a restraining order that read as follows (emphasis per Court opinion):



The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that this statutory provision--especially taken in conjunction with a statement from its legislative history, and with another statute restricting criminal and civil liability for officers making arrests--established the Colorado Legislature's clear intent "to alter the fact that the police were not enforcing domestic abuse retraining orders," and thus its intent "that the recipient of a domestic abuse restraining order have an entitlement to its enforcement." 366 F. 3d, at 1108. Any other result, it said, "would render domestic abuse restraining orders utterly valueless." Id., at 1109.

Justice Scalia called that sheer hyperbole and the Court majority concluded the statute did not make enforcement of restraining orders "mandatory." Scalia stated that "a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature." He noted that there would be situations where immediate arrest was not possible, because the abuser has fled the scene -- so arrest could not be mandatory. :rolleyes: He concluded that Colorado had not created an " entitlement to something as vague and novel as enforcement of restraining orders."

As the dissent emphasized and Scalia admitted in passing, SCOTUS usually defers to interpretations of state law by the regional Court of Appeals. SCOTUS also could have certified the question to the Colorado Supreme Court. Instead, it has simply flatly denied the entitlement or any right.

Anyway, a restraining order now does not entitle you to any protection or action by the police. They may willfully disregard it. It is an almost worthless piece of paper.

That is outrageous. And a slap in the face of the millions of victims of domestic violence that play by the rules instead of taking the law into their own hands.

Yup. .Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that some laws, being unenforceable, make self-defense a mandatory state of affairs... this is consistent with previous Court decisions, Cat. I do wonder, though, if she might have gotten better justice if she were a millionairess Socialite from New York, rathr than a colorado housewife.

Anyone who concurred on Scalia's opinion is a jackass, I would like to see Souter's' opinion that is somehow concurrent with that pompous wind bag of an ass Scalia

Correct me if I am wrong, Cat, but my understand of this particular ruling is rather like the emminate domain ruling in that SCOTUS stated that the constitutional issue has no grounds that could be decided upon by the court, but that the issue was ripe for responce by state/ federal legislative action, which is why the court refused to interseed.

Before you slip the dogs of war in my general direction, I too am discusted by the ruling, but I wanted to check my understanding of this one. I have to agree that using a 14th as the reason sounds to my mind iffy.

I doubt you're going to get much dissent on this Cat-Tribe, and I won't give you any personally, since I tend to agree with you, but I can provide an opposite viewpoint from a blog I tend to read pretty regularly. It's from Lawyers, Guns and Money.
However, I think the dissenters' case is considerably stronger than most commentary has suggested. Certainly, Scalia's central point is a powerful one: discretionary enforcement of categorical laws by police departments with scarce resources is inevitable, and to hold them liable for such acts of discretion would creat all kinds of problems. Obviously, as everyone concedes, there is no substantive rights violation here. However, the discretion of government officials is bound by the procedural core of the equal protection clause: the police cannot systematically refuse to apply laws to the detriment of a certain group of people. In this particular case, the argument is plausible. As Stevens points out, the fact that the Colorado legislature passed a new law requiring mandatory enforcement of restraining orders in domestic violence cases tells us that the legislature believed that the existing laws were being systematically underenforced. Is this enough to create a procedural violation in this case? Probably not; at least based on the evidence Stevens presents, I'm not sure the underenforcement is so severe as to constitute a procedural equal protection violation. But I think this is a hard case, and with sufficient evidence I could be persuaded that Ginsburg and Stevens are right.
That's a tepid defense of the decision at best, and I don't buy it completely myself--I suspect that Tony Scalia had a bit of the old he-man-woman-haters club going when he penned the decision--but there is a legitimate argument to be made about the necessity to allocate law-enforcement forces. They can't be everywhere, nor would we want them to be, lest we become a police state. That said, Colorado had passed a law stating that restraining orders had to be strongly enforced, and I think that the police department fucked up royally and ought to be held accountable for it. Sadly, I think the reverse will happen--police departments may take this as a sign that they don't have to take restraining orders so seriously.

Before you slip the dogs of war in my general direction, I too am discusted by the ruling, but I wanted to check my understanding of this one. I have to agree that using a 14th as the reason sounds to my mind iffy.
They have made FAR more ridiculous decisions based on the 14th aemdnemtn than the police have to do their fucking jobs.

I'm not sure the underenforcement is so severe as to constitute a procedural equal protection violation. But I think this is a hard case, and with sufficient evidence I could be persuaded that Ginsburg and Stevens are right.
I am under the impression that the fact that the police systematically refused to give the woman any aid past the 10pm mark (which is the point to which I would have given them procedural slack) and the fact that the children ended up dead and a police station shot up should have provided more than enough evidence to side with the disenters

Yup. .Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that some laws, being unenforceable, make self-defense a mandatory state of affairs... this is consistent with previous Court decisions, Cat. I do wonder, though, if she might have gotten better justice if she were a millionairess Socialite from New York, rathr than a colorado housewife.

You may be suprised that I am leaning towards agreeing with your second sentence.* And certainly agree with the last.

This is a departure from prior decisions, which did not involve putative mandatory arrest statutes. It has previously been held in lower court decisions that domestic violence/restraining order cases were different.

*I will likely make that a subject of a seperate thread.

Thus individuals concerned for their safety and livelihood should be able to carry concealed weapons, to defend themselves. Sometimes you have to take the law into your own hands.

It will shock many that I am starting to lean that way. At the very least, it should be a no-permit situation when you have a restraining order against someone.

Correct me if I am wrong, Cat, but my understand of this particular ruling is rather like the emminate domain ruling in that SCOTUS stated that the constitutional issue has no grounds that could be decided upon by the court, but that the issue was ripe for responce by state/ federal legislative action, which is why the court refused to interseed.

Before you slip the dogs of war in my general direction, I too am discusted by the ruling, but I wanted to check my understanding of this one. I have to agree that using a 14th as the reason sounds to my mind iffy.

The 14th states that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The allegation is that she was denied a property right without due process of law. A state statute that creates an entitlement to something can thereby create a property interest that cannot be deprived without due process. As the dissent explained:

It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189 (1989). Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement for the ordinary citizen. On the other hand, it is equally clear that federal law imposes no impediment to the creation of such an entitlement by Colorado law. Respondent certainly could have entered into a contract with a private security firm, obligating the firm to provide protection to respondent's family; respondent's interest in such a contract would unquestionably constitute "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. If a Colorado statute enacted for her benefit, or a valid order entered by a Colorado judge, created the functional equivalent of such a private contract by granting respondent an entitlement to mandatory individual protection by the local police force, that state-created right would also qualify as "property" entitled to constitutional protection.

Whether the majority left room for a state to clearly establish a property interest entitled to constitutional protection. The dissent likes to hold out hope that it does. Scalia's opinion seems to say that it would not qualify. (I haven't gone into every detail in my already lengthy post.)

But the eminent domain situation requires a state or local government to do something -- i.e., excercise eminent domain -- before the decision has any impact. Individual property rights are unchanged -- at least unless the states exercise their power otherwise. The states or federal government may add to the protections of property rights by adding laws restricting eminent domain, but that is gravy.

Here, it appears standard mandatory arrest statutes of many states aren't sufficient. States may be able to create an entitlement if they pass a new statute.

United States Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Victims of Domestic Violence (http://www.stopvaw.org/Expert_s_Corner.html)

In light of the Court’s ruling, mandatory arrest language is not enough to hold police officers liable for enforcement. As laws providing orders for protection for victims of domestic violence are drafted or amended, provisions explicitly creating a special duty of enforcement and liability for failure to enforce will need to be included.

Gonzales Ruling a “Serious Blow” to Victims of Violence Who Need Police Protection (http://endabuse.org/newsflash/index.php3?Search=Article&NewsFlashID=628)

Fernando Laguarda, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the National Network to End Domestic Violence and 53 allied groups, said it was not their contention that police were somehow required to take specific preventive actions in domestic violence situations.

"It's not about being protected. Nobody is asking for miracles. She was asking for police to take her calls seriously, which is what procedural due process -- fairness -- is all about," he said.

Instead, Gonzales alleged, the police kept putting her off when she called them fearing that her estranged husband was a threat to the children, telling her to call back later rather than taking any action or even telling her there was nothing they could do.

Supreme Court Leaves Women More Vulnerable to Domestic Violence (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0629-02.htm)

60 Minutes with case background (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/17/60minutes/main681416.shtml)

National Law Journal background article (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1109859534873)

This shoots down the anti-gun folks arguement that restraining orders work.

Not that criminals ever respected a restraining order anyway. :rolleyes:

Here, it appears standard mandatory arrest statutes of many states aren't sufficient. States may be able to create an entitlement if they pass a new statute.
Hmm, in reading your links it seems that this is a bloody mess. Unfortunately, it also seems that both sides have good points. The police were negligent in their duty and should have done more, but I can also understand the worry of legal ramifications if SCOTUS ruled otherwise. That would seem to open a can of worms allowing someone to claim libel if police action didn't go the way they wanted to.

I mean, here it is obvious that more should have been done, but the notion of someone filing suite due to a stolen wallet that they thought the police didn't look hard enough for...

Yup, sounds like legislative work time.

With all due respect she had far more to do with the fate of her three children than did the local police. Aside from her choice of father for her children, aside from her failing to act decisively in their protection, she told the cops she didn't believe he'd hurt his kids. They can't be expected to be better mind readers than she is. It was her failure of imagination, and unwillingness to abandon her delusion that indirectly lead to the death of her children. If she had either acted reasonably before the crisis, or during the crisis, and hadn't gone out of her way to appear to be using the cops as a hockey puck her children would have stood a better chance. They deserved a better mother and father.

She didn't deserve anything. Her children deserved a mother who gave a fuck, and was wise enough to choose a father that wasn't psychotic.

This shoots down the anti-gun folks arguement that restraining orders work.

Not that criminals ever respected a restraining order anyway. :rolleyes:

Umm...they do work (did work?). I have had one placed on an inuvidual and I'm no longer harrassed and stalked by them. I think it was a much cleaner solution than shooting said induvidual myself. But that's just me, I live in a civilized society where aggression is the last resort, not the first.

Restraining orders don't work against a determined criminal in the same way a armed bodyguard won't work against a determined assassin. If they're nuts, and they just don't care if they live or die, they CAN kill someone. Duh.

Restraining orders are not a be-all-end all by any means. And yes, sometimes having a gun and shooting a psyco who's out to kill you is perfectly acceptable. But lets understand that not everyone who gets a restraining order placed against them is a direct threat to someone's life, they can help dissuade criminals though. Its a tool, that's it.

I thought y'all were against pre-emptive strikes. Y'know? Just keep issuing those resolutions...er...restraining orders and everything will take care of itself.

:p

Seriously, though. It's decisions like this that make me happy that the SCOTUS or the rest fo the government hasn't completely gutted the 2nd Ammendment.

With all due respect she had far more to do with the fate of her three children than did the local police. Aside from her choice of father for her children, aside from her failing to act decisively in their protection, she told the cops she didn't believe he'd hurt his kids. They can't be expected to be better mind readers than she is. It was her failure of imagination, and unwillingness to abandon her delusion that indirectly lead to the death of her children. If she had either acted reasonably before the crisis, or during the crisis, and hadn't gone out of her way to appear to be using the cops as a hockey puck her children would have stood a better chance. They deserved a better mother and father.

She didn't deserve anything. Her children deserved a mother who gave a fuck, and was wise enough to choose a father that wasn't psychotic.
I think we all deserve a far more intelligent reply

I thought y'all were against pre-emptive strikes. Y'know? Just keep issuing those resolutions...er...restraining orders and everything will take care of itself.

:p

Seriously, though. It's decisions like this that make me happy that the SCOTUS or the rest fo the government hasn't completely gutted the 2nd Ammendment.

heh heh. Good joke...but I can't help but wonder how effective it would have been for her to get the local national gaurd and have them turn her ex into bean paste instead of getting a restraining order...that would have been hiring someone to do a murder ;)

Yeah, I'm glad that the 2nd amendment is intact, now more than ever. I never thought I'd be thankful for the NRA, but now I kinda am.

Ihatevacations']I think we all deserve a far more intelligent reply
Definitely. God fobid anyone should have to take responsibility for utterly moronic decisions they make. WE ARE ALL VICTIMS! IT'S NEVER MY FAULT! :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm glad that the 2nd amendment is intact, now more than ever. I never thought I'd be thankful for the NRA, but now I kinda am.
"An armed society is a polite society." ;)

Definitely. God fobid anyone should have to take responsibility for utterly moronic decisions they make. WE ARE ALL VICTIMS! IT'S NEVER MY FAULT! :rolleyes:
I was all for the police up to the 10 pm mark, once they started ignoring her requests and complaitns at that point, assumngi they were made, it ceased being her fault and started being the police's fault

Ihatevacations']I think we all deserve a far more intelligent reply
In your own backwards way you've exactly identified the problem. She believes the world should bend to her will, and run the way she might wish it, irrespective of the collective will of hundreds of millions (hell 6 billion and change) of other individuals. She decided not to be an agent of change, and instead felt that good things should be delivered to her, that bad things delivered away from her, that other people should have perfect knowledge of her will, and the surrounding circumstances which she herself clearly did not understand, and act in accordance with her best intentions. Sorry. That's just stupid. The world, and larger disinterested universe, exist for their own ends, and one of those ends is to preform the function of running roughshod over the unwary.

If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good, and the very gentle, and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.

The evil in what their father did isn't in the suffering of their mother. That is her work. The evil is that they are not here to make a go at proving Hemingway wrong. What we might own them for not making a better world, well, that's between us and them and for each of us to decide on our own. The mother however is owed nothing by the rest of us. She failed her chidlren in a manner that is truly obscene, and exceeded only by the failure of their father.

Ihatevacations']I was all for the police up to the 10 pm mark, once they started ignoring her requests and complaitns at that point, assumngi they were made, it ceased being her fault and started being the police's fault
It never stopped being at least partially her fault. But I will agree that when the cops started ignoring her complaints, it became partially their fault as well.

In your own backwards way you've exactly identified the problem. She believes the world should bend to her will, and run the way she might wish it, irrespective of the collective will of hundreds of millions (hell 6 billion and change) of other individuals.
God forbid the cops actually follow the directions on the restraining order, or follow their own policies and statements. You are just being an ass and attacknig her for what reason? Callnig the police to try and do their job and then bringing them to court when their failure toi do their job resulted in teh death of her children? I would think going back to the police over and over and following their directions they fucking gave her every new time they gave them to her would constitute not expecting the world to bend to her will. What are you? A 15 year old republican?

I'm sure if you had kids and they mysteriously disappeared without notice and your spouse, whom you have a restraining order agaisnt, tell you (s)he has them, I bet you would be shutting the fuck up

She failed her chidlren in a manner that is truly obscene, and exceeded only by the failure of their father.
and by the failure of the police.

With all due respect she had far more to do with the fate of her three children than did the local police. Aside from her choice of father for her children, aside from her failing to act decisively in their protection, she told the cops she didn't believe he'd hurt his kids. They can't be expected to be better mind readers than she is. It was her failure of imagination, and unwillingness to abandon her delusion that indirectly lead to the death of her children. If she had either acted reasonably before the crisis, or during the crisis, and hadn't gone out of her way to appear to be using the cops as a hockey puck her children would have stood a better chance. They deserved a better mother and father.

She didn't deserve anything. Her children deserved a mother who gave a fuck, and was wise enough to choose a father that wasn't psychotic.

Definitely. God fobid anyone should have to take responsibility for utterly moronic decisions they make. WE ARE ALL VICTIMS! IT'S NEVER MY FAULT! :rolleyes:

Excuse me?

The woman that got the restraining order, had her pleas for help almost completely ignored, and had her children murdered isn't a victim? She's the guilty one? :rolleyes:

Is she responsible for him going to the police station and shooting it up too?

Regardless, you are making up a ton of false facts.

Where did you get that she told the police he wouldn't hurt the kids? Where did you get she was treating them like a hockey puck? The evidence is to the contary.

She frantically tried to get the police to do something or to find her husband herself.

From about 6 p.m. until 1 a.m. the next morning, Jessica Gonzales placed five calls to the police department and met with police in person twice seeking to have her protection order enforced and her husband arrested. Each time, even after she confirmed that her husband had the children, police told her to wait, first, until 10 p.m., and then until midnight, before contacting them again.

At 1 a.m., she filed an incident report at the police station and the officer who took it did not act but allegedly went to dinner. At 3:20 a.m., Simon Gonzales arrived at the Castle Rock police station in his truck. He got out and opened fire on the station with a semi-automatic handgun. He was shot dead at the scene. The police found the bodies of the girls, who had been murdered by their father earlier that evening, in the cab of the truck

Agreeing with the decision and/or disagreeing with me is one thing.

Making crap up and blaming a very real victim of a horrible crime is just sick.

Have you no deceny? At long last, have you no decency whatsoever?

It never stopped being at least partially her fault. But I will agree that when the cops started ignoring her complaints, it became partially their fault as well.

Were are totally outside the legal issue here, but, pray tell, how the f*** was it partially her fault that her estranged husband kidnapped and murdered her children?

What kind of sick logic is involved there.

Were are totally outside the legal issue here, but, pray tell, how the f*** was it partially her fault that her estranged husband kidnapped and murdered her children?

What kind of sick logic is involved there.
When she did not take the protection of herself and her children into her own hands instead of solely relying on the police that obviously weren't going to completely protect her, she became part of the problem and not part of the solution.

When she did not take the protection of herself and her children into her own hands instead of solely relying on the police that obviously weren't going to completely protect her, she became part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Becaus everyone isn't a rightwing gun nut who thinks shooting some one is the answer to every personal problem. You are saying it is her fault because she did not personally hunt down and assassinate her husband? You, sir, sicken me to the utmost

When she did not take the protection of herself and her children into her own hands instead of solely relying on the police that obviously weren't going to completely protect her, she became part of the problem and not part of the solution.

So, beyond trying to enlist the help of the police and searching for him herself, she should have done what?

Get a gun? Shoot him? She had to find him first. :rolleyes: She tried to find him. And the police didn't help her look.

Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to the target before throwing stones.

Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to the target before throwing stones.
I read the SCOTUS decision and backstory... I know the target. I'm not saying the mother was completely to blame...but I'm also standing by my statement that she wasn't completely a victim, either.

The children are the victims here. Victims of an apathetic police force/justice system, a derranged father and a mother in denial of the father's derrangement that was too weak to proactively try to protect her children.

It's people like this that almost make me think people should be licensed in order to breed. :headbang:

When she did not take the protection of herself and her children into her own hands instead of solely relying on the police that obviously weren't going to completely protect her, she became part of the problem and not part of the solution.
You know, that's the sort of logic that states a rape victim is at fault because obviously she didn't blow the balls of her attacker(s). That children who are molested are at fault for not trying to kill those who molest them. Taking the law into her own hands? Where the hell is THAT found? Nation of laws remember, not dog eat dog.

Nation of laws remember, not dog eat dog.
...Until the law fails miserably...and this case is a prime example of the law failing miserably.

You can't always wait around for the police to wipe your ass for you. Sometimes you have to wipe the shit away yourself.

I read the SCOTUS decision and backstory... I know the target. I'm not saying the mother was completely to blame...but I'm also standing by my statement that she wasn't completely a victim, either.

The children are the victims here. Victims of an apathetic police force/justice system, a derranged father and a mother in denial of the father's derrangement that was too weak to proactively try to protect her children.

It's people like this that almost make me think people should be licensed in order to breed. :headbang:

You rather pointedly haven't answered the questions.

What facts are you pointing to that say it was her fault.
Where do you get the evidence that she was in denial of his derangement? Where do you get the fact she wasn't proactive?

What more could she have done?

She did search herself. She did try to get the police to search.

Now she shouldn't have been allowed to have children? Because her husband kidnapped them and killed them?

Show some frickin' sympathy. Her children were murdered. She is a victim.

Anyone with more than half a brain and half a heart can see that.

...Until the law fails miserably...and this case is a prime example of the law failing miserably.

You can't always wait around for the police to wipe your ass for you. Sometimes you have to wipe the shit away yourself.
Ya know, that notion is either going to bite you one of these days or get you arrested.

...Until the law fails miserably...and this case is a prime example of the law failing miserably.

You can't always wait around for the police to wipe your ass for you. Sometimes you have to wipe the shit away yourself.

Very cute macho bullshit.

But, pray tell, what she should have done when she couldn't find her kids or her husband that she didn't do?

The gun-toting stoic he-man cliches don't answer that question.

(And thank you for admitting the police failed to follow the law here. That is the whole point!)

Very cute macho bullshit.

But, pray tell, what she should have done when she couldn't find her kids or her husband that she didn't do?

The gun-toting stoic he-man cliches don't answer that question.

(And thank you for admitting the police failed to follow the law here. That is the whole point!)

Well, the prevailing opinion on the matter seems to be she should have already owned a gun and blown her husband's head off the moment he got inside those 500 restricted feet. Because as you and I know, everyone in the world has ESP an knows exactly what other people are going to do. I know I presume that everyone around me is a murderous sociopath, and I have a plan to take the law into my own hands at the first sign of trouble from anyone, whether I'm correct in my assumptions or not.

With all due respect she had far more to do with the fate of her three children than did the local police. Aside from her choice of father for her children, aside from her failing to act decisively in their protection, she told the cops she didn't believe he'd hurt his kids. They can't be expected to be better mind readers than she is. It was her failure of imagination, and unwillingness to abandon her delusion that indirectly lead to the death of her children. If she had either acted reasonably before the crisis, or during the crisis, and hadn't gone out of her way to appear to be using the cops as a hockey puck her children would have stood a better chance. They deserved a better mother and father.

She didn't deserve anything. Her children deserved a mother who gave a fuck, and was wise enough to choose a father that wasn't psychotic.

Ok there are three statements that if you are to sway people in your direction need to be clarified.

First off, I haven't any facts to back this up but I would bet when she had the kids with their father he wasn't a deranged psychotic killer. There was obviously a reason she was granted the restraining order. So how do you know he wasn't a nice, normal man when they concieved the children but could have possibly developed a sort of mind set after the fact. I've seen it happen in my own life. I mean my own mother developed Schizophrenia when I was 4 years old and turned from "the best mother" to a crazy person for lack of better words.

Second, how is calling the police "failing to act decisively in their protection"? Answer me that. She didn't know where he had taken the girls. Plus if she called the police in the first place don't you think she would be a little scared of the father? I mean she got a restraining order on the man.

Thirdly WHEN did she tell the cops she didn't believe he would hurt the kids. Show some evidence if you make such a claim.

I personally am amazed at the ruling on this case.

Ya know, that notion is either going to bite you one of these days or get you arrested.
It's already gotten me arrested once. A guy (literally) twice my size decided to push me around and slam me up against the side of my car in high school. I had my window down and an aluminum baseball bat behind the seat. The guy ended up with a 12 week stay in the hospital (6 weeks of it in traction) and I ended up arrested for assault and battery. The charges were quickly dropped when it was shown what I did was self defense.

CLICHE ALERT: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Ihatevacations']God forbid the cops actually follow the directions on the restraining order, or follow their own policies and statements. You are just being an ass and attacknig her for what reason? Callnig the police to try and do their job and then bringing them to court when their failure toi do their job resulted in teh death of her children? I would think going back to the police over and over and following their directions they fucking gave her every new time they gave them to her would constitute not expecting the world to bend to her will. What are you? A 15 year old republican?
Once she lead the police to believe that this was just a divorce related spat and a violation of the order where there was no chance of anyone being hurt (an order which in and of itself was impractical in the context of their relationship) she was done. It was she who lead her local police to believe that it should not be taken seriously. Not that she didn't have second chances. Oh no. She could have called the police department local to where her husband was, and correct her mistake there. But she didn't. She was appearently convinced that if one calls the police about an event which one considers inconvienent (but not life threatening), that they just type someone's name into cops.google.com and their current location comes up, with units conincidently around the corner.

Back when she didn't think it was particularly serious, why didn't she call her lawyer and ask what to do? Or why didn't she call the local police department direct, express that she considered this very serious, tell that person what she wanted (children home safe and right now) and how best to proceed with the 911 dispatcher.

Me, if I was actually a silly enough bastard to have kids (no thank you, I take the responsability a little too seriously), and for whatever reason I didn't take their safety seriously enough to where I'd put them in such a situation where their saftey was in doubt, the police wouldn't blow me off. Because I'd present them with an alternative. "If I find X before you assholes and my kids aren't shiney and happy, they'll be booking me for one count of murder,*BOOM!*" Get those bastards on mission. Is cooling your heels in jail for a couple of hours and ~$3000 in attorney fees beating a misdemeanor charge worth the security of your children? In general, I would think so. But at that point you're already a pretty crappy parent.

And Cat-Tribe, where I got the information that she told the police that she though her husband wouldn't hurt the kids: Her own mouth on CNN (she specifically told the police that her children were not in danger twice, and he'd *never* shown violence towards the children). She loves being on TV. Even if that weren't true (why shouldn't I take her own word for it though?) she chose him. An abusive child murdering psychopath. Not quality dad material. But don't feel too sorry for her, she'll no doubt "sell her story." It'll be a book, a movie of the week, and a Law & Order: SVU double episode. I'm sorry if I'm "sick" perhaps that's the price people pay for being better informed that those who claim a monopoly on the truth. But I like the "pro-personal responsability" kind of sick better than the unholy union of "whore my dead children around" and "abdicate all personal responsability" sick. Maybe it's just because it's the evil I know.

All of how much of the tragedy was her doing aside (sure there's another person far more responsible, but he's dead): The Cops just aren't responsible for everyone who dies for want of the speeding ticket that might have saved a life. That they went to the "Procedures for inconvienent but not dangerous situtations" on her advice is actually beside the point, no matter how compelling I personally find it. The nature of being a police officer (and those I know are perhaps a little squirlier than I might find ideal, but pretty much great guys) is using one's subjective judgement as unpredictable situations develop. Even excluding her tragic poisoning of their information, police will be wrong, frequently. Which also explains why the rest of our justice system is setup the way it is. For every life that can be saved by exceptionless, exacting rules, there are lives that might be unfairly taken too. That people seek to trade balances so freely, with such little consideration does not speak well for their collective talent for imagination, willingness to practice it, or their insight into where it might be lacking. I'm more trusting in thinking people than unthinking rote. But then, I'm not so quick to place my fate wholly in the hands of others, and I can't imagine being less careful with the lives of children to whom I am responsible.

...Until the law fails miserably...and this case is a prime example of the law failing miserably.

You can't always wait around for the police to wipe your ass for you. Sometimes you have to wipe the shit away yourself.
Some one inform the FBI we have a potential domestic terrorist, I'm sure they will be itnerested in his anti-establishment ideas and wants to do his own "dirty work" when ti comes to "justice"

Ihatevacations']Some one inform the FBI we have a potential domestic terrorist, I'm sure they will be itnerested in his anti-establishment ideas and wants to do his own "dirty work" when ti comes to "justice"
I'm pretty damned sure that the FBI already has a file on me. *yawns* It's not like they can't come and pick me up...I live right down the road.

BTW, stop channelling McCarthy...plz k thx. :rolleyes:

With all due respect she had far more to do with the fate of her three children than did the local police. Aside from her choice of father for her children, aside from her failing to act decisively in their protection, she told the cops she didn't believe he'd hurt his kids. They can't be expected to be better mind readers than she is. It was her failure of imagination, and unwillingness to abandon her delusion that indirectly lead to the death of her children. If she had either acted reasonably before the crisis, or during the crisis, and hadn't gone out of her way to appear to be using the cops as a hockey puck her children would have stood a better chance. They deserved a better mother and father.

She didn't deserve anything. Her children deserved a mother who gave a fuck, and was wise enough to choose a father that wasn't psychotic.

May I point out (although I am sure it has already been done) how utterly disgusting this post is?

Meanwhile, I had read about this case. Interestingly, it only got a side bar in the news despite being, in my mind, horribly important (and much worse than the Kelo case).

I would point out that it was interesting to see that at least some states do have rules that one can only break a restraining order if it has been served on them. Apparently, in Florida, that is not the rule.

Cat, did you read my thread about the restraining order, arrest, and criminal neglect of my boyfriend's brother? I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering what your take on it was. The title of the thread was something like "Can we kick Floriday out of the union?" I'll see if I can find it.

It will shock many that I am starting to lean that way. At the very least, it should be a no-permit situation when you have a restraining order against someone.

I would agree with this, if it weren't for what I have recently learned about restraining orders (at least in some places). The person placing the order doesn't have to have any reason - they just have to place the order. Thus, a potentially dangerous person could get a no-permit right to carry a gun by placing a restraining order against someone who is no threat to them at all.

Ok there are three statements that if you are to sway people in your direction need to be clarified.

First off, I haven't any facts to back this up but I would bet when she had the kids with their father he wasn't a deranged psychotic killer. There was obviously a reason she was granted the restraining order. So how do you know he wasn't a nice, normal man when they concieved the children but could have possibly developed a sort of mind set after the fact. I've seen it happen in my own life. I mean my own mother developed Schizophrenia when I was 4 years old and turned from "the best mother" to a crazy person for lack of better words.

Second, how is calling the police "failing to act decisively in their protection"? Answer me that. She didn't know where he had taken the girls. Plus if she called the police in the first place don't you think she would be a little scared of the father? I mean she got a restraining order on the man.

Thirdly WHEN did she tell the cops she didn't believe he would hurt the kids. Show some evidence if you make such a claim.

I personally am amazed at the ruling on this case.
1. If people just snap in a way that absolutely defies all prediction, and not just people discarding information that doesn't fit with their delusion or beneath their attention, then fuck it. Whathcha gonna do. In general, assholes and psychos are the same people, and always were the same people, or at least demonstrate that potential under external influance (drugs, alcohol, stress). Either way she had a hell of a lot more warning than anyone else, including her children, and certainly the police (who had only her word to go on). But yeah, if he was beating her she should have taken it pretty fucking seriously. A restraining order, which makes no sense in a context where the people have to have some sort of contact with each other, is not fucking serious, a part from being deeply flawed as a concept. Again, your mother developed a mental disorder. It came on fast perhaps but it wasn't a switch. This guy hated his life for a long fucking time to come to this point. The why is irrelevent. The way he wanted to give his kids one last good day, destroy everyone's life and then go out in a blaze of glory in front of the police station isn't something he started mulling over when he was happy. He didn't wake up that morning look back on a life he was pretty pleased with and come up with this master plan as a way to go out more or less on top, or at least before the decline. Whatever. Once her saftey was in jepordy, he childrens health was in jepordy, and she should have proceeded accordingly. But she didn't make a clean break (and by her own admition because she didn't want to). Her idea of this life that could linger on was gravely mistaken.

She called the police. She told them twice she did not believe he would ever harm them. Which might be true, but she could not know he wouldn't harm them. Clearly her judgement with respect to him is suspect, unless she prefers men for whom she requires restraining orders. This before all else she *knew* to be true, she doesn't know him as well as she thought. She didn't say, pleading, "I have no idea if my children are safe. There not here, he's not allowed to have them, he's kiddnapped them. I'm very afraid because this is SO COMPLETELY out of character for him. You have to help, I don't know what I'd do if anything happened to them." Futhermore, she took his crap, let him linger on in a way that ultimately proved fatal for their three daughters. Even when she'd already make the great error of telling her little four man police department that it wasn't serious, when she found out where they were, she didn't run to phone book, or 411 and call THAT police department and tell them the truth she knew instead of the one she hoped would be true. She called the people who she'd been shouting "Not a Wolf" too all night, "still not wolf, just changing my contact information."

And lets talk about her kids. The oldest was old enough to follow instructions. Did she explain the divorce to them? That dad was only allowed contact with the in certain circumstances, and outside of those he could potentially be in a lot of trouble. That they would always know when those times were because she wanted them to always know and love their father. But that because he was having a real hard time with things, and that even though they couldn't completely understand they had to be strong for their father. They had to be willing to call a neighbor, or her, or even the police if he showed up at a time that wasn't scheduled. Because if they left with him when they weren't supposed to, he would still be held responsible and the consequences would be serious. That they had to be strong, and that they had to trust her in this because their father was hurting and they had to look out for his interests because he might not always be doing so, and him being a good person just isn't always enough. How about the neighbors? Did they know the circumstances. They probably should have. I could go on. Perhaps at some length.

Three, I *heard* her say it when she herself told her own story. I'm not getting my information about the events from the reduction in the Supreme Court decision commentary. Which doesn't even speak to the responsibility she carries for the shaping of events. YOU can fucking google for it. Since I think the actual killing took place in 1999 (iirc), I might use that in the query. But I'm not the one who's ill-informed. And I'm not particularly motivated to shoulder the burden for people who would no doubt like to appear perfectly able to inform themselves. If I were posting some obscure detail of something less well publicized (The merrits of the F22 vs the ATFski), I can see how me saving you a bunch of time moves things along. But in this case, it's her freaking story of the events!! How can you possibly even argue the potential merits of her position if you don't even know what her version of events is? Besides, shouldn't you just choose a source you trust from the get go, so we can obviate the silly argument over bias that would inevitably follow anyway?

In your own backwards way you've exactly identified the problem. She believes the world should bend to her will, and run the way she might wish it, irrespective of the collective will of hundreds of millions (hell 6 billion and change) of other individuals. She decided not to be an agent of change, and instead felt that good things should be delivered to her, that bad things delivered away from her, that other people should have perfect knowledge of her will, and the surrounding circumstances which she herself clearly did not understand, and act in accordance with her best intentions. Sorry. That's just stupid. The world, and larger disinterested universe, exist for their own ends, and one of those ends is to preform the function of running roughshod over the unwary.



The evil in what their father did isn't in the suffering of their mother. That is her work. The evil is that they are not here to make a go at proving Hemingway wrong. What we might own them for not making a better world, well, that's between us and them and for each of us to decide on our own. The mother however is owed nothing by the rest of us. She failed her chidlren in a manner that is truly obscene, and exceeded only by the failure of their father.

have to disagree with your line of argument. A restraining order was in place. There had to be premise upheld for that restraining order to stay in place. The mother had distanced her self from the children's father,they were not living together ect.... She showed ample concern with numerous phone calls to the police and in fact gave last none location of the Ex (cell phone call) t o the police and was told to wait yet again. The mother in her worry went to search for her children and when the police still did not respond after the deadline she went to the police station.

The precedent for the police to act was there. Unfortunately they are saying the mandate was not. It would be interesting if the medical world worked under those same rules.

Think if this had been a pregnant lady who called a labor and delivery with vague feelings of something going wrong in her pregancy who than states she had similar feelings when she had a partial placenta abruption (or if that too severe... premature delivery ect...with her last pregnancy. If a medical professional did not tell this person to come in directly to be evaluated and something ended up going wrong ...Medical negligence/Malpractice would only be the start of it. Even if nothing went wrong.... compentency would be called into question at least.

It is not unheard of to expect culpability for one's actions when acting in a professional capacity. The world is not bending over backwards to please just one person by such expections. It is a standardto be upheld. That is the difference between laymen an professionals.

As far as the mother culpabilty for choosing the wrong man to father the children. Many pick the wrong spouse...look the at divorce rates. Also do some reading on DV. You will find many abusers (male and female) can be very charming. Many do not start any abuse till after the marriage ... some even years into the marriage. The mother had tried to rectify this by the divorce and restraining order when she realized her mistake.

I hope you truly do not believe what you have posted. I would rather hope you are just a troll trying to get a rise out of your "audience".

have to disagree with your line of argument. A restraining order was in place. There had to be premise upheld for that restraining order to stay in place.

Just a note, I don't know about Colorado, but this is not necessarily true.

The mother had distanced her self from the children's father,they were not living together ect.... She showed ample concern with numerous phone calls to the police and in fact gave last none location of the Ex (cell phone call) t o the police and was told to wait yet again. The mother in her worry went to search for her children and when the police still did not respond after the deadline she went to the police station.

This, however, I agree with.

As far as the mother's culpabilty for choosing the wrong man to father the children. Many pick the wrong spouse...look the at divorce rates. Also do some reading on DV. You will find many abusers (male and female) can be very charming. Many do not start any abuse till after the marriage ... some even years into the marriage. The mother had tried to rectify her mistake by the divorce and restraining order.

Exactly.

I am so tired... sorry about the shoddiness of my post... True restraining orders ,temporary, do not need a strong premise to be enacted. I don't know in regards to each states permanent restraining orders... at least not at this time. :)

1. Three
1. Most people live in a world where harming children, especially your own is considered beyond what anyone would do, unbeliveable in other words. In reading this, it at first seemed to be a kidnapping in order to gain access to his children. Who would assume that a father would outright kill his own children, besides you? Her calls stating that she didn't believe that he would harm her kids came from the best information at the time. Yes, he probably did show some signs before hand, but again, this is so far outside most people's experiance, it doesn't even enter into the minds of most that something like this would happen, especially from someone you know. See school shootings. Once her kids had disappeared, she was obviously in a panic and tired all she could think of. In her mind, she would assume that police departments would communicate with each other. She did inform the poilce where he called from and asked that he be brought in and her children retreived. This is hardly a case of crying wolf. The crime was committed in the first place the minute the children were removed, that should have motovated the police no matter if she thought they would be phsically harmed or not.

2. Children do not have the best of judgements, the recent boy scout hidding from searchers shows THAT. They often times will believe whatever an adult, especially a parent tells them. We will never know what he said to them that day. It could have been a change of plans, it could have been just the offer of the admusement park, or he might not have said anything, just grabbed them. Adult, big guy. Child, smaller and weaker. Remember?

This is not crying wolf, nor is this her fault. This is a compleate lack of action by the police department upon being informed of a kidnapping. Whether the SCOTUS ruled correctly or not on the constitutional issue is up for debate, blaiming this upon the victim now...

<snip>
Whether you like it or not, Kibolonia, it is still the responsibility of the State to accept the responsibilities it has undertaken, re: the restraining order. And while you may not like that some people follow the letter of the law when others patently infringe on, or, as in this case, entirely scupper it, it is not wholly the responsibility of the mother, who, despite what you have written, is doubtfully an expert on abnormal psychology and certainly has less training in such matters than most police officers, might not have been aware of her husband's mental instability. Sure, it would have been better if she had simply shot the bastard once he broke the restraining order, but that's a decision taken in hindsight, not at the time. Sure, Colorado might be one of those states that might simply shrug their shoulders and its officers say, "Ah, well, tough luck for Mr Dipshit Husband," but there's no certainty in that statement. The law may be failing miserably in owning up to what it said it could do, and hopefully this case will be a wake-up call on both sides -- which in this instance I mean the law-abiding and the judiciary -- about what to do about miscreants. That written, Scalia should be taken out back and roundly beaten with a rubber hose until he bleeds, and then hurt.

Okay folks, let's stop with the game of passing blame, alright? :headbang:
What NOW?

We have a SCOTUS ruling that effectively says the Cops don't have to do anything but investigate the murder and draw a chalk-line if they don't want to. Your restraining orders are now so much toilet-paper, unless the local Law Enforcement really likes you an awful lot.

WHAT NOW?

Like or not, only YOU can protect you from lunatic f***tards with anything like reliability. The cops are not obligated to do so when the threat is specifically directed at an individual person. This ruling does change things-it outright overrode a Colorado State Law, after all. How do you want to approach either the restoration or creation of a means to make those restraining orders worth the shoddy paper they're printed on? There are three dead kids who shouldn't be. Forget for a moment your attitudes about mummy, and focus on a practical means of handling this sort of situation. In particular, I want to hear from the Lefties and anti-gun people on this: As of the ruling, your Restraining orders mean shit. what now? Assume subsequent rulings ignore the dissent when formulating your answers.

May I point out (although I am sure it has already been done) how utterly disgusting this post is?
Well, as long as you don't disagree with the contents.

When she took her case to the Supreme Court it was covered extensively. A week without an Osama tape, or an amber alert appearently. It was at that time, between her suing a four officer police departement for their inability to find three kids in tens of thousands of square miles of realestate for $30 million, her less than decisive action, and the precedent going against her, that people let it drift away. What happened to her simply wasn't the kind of horrifying bolt from the blue that people were powerless to prevent in their own lives. Now eminent domain on the other hand.... Do you know the people on your city council? Do they know you?

The precedent for the police to act was there. Unfortunately they are saying the mandate was not. It would be interesting if the medical world worked under those same rules.
Well you certainly have nailed down the crux of the actual case, as opposed to what I intended to be my throw away comment on the role she herself played, indirect as it might be. But the medical world does play under those rules. It's called the emergency room, and people do die from such "misunderestimations." She told the person at the desk she didn't have blue cross, and that her condition wasn't serious. She got a form, a clipboard and was told to wait. She busted herself by confusing what she hoped might be true with what she feared could be true.

When someone calls 911, they should be prepared to say it's life or death. They shouldn't be calling 911 if they see someone jay-walking, a cat in a tree, or someone improperly using the carpool lane. It's not the hotline for reporting infractions of the inconsiderate. She called 911 because she was afraid. At that point, there's chance there was nothing that could have been done anyway, but her follow through was the last best chance her kids had. She fumbled it. Now we don't know what might have been. For her to be blaming anyone else, please, who fumbled.

I have read about domestic violence. You know what I take away form it? The responsibility should be put back on the people in the relationships. "But I love him!" The abusers aren't charming. They're assholes. The abused need to keep this self-delusion alive because they're afraid that without it they'll have nothing. The government needs to stop subsidizing that delusion. It kills people, and it's stronger than a democratic government. Maybe any government. The last thing the government should be doing is making it cheaper to maintain.

She gambled with her childrens lives and lost. I don't care what her intentions were. Her children, they're the only ones in this who deserve sympathy. But they just don't need it any more.

Kiblona you wrote:
Well you certainly have nailed down the crux of the actual case, as opposed to what I intended to be my throw away comment on the role she herself played, indirect as it might be. But the medical world does play under those rules. It's called the emergency room, and people do die from such "misunderestimations." She told the person at the desk she didn't have blue cross, and that her condition wasn't serious. She got a form, a clipboard and was told to wait. She busted herself by confusing what she hoped might be true with what she feared could be true.

When someone calls 911, they should be prepared to say it's life or death. They shouldn't be calling 911 if they see someone jay-walking, a cat in a tree, or someone improperly using the carpool lane. It's not the hotline for reporting infractions of the inconsiderate. She called 911 because she was afraid. At that point, there's chance there was nothing that could have been done anyway, but her follow through was the last best chance her kids had. She fumbled it. Now we don't know what might have been. For her to be blaming anyone else, please, who fumbled.

I have read about domestic violence. You know what I take away form it? The responsibility should be put back on the people in the relationships. "But I love him!" The abusers aren't charming. They're assholes. The abused need to keep this self-delusion alive because they're afraid that without it they'll have nothing. The government needs to stop subsidizing that delusion. It kills people, and it's stronger than a democratic government. Maybe any government. The last thing the government should be doing is making it cheaper to maintain.

She gambled with her childrens lives and lost. I don't care what her intentions were. Her children, they're the only ones in this who deserve sympathy. But they just don't need it any more.[/QUOTE]


I am not stating that malpractice/negligence does not happen.... obviously that would be indefensible. Thus the reason for so many medical malpractice lawyers :). Hmm... sign of culpability. I digress... back on topic. I also am not saying that this lady did everything right. What I am saying that police are professionals. I am saying as such they have to maintain appropriate standards. If not they should face the consequences. As far a what you have read on DV... I can not directly comment because I do not have enough pertinent info regarding your level of knowledge .

BTW... sorry about butchering your name... sleep deprivation.....zzz....has that effect on me. :)

This is not crying wolf, nor is this her fault. This is a compleate lack of action by the police department upon being informed of a kidnapping. Whether the SCOTUS ruled correctly or not on the constitutional issue is up for debate, blaiming this upon the victim now...
1. She knew first and foremost that she didn't really know her husband. And that she was afraid enough to call --> EMERGENCY <-- services. Where she proceeds to tell them it's not an emergency. Quite sensibly they say wait. States don't run concierge services, and certainly not in podunk, nowhere. She didn't know what he'd do. She didn't know if he'd drink and drive and kill them on accident. She didn't know if he was driving to the airport or the state line. She didn't know what he'd do, and she knew that. She didn't go with the emotion, and she didn't think her way out of the problem. This is a case of her crying "Not wolf." Wow, it's a wolf, and suddenly it's anyone's fault but hers. No. Her errant judgement is what the police department relied on.

2. Children have poor judgement because their parents frequently teach it too them. Whitness the boy scout, whitness the little 9 year old girl who's going to lead an SAS team someday. As for grabbing the kids (10, 9, and 7 iirc not sure though)? Are you kidding me? If they were really afraid and he used force, the other two are GONE! Zoom. Not to mention the spectical. With the trouble I've seen fathers have controlling a four year old? No, coercion is vastly more likely, and something she could have prepared them for. That her mother probably didn't have simple rules that they could ALWAYS trust in place says something about how well she prepared her kids for what would be a very traumatic period in their lives if everything went perfect. That her mother didn't reach out to help from her neighbors, or take any kind of rudemenatry procaution, and instead trusted the winds of fate to where fate might blow her says a lot too.

The mother is a victim of no one but herself. The children, who are beyond caring, are a nother matter. They were burdened with an unpredictable, psychotic murdered of a father, with a mother who was "interested but not commited", in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. That they were pretty much left to fend for themselves when their mother wasn't around, isn't the fault of the four police officers or their dispatcher. If the mother wasn't able to make things work where she was, she need to find someplace where she could. She bet the lives of her kids that it would all work out somehow. It didn't. That she was playing the odds is completely irrelevent.

I wonder what the odds are of becoming a statistic by playing the odds?

1. She knew first and foremost that she didn't really know her husband. And that she was afraid enough to call --> EMERGENCY <-- services. Where she proceeds to tell them it's not an emergency. Quite sensibly they say wait. States don't run concierge services, and certainly not in podunk, nowhere. She didn't know what he'd do. She didn't know if he'd drink and drive and kill them on accident. She didn't know if he was driving to the airport or the state line. She didn't know what he'd do, and she knew that. She didn't go with the emotion, and she didn't think her way out of the problem. This is a case of her crying "Not wolf." Wow, it's a wolf, and suddenly it's anyone's fault but hers. No. Her errant judgement is what the police department relied on.

2. Children have poor judgement because their parents frequently teach it too them. Whitness the boy scout, whitness the little 9 year old girl who's going to lead an SAS team someday. As for grabbing the kids (10, 9, and 7 iirc not sure though)? Are you kidding me? If they were really afraid and he used force, the other two are GONE! Zoom. Not to mention the spectical. With the trouble I've seen fathers have controlling a four year old? No, coercion is vastly more likely, and something she could have prepared them for. That her mother probably didn't have simple rules that they could ALWAYS trust in place says something about how well she prepared her kids for what would be a very traumatic period in their lives if everything went perfect. That her mother didn't reach out to help from her neighbors, or take any kind of rudemenatry procaution, and instead trusted the winds of fate to where fate might blow her says a lot too.

The mother is a victim of no one but herself. The children, who are beyond caring, are a nother matter. They were burdened with an unpredictable, psychotic murdered of a father, with a mother who was "interested but not commited", in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. That they were pretty much left to fend for themselves when their mother wasn't around, isn't the fault of the four police officers or their dispatcher. If the mother wasn't able to make things work where she was, she need to find someplace where she could. She bet the lives of her kids that it would all work out somehow. It didn't. That she was playing the odds is completely irrelevent.

I wonder what the odds are of becoming a statistic by playing the odds?

Well .... can't stand it anymore :)... must go out on that enticing limb :D. You have such a vitrolic approach...and I guess this will show my prejudices...sign found out ... but either you are young or this issue hits to close to home. I admit possibly neither.... but you do seem to "protest to much".

I am not stating that malpractice/negligence does not happen.... obviously that would be indefensible. Thus the reason for so many medical malpractice lawyers :). Hmm... sign of culpability. I digress... back on topic. I also am not saying that this lady did everything right. What I am saying that police are professionals. I am saying as such they have to maintain appropriate standards. If not they should face the consequences. As far a what you have read on DV... I can not directly comment because I do not have enough pertinent info regarding your level of knowledge .
There are medical malpractice lawyers because medicine is complicated, jurors are laymen, and policies are large because education, homes, offices and medical equipment are expensive. People die through bad judgement (their own or thrid parties) even under the care of professionals, with no responsability on the part of those professionals. They just do. And it's not fair. As to precisely why the police are not responsible the short version* is, it's a subjective art. When it gets to their level, they're required to be flexible, because they're dealing with volitile people. There is bad and good with that, but it is all part of the bargain we make, and re-evaluate, with their role in law enforcement.

There are of course standards, and we've, for now, mindlessly following craziness because it's written down by someone who's not here to practice the art of law enforcement, isn't what we want. Beating the fuck out of someone with little provocation, despite whatever deep-seeded psychological basis for that behavior, isn't something we want. (Of course we might go back to ambushing people we think are assholes and shooting them a few hundred times and writting it up as justified if things get bad enough.)

What I've read on domestic violence is mostly (older mid 90's) statistics. Some government, some studies, the occasional annecdote (not a statistic). But there's a fair amount of pop culture in there too, and a dash of sociology and psychology. I acctually have a pretty strong analytical background, so well researched statistics, that don't rely on absurd definitions and do try to account for other variables are very pursuasive. But in my own experience, I've never, as an adult, been surprised when someone is an ass-clown. Even when they've caught me off guard, it wasn't their capacity for ass-hattery that surprised me.

What happened really was horrible. The person primarily responsable is dead. And so the search to place blame commences. There just isn't the kind of "why" people are looking for. There's no one left to punish. And by the way, no one's prevented from enforcing standards on the police by this ruling. There's running for sherrif, town council, mayor, state legislature, etc. She has plenty of recourse left to her, and from her interview, I've little down she'll make use of it. But what she doesn't have is a contract.

*The long version of what I specifically mean by art and why that's important is the subject of a dissertation no one would be interested in.

What I've read on domestic violence is mostly (older mid 90's) statistics. Some government, some studies, the occasional annecdote (not a statistic). But there's a fair amount of pop culture in there too, and a dash of sociology and psychology. I acctually have a pretty strong analytical background, so well researched statistics, that don't rely on absurd definitions and do try to account for other variables are very pursuasive. But in my own experience, I've never, as an adult, been surprised when someone is an ass-clown. Even when they've caught me off guard, it wasn't their capacity for ass-hattery that surprised me.

What happened really was horrible. The person primarily responsable is dead. And so the search to place blame commences. There just isn't the kind of "why" people are looking for. There's no one left to punish. And by the way, no one's prevented from enforcing standards on the police by this ruling. There's running for sherrif, town council, mayor, state legislature, etc. She has plenty of recourse left to her, and from her interview, I've little down she'll make use of it. But what she doesn't have is a contract.

*The long version of what I specifically mean by art and why that's important is the subject of a dissertation no one would be interested in.

Thank you for the pertinent info regarding your DV reading habits.. side note your fingers must be getting tired...:)...Sounds like it has been a while considering since you referred to the nineties. Since you are analytical you will appreciate current information is key not only for comparison to what went before but also in the one's ability to better weed out extraneous variables and the mapping of possible trends. I admit that much pop culture is accepted as fact but there are very legitimate stats. For example a strong source would come from medical forensics. Strong as it maybe you still couldn't eliminated all extraneous variables. Let us just say some one comes into the ER. They have their child with them. The story given is that thier child burn themselves when they pulled a pot of boiling water from the stove. You inspect and see the childs left hand (could be the right if you prefer:)...) has a symmetrical burns well delineated. Red flags galore go up. The chances of falling water leaving such a burn with no uneven edges.... splash marks...are astronomical. This situation would than need further clarification...ect. Some of the stats in DV sites are based on these reportings. Also another more reliable source is the homicide stats. Also if you want stats..go work in an urban downtown hospital. You will see enough to give you a lot to think about there.
Dissertation.... hmmm..... would this be your PhD dissertation we are speaking of..if not please clarify you statement.... if it is a PhD dissertation I would love to hear more... glutton for punishment that I am.

I don't know how protection orders work but trying to interpret Scalia's ruling here:
Perhaps Scalia was just interpreting the protection order as being against the mother and not the children.
Therefore, when the father left his wife's house, he was no longer breaching the order. It became a misdemeanor, a lower priority to other matters which the police were having to deal with at the time. He was permitted access to the children, including mid-week at both parties agreement, so it wasn't be viewed as an abduction. Maybe not until or after a certain time - the police told her to call back after 12am so maybe then. At that point, the police only had her word that they hadn't made an agreement for him to pick the children up.

The consequences of what happened are immaterial to the case. It seems to me that they were asked to rule on whether a protection order extends to family members or at what point should police become involved in a breach of a protection order. Also whether telling someone to "wait and see" what happens constitutes gross negligence. The fact that the restraining order was modified allowing him greater access and freedom implies that he wasn't viewed as a threat to the children. Hence the police disinterest in looking for him. Unfortunately in this case it was the wrong decision.

I wonder what the odds are of becoming a statistic by playing the odds?
I'd really hate to live in your world.

I'd really hate to live in your world.

He would probably disband the police since all victims are really victims of their own negligence.

You know, that's the sort of logic that states a rape victim is at fault because obviously she didn't blow the balls of her attacker(s). That children who are molested are at fault for not trying to kill those who molest them. Taking the law into her own hands? Where the hell is THAT found? Nation of laws remember, not dog eat dog.
While I personally don't fully agree with his logic that's not what Texipunditistan is saying. She obviously knew her husband was unbalanced because she pulled out the restraining order. But beyond that she didn't take any precautions, like teaching her kids never to go with their dad unless she gave the ok, and to scream at the top of their lungs if this was not the case. There were things she could have done that did not just require shooting the bastard, although that is not an undesirable outcome. Her biggest fault came in assuming that the police would make everything better, however since that explains the entire Democrat Party's stance on the issue it's not surprising. That train of though is quite widespread throughout the country. To make your analogy correct the rape victim would have had to been walking in the worst part of town in the dead of night with skimpy clothes on, and only half a can of mace for her protection. In which case unless she was put there by extraordinary circumstances it would be partially her fault.

I would agree with this, if it weren't for what I have recently learned about restraining orders (at least in some places). The person placing the order doesn't have to have any reason - they just have to place the order. Thus, a potentially dangerous person could get a no-permit right to carry a gun by placing a restraining order against someone who is no threat to them at all.
Then put the point of getting authority to carry a weapon contingent on evidence of animosity by the person indicated by the restraining order.

Ihatevacations']Can you fucking assholes say ANYTHING without slandering Democrats? You go into topics where NO ONE is talking about republicans or democrats and you ATTACK THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS, then when we start attacking you for it you go off an make topics about how the democrats do sooo much more attacking of the republicans than the other way around, you make me sick
Given that they are at the very least partially responsible of public perception of police for touting that line, it is very relevant to the discussion at hand. In order to solve a problem, one must look at the causes. One of the causes in this case is the idea that the police have the job of protecting the populace. This is not the case. They have the job of arresting criminals and keeping public order. Period. Ergo, those who distribute the idea that they are what they are not are responsible for helping create the problem. Lately the Republican party has strayed into this sort of territory as well, but not nearly as deeply as the Dems.

You may be suprised that I am leaning towards agreeing with your second sentence.* And certainly agree with the last.

This is a departure from prior decisions, which did not involve putative mandatory arrest statutes. It has previously been held in lower court decisions that domestic violence/restraining order cases were different.

*I will likely make that a subject of a seperate thread.



It will shock many that I am starting to lean that way. At the very least, it should be a no-permit situation when you have a restraining order against someone.

[falls over as heart fails] :)

Unfortunately CT, this is nothing new. It's now just been made official by the courts. I've read of dozens of cases where the police did little or nothing to enforce restraining orders/OOPs.

As for the earlier cases we've debated, my points primarily were that the police were in no way obligated to protect you, financial compensation be damned. This case is just another "logical step", the same kind the courts have been using w/ individual freedoms for years.

While I personally don't fully agree with his logic that's not what Texipunditistan is saying. She obviously knew her husband was unbalanced because she pulled out the restraining order. But beyond that she didn't take any precautions, like teaching her kids never to go with their dad unless she gave the ok, and to scream at the top of their lungs if this was not the case. There were things she could have done that did not just require shooting the bastard, although that is not an undesirable outcome. Her biggest fault came in assuming that the police would make everything better, however since that explains the entire Democrat Party's stance on the issue it's not surprising. That train of though is quite widespread throughout the country. To make your analogy correct the rape victim would have had to been walking in the worst part of town in the dead of night with skimpy clothes on, and only half a can of mace for her protection. In which case unless she was put there by extraordinary circumstances it would be partially her fault.
That's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

I need to stop being so apathetic when posting. It makes it too easy for certain *ahem* individuals to twist my words into what they want them to mean and not what I actually mean.

[falls over as heart fails] :)

Unfortunately CT, this is nothing new. It's now just been made official by the courts. I've read of dozens of cases where the police did little or nothing to enforce restraining orders/OOPs.

As for the earlier cases we've debated, my points primarily were that the police were in no way obligated to protect you, financial compensation be damned. This case is just another "logical step", the same kind the courts have been using w/ individual freedoms for years.

1. Let us be clear: police have done little or nothing to enforce restraining orders in literally hundreds of cases. In some they were sued, there were many prior rulings holding police liable under those circumstances.

2. The restraining order context is different from the joe-blow-on-the-street context. At least it was until this decision.

3. I should thank Texpundistan and Kibolina. Until they posted here, I had seriously reconsidered my stance on guns -- due in part to my encounters with those of you with well-reasoned positions on the issue and due in part to this decision and similar facts regarding domestic violence. Now, I've been reminded that there are some trigger happy fools that think the purpose of guns is to take the law into your own hands and blow away anyone that dares look at you sideways -- and that they form at least a significant portion of the gun lobby. My position is therefore undergoing further reconsideration.

While I personally don't fully agree with his logic that's not what Texipunditistan is saying. She obviously knew her husband was unbalanced because she pulled out the restraining order. But beyond that she didn't take any precautions, like teaching her kids never to go with their dad unless she gave the ok, and to scream at the top of their lungs if this was not the case. There were things she could have done that did not just require shooting the bastard, although that is not an undesirable outcome. Her biggest fault came in assuming that the police would make everything better, however since that explains the entire Democrat Party's stance on the issue it's not surprising. That train of though is quite widespread throughout the country. To make your analogy correct the rape victim would have had to been walking in the worst part of town in the dead of night with skimpy clothes on, and only half a can of mace for her protection. In which case unless she was put there by extraordinary circumstances it would be partially her fault.

I'm glad you do not fully agree with Tex.

You are making assumptions about what she did and did not do that are not in evidence. Moreoever, many on here -- and I think some of them are the same ones blaming Ms. Gonzales -- would go apeshit at the idea that a mother estranged from her husband should teach the children to be afraid of him and scream anytime he comes near. She may still have done that. You don't know. You are just assuming she did not.

Neither you nor Tex have yet to explain what she should have done once her children were missing that she did not do. Beyond the rhetoric of "don't just rely on the police that is what the Democrats want," you and Tex have failed to point to an actual failure on her part. She did look for the kids on her own -- and she passed on the information she discovered to the police as well as try to act on it herself.

I won't even touch your ridiculous analogy. It simply is not relevant.

*snip*
And Cat-Tribe, where I got the information that she told the police that she though her husband wouldn't hurt the kids: Her own mouth on CNN (she specifically told the police that her children were not in danger twice, and he'd *never* shown violence towards the children). She loves being on TV. Even if that weren't true (why shouldn't I take her own word for it though?) she chose him. An abusive child murdering psychopath. Not quality dad material. But don't feel too sorry for her, she'll no doubt "sell her story." It'll be a book, a movie of the week, and a Law & Order: SVU double episode. I'm sorry if I'm "sick" perhaps that's the price people pay for being better informed that those who claim a monopoly on the truth. But I like the "pro-personal responsability" kind of sick better than the unholy union of "whore my dead children around" and "abdicate all personal responsability" sick. Maybe it's just because it's the evil I know.

All of how much of the tragedy was her doing aside (sure there's another person far more responsible, but he's dead): The Cops just aren't responsible for everyone who dies for want of the speeding ticket that might have saved a life. That they went to the "Procedures for inconvienent but not dangerous situtations" on her advice is actually beside the point, no matter how compelling I personally find it. The nature of being a police officer (and those I know are perhaps a little squirlier than I might find ideal, but pretty much great guys) is using one's subjective judgement as unpredictable situations develop. Even excluding her tragic poisoning of their information, police will be wrong, frequently. Which also explains why the rest of our justice system is setup the way it is. For every life that can be saved by exceptionless, exacting rules, there are lives that might be unfairly taken too. That people seek to trade balances so freely, with such little consideration does not speak well for their collective talent for imagination, willingness to practice it, or their insight into where it might be lacking. I'm more trusting in thinking people than unthinking rote. But then, I'm not so quick to place my fate wholly in the hands of others, and I can't imagine being less careful with the lives of children to whom I am responsible.

1. Thank you for demonstrating your utter failure to understand the case and the issue raised.

2. The Supreme Court decided -- based on the context of facts as stated in their opinion (*I did not, as you have implied, post my selective choices therefrom, I posted the entire statement of facts*) that even taking the facts as presented in her complaint to be true she did not raise an litigatable issue. This is because her case was dismissed without the presentation of any evidence whatsoever via a motion to dismiss.

3. Whatever extra facts you may or may not wish to believe or make-up or whatever are irrelevant to the decision. Got that? The Court did not consider any of the extra crap you throw in. They decided the case on the facts I quoted.

4. Your discussion of why you agree with decision is further off-topic in failing to recognize the difference between a mandatory arrest statute regarding a restraining order and discretionary enforcement of a traffic law. Some of what you say is, in fact, related to the thinking of the majority -- and I think amply demonstrates its fallacies, but much of your assumptions are directly not part of the case or the issues presented.

5. Having demonstrated your ignorance of the factual and legal issues presented, I find it pretty funny that you claim superior knowledge and understanding of the case. At most, even you assert superior knowledge of the factual background not relevant to the case. You are wrong, but I see no need to engage in a dick-measuring contest -- particularly about irrelevancies.

I perhaps should not have linked the background information at all, as that seems to have led many of you astray from discussing the actual decision and its grounds.

Perhaps now you are done venting your misanthropy and we can take up the subject at hand.

"An armed society is a paranoid society." ;)

Fixed :)

While I personally don't fully agree with his logic that's not what Texipunditistan is saying. She obviously knew her husband was unbalanced because she pulled out the restraining order. But beyond that she didn't take any precautions, like teaching her kids never to go with their dad unless she gave the ok, and to scream at the top of their lungs if this was not the case.
Right. And had she done this, you folks would be screaming that she 'poisoned' her children against their father.

And what precautions didn't she take? She took out a restraining order! She called the police! Short of becoming unlawful, what could she have done? Had she killed the father, no doubt she'd be hard pressed to prove it was in defense of her children (I mean, how could she have proven he was planning to kill them?) and put in jail.

Right. And had she done this, you folks would be screaming that she 'poisoned' her children against their father.

And what precautions didn't she take? She took out a restraining order! She called the police! Short of becoming unlawful, what could she have done? Had she killed the father, no doubt she'd be hard pressed to prove it was in defense of her children (I mean, how could she have proven he was planning to kill them?) and put in jail.

Did they...or am I imagining things...did they just blame both the woman and the three children for the murder of those poor kids instead of the police who refused to help? Boy, "blame the victim" sure is alive and well these days.

Did they...or am I imagining things...did they just blame both the woman and the three children for the murder of those poor kids instead of the police who refused to help? Boy, "blame the victim" sure is alive and well these days.
Yes, they really did.

They say, "Oh, everyone is a victim these days and no one takes responsibility for their actions", and then blame the actions of others (police's lack of response and the actual murderer himself) on the victims. It amazes me too. It seems the CRIMINAL is not allowed to take responsibility anymore, because the victims incite them to commit crimes?

Did they...or am I imagining things...did they just blame both the woman and the three children for the murder of those poor kids instead of the police who refused to help? Boy, "blame the victim" sure is alive and well these days.

Yep.

The refuse to even discuss the actual issue which is: even assuming the police deliberately* acted in a manner that caused the death of the children, the Supreme Court has said they cannot be sued for their actions. Period.

*While I don't believe the underlying facts would support the claim that they acted deliberately, that is part of the allegations. The decision was that taking the allegations as true, she still could not sue. Moreoever, the facts as alleged do support acting recklessly.

But, no, screw the actual legal issue, we'd rather blame the victims. The legal issue is hard to discuss and harder to defend intelligently. It is so much more fun to try to out misanthrope each other.

Yes, they really did.

They say, "Oh, everyone is a victim these days and no one takes responsibility for their actions", and then blame the actions of others (police's lack of response and the actual murderer himself) on the victims. It amazes me too. It seems the CRIMINAL is not allowed to take responsibility anymore, because the victims incite them to commit crimes?

Exactically!

The police aren't to be held responsible -- even if they are.

The kidnapper and murder isn't responsible.

It is the victims that failed to prevent the crimes through paranoia, preemptive gun strikes against all other life forms, telepathy, and staying in the bunker.

Neither you nor Tex have yet to explain what she should have done once her children were missing that she did not do. Beyond the rhetoric of "don't just rely on the police that is what the Democrats want," you and Tex have failed to point to an actual failure on her part. She did look for the kids on her own -- and she passed on the information she discovered to the police as well as try to act on it herself.
I haven't touched the aftereffects because I honestly don't know what she should have done other than what she did AFTER the children were already kidnapped. She was pretty much fucked and at the mercy of the (obviously uncaring and apathetic) police once the kids were gone.

My point is that she KNEW the father was dangerous (at least to a certain extent) because she GOT A RESTRAINING ORDER. But once she got the restraining order, she basically sat on her hands until something drastic happened - the kids were kidnapped.

In my opinion, she should have explained the whole legality of the restraining order (in simplified kidspeak) to the kids and probably should have gotten herself a shotgun or similar weapon in order to protect herself and her children just in case such protection would be necessary. Barring that, she could have gotten neighbors and/or family members (not necessarily but preferrably armed) to watch out/stay with her and the children and deter the father or hold him at bay until she could call the police and get them there. She could have done more.

Also, the police could have done A LOT more than they did. They are at fault as well...and even moreso at fault once the children were kidnapped.


NO-FUCKING-WHERE did I advocate the woman hunting down the husband and blowing him away in a "pre-emptive strike". DON'T EVER fucking put words in my mouth. I NEVER advocated that "the purpose of guns is to take the law into your own hands and blow away anyone that dares look at you sideways" and you sure as well fucking know it. :upyours: Take your libel and stuff it.

I have no problem with the supreme court decision in this case. It simply wasnt a constitutional issue. The supreme court is there to rule on constitutional matters, the link to a violation of constitutional rights in this case was very flimsy.

I have no problem with the supreme court decision in this case. It simply wasnt a constitutional issue. The supreme court is there to rule on constitutional matters, the link to a violation of constitutional rights in this case was very flimsy.

Thank you for addressing the actual issue. Would you mind elaborating?

The logic of consitutional violation is difficult to follow here and is open to question here.

The allegation here is that she was derived of a property right without due process. If she was, that would be a constitutional violation. So the question becomes two-fold: (a) did she have a property right to enforcement of the restraining order and (b) was she deprived of it without due process?

Except by the concurrence (b) appears not at issue.

As to (a), you have a property right to something if, for example, under state law you are entitled to it. Not all property rights necessarily rise to the level of the constitutional protected.

I'm not clear on whether you are saying (1) she had no entitlement to enforcement of the protective order or (2) that, even if she did, it was not constitutionally protected. It appears you believe the latter, but I am not clear why.

(BTW, (2) gets very complicated. Not to squelch debate, because -- despite the fact the cases are complicated -- arguably they come down to the opinions of Justices as to "yeah, it is/is not important enough.)

If you are saying (2) and not (1), want do you think of the Court's decision re (1)?

I haven't touched the aftereffects because I honestly don't know what she should have done other than what she did AFTER the children were already kidnapped. She was pretty much fucked and at the mercy of the (obviously uncaring and apathetic) police once the kids were gone.

My point is that she KNEW the father was dangerous (at least to a certain extent) because she GOT A RESTRAINING ORDER. But once she got the restraining order, she basically sat on her hands until something drastic happened - the kids were kidnapped.

In my opinion, she should have explained the whole legality of the restraining order (in simplified kidspeak) to the kids and probably should have gotten herself a shotgun or similar weapon in order to protect herself and her children just in case such protection would be necessary. Barring that, she could have gotten neighbors and/or family members (not necessarily but preferrably armed) to watch out/stay with her and the children and deter the father or hold him at bay until she could call the police and get them there. She could have done more.

Also, the police could have done A LOT more than they did. They are at fault as well...and even moreso at fault once the children were kidnapped.


NO-FUCKING-WHERE did I advocate the woman hunting down the husband and blowing him away in a "pre-emptive strike". DON'T EVER fucking put words in my mouth. I NEVER advocated that "the purpose of guns is to take the law into your own hands and blow away anyone that dares look at you sideways" and you sure as well fucking know it. :upyours: Take your libel and stuff it.


1. I am glad to here your opinion is more reasonable that it appeared to be.

2. To the extent you have been "libel[ed]", it is less than Ms. Gonzales has at your hands.

3. You are not the only person blaming Ms. Gonzales, but if the shoe fits .... You were asked at least a half-dozen times what you were advocating Ms. Gonzales should have done other than a pre-emptive strike and you did not answer until now. Given what you had said and your refusal to suggest any alternative, our conclusion was reasonable -- although our hyperbole increased overtime. Nice of you to explain and take offense only at the pinnacle of our frustration.

4. As to your asssertions about what Ms. Gonzales should have done, thank you for admitting they all relate to what she should have done before the kidnapping and police involvement. They are therefore completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

5. Moreoever, you appear to be making an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because you do not know what steps she took to protect her children, you are assume she did not take reasonable steps. And how do we know her steps were insufficient? Well, the kids got kidnapped. Nice. Very logical.

6. Finally, I am glad to see you are such a strong supporter of the rights of mother during an estranged marriage. I hope you will join us in the future in denouncing those that argue the types of advice you give would violate the husband's "rights." (I haven't noticed you in those discussions before, but that could be an overight or due to lots of reasons. But now we know how strongly you feel about these issues.)

7. On the actual topic, it appears you believe the police bear grave responsibility for the death of the children. Do you agree that they should bear no liability for this responsibility?

I realized, particularly in light of LH's reply, that the question of why this woman would have a right to sue at all is complicated.

I think the issue of whether one is entitled to enforcement of a restraining order (particularly under Colorado law) is fairly straight-forward. It was that issue and the underlying policy implications that I meant to have people debate.

I should have known the underlying facts and whether the police were really at fault would be debated -- even though they are not the issue. As a matter of law in deciding the relevant case, the Supreme Court had to take all of Ms. Gonzales assertions at face value in order to deny her claim as they did.

As to why one can sue at all, the lawsuit is based on 42 U.S.C. 1983. Section 1983 creates no substantive rights. Rather it creates a vehicle for enforcing existing federal rights. The statute provides in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

The elements of a Section 1983 case are (1) “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” (2) by a “person” (3) acting “under color” of state law. The “laws” referred to include
• those statutes which confer individual rights on a class of persons that include the plaintiff and
• regulations which clearly implement the intent of the legislature.

At issue in the Gonzales case is whether she alleged (1) “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”

She alleged a deprivation of a property right without due process in violation of the 14th Amendment. The issue was whether she was conferred a cognizable right to enforcement of the restraining order by Colorado state law.

Here is some further background on this kind of lawsuit for those who are interested.
Causes of Action (http://www.povertylaw.org/fed_practice_manual/revised/Chapter%205%20v6.pdf) (pdf) (see pages 1-6)
Civil Rights Claims - actions for deprivations of federal rights under color of state law (http://www.pittslaw.com/crc.html)
The Constitutional Tort Action as Individual Remedy (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol38_2/park.php) (good background, but less relevant)

one and only one: *bump*

Yup. .Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that some laws, being unenforceable, make self-defense a mandatory state of affairs...
Perhaps that is the subtle aim of the SCOTUS. To encourage states to dismantle gun control laws. Maybe that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Perhaps that is the subtle aim of the SCOTUS. To encourage states to dismantle gun control laws. Maybe that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

So...that's what happened to the tinfoil! I don't think so. Why go for subtlety when the Court could do it outright and Blatantly? I mean, if Scalia, or Kennedy, or Thomas wanted to overturn precedent, it wouldn't be that hard.

But, they don't, and they won't.

3. You are not the only person blaming Ms. Gonzales, but if the shoe fits .... You were asked at least a half-dozen times what you were advocating Ms. Gonzales should have done other than a pre-emptive strike and you did not answer until now. Given what you had said and your refusal to suggest any alternative, our conclusion was reasonable -- although our hyperbole increased overtime. Nice of you to explain and take offense only at the pinnacle of our frustration.


It would be advisable for her to acquire the restraining/protective order, which she did. She should then have armed herself.

And then she should have notified him through her attorney that she was not only in possession of the order (which he would already be aware of), but that she was now armed, and that the law would look favorably on her defending herself if he was to appear in her presence.

Although one might assert that such acts would be irrelevant to the subject at hand (and in terms of constitutional law, yes they are), they are not irrelevant to what would have made for a completely different outcome - one that would not have involved a lawsuit or SCOTUS.

I am quite familiar through discussions with other domestic violence authorities that she took no measure to arm herself. In cases where I have been involved, a restraining/protective order is essentially useless, no matter what is written on it. Primarily, the problem is that you are relying on the police to show up, and then, you are relying on the police to enforce the order. Police in my experience (and it's been considerable now) will not act on any violation of a restraining/protective order unless the subject is still on hand at the time they arrive - and most of the time, not even then.

Until they show up - if they show up - you are at the mercy of the assailant/stalker.

The protective order/restraining order has the salutary effect of pre-defining the would-be assailant as an immediate threat to life and limb. This makes it much easier to justify a shooting - not that you want one - but it suddenly becomes a much more viable option.

The would-be assailants in these cases are very aware of what I call the "bright line". The line which they must not cross if they wish the police to leave them alone to terrorize their victims. And they are aware of the combination of protective order and armed victim. In fact, so far, if they are strongly made aware of it, they are more afraid of this than they are of the police. Some ex-husbands have called me and threatened me because they are so fearful that they will be gunned down on the street.

Not that I want them gunned down on the street. Nor do I want the women to shoot them at whim. But the law has given them ample room to defend themselves - something that police are not required to do by law for specific individuals at specific times.

Ihatevacations']What are you? A 15 year old republican?

Hey, watch it. I'm a fifteen year old republican. :)

Anyways....

Whispering Legs, yet again I agree with you.

The woman in question took the first step in legally defending herself. Unfortunately, she did not arm herself with a concealed carry -- or even just a firearm liscence (do they make you get those? Or is it just hunting? I don't remember) -- which would have been the second legal step and the first physical step in defending herself.

I will not deny the fact that restraining orders work -- however, I won't deny that they don't, either. It depends on the A) Psycoticness or B) dedication of the legally restrained person.

Where was I? Oh, right.

As one person said, it was the woman's fault up until the point the police said "screw you," and ignored her, in which case the Police took the majority of the blame -- however, the woman still has some for having to get to that point, but much less than usual.

And I forgot what else I was going to type, so I'm ending.

It would be advisable for her to acquire the restraining/protective order, which she did. She should then have armed herself.

And then she should have notified him through her attorney that she was not only in possession of the order (which he would already be aware of), but that she was now armed, and that the law would look favorably on her defending herself if he was to appear in her presence.

Although one might assert that such acts would be irrelevant to the subject at hand (and in terms of constitutional law, yes they are), they are not irrelevant to what would have made for a completely different outcome - one that would not have involved a lawsuit or SCOTUS.

*snip*

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. It is insights like yours that have me re-thinking my views on guns.

Nonetheless, there is a false premise here. She was not present when the kids were snatched. Thus, her possession of a gun would not necessarily have prevented it. You may argue that knowledge that she had a gun might have deterred the kidnapping even though she was not present, but that is a stretch.

So, no -- in addition to being irrelevant to the constitutional issue -- the actions you describe would not likely have resulted in a completely different outcome.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. It is insights like yours that have me re-thinking my views on guns.

Nonetheless, there is a false premise here. She was not present when the kids were snatched. Thus, her possession of a gun would not necessarily have prevented it. You may argue that knowledge that she had a gun might have deterred the kidnapping even though she was not present, but that is a stretch.

So, no -- in addition to being irrelevant to the constitutional issue -- the actions you describe would not likely have resulted in a completely different outcome.

My days get truly wierd when we agree. Ms. Gonzales most likely would not have been able to affect the outcome had she been armed. I can, though, see WL's point in that,hypothetically, informing the ex that she was armed, "may" have discouraged him from coming near the property/kids at all.

Hopefully the states will take this as a measure to increase police accountability in cases like this.

My days get truly wierd when we agree. Ms. Gonzales most likely would not have been able to affect the outcome had she been armed. I can, though, see WL's point in that,hypothetically, informing the ex that she was armed, "may" have discouraged him from coming near the property/kids at all.

Hopefully the states will take this as a measure to increase police accountability in cases like this.

:eek: :D

Agreed. :)

Thank you for the pertinent info regarding your DV reading habits.. side note your fingers must be getting tired...:)...Sounds like it has been a while considering since you referred to the nineties. Since you are analytical you will appreciate current information is key not only for comparison to what went before but also in the one's ability to better weed out extraneous variables and the mapping of possible trends. I admit that much pop culture is accepted as fact but there are very legitimate stats. For example a strong source would come from medical forensics. Strong as it maybe you still couldn't eliminated all extraneous variables. Let us just say some one comes into the ER. They have their child with them. The story given is that thier child burn themselves when they pulled a pot of boiling water from the stove. You inspect and see the childs left hand (could be the right if you prefer:)...) has a symmetrical burns well delineated. Red flags galore go up. The chances of falling water leaving such a burn with no uneven edges.... splash marks...are astronomical. This situation would than need further clarification...ect. Some of the stats in DV sites are based on these reportings. Also another more reliable source is the homicide stats. Also if you want stats..go work in an urban downtown hospital. You will see enough to give you a lot to think about there.
Dissertation.... hmmm..... would this be your PhD dissertation we are speaking of..if not please clarify you statement.... if it is a PhD dissertation I would love to hear more... glutton for punishment that I am.
Meh, the only thing that really changed in how people beat the hell out of each other in the last decade or so, is an increase of violence by young women.

I think pop culture serves an important role in keeping people, if not on the same page, at least aware of the same books. Horror movies are a good example, they spell out in exhaustive detail that the world is an unpredictably deadly place, step over the line and something unforseen might just plant you there. Several horror movies lately have focused on going somewhere uninvited. It's not fair, but it's better to be the the heroine or hero who survives the movie than the person who dies as an object lesson. But they are something of a minority viewpoint in the contemporary culture. In general, the news and goofey shows like Oprah are of the opinion people should be able to just sleepwalk haphazaardly through life and the world has some obligation to lookout for and protect them. This simply defies all emperical observation on the matter.

Statistics are only going to help so much when reduced to an individual before you. You can apply tests as might be indicated by the popular trends first, and then look for a correlation out of a multitude of variables, lacking a definative result but that's pretty much it. But, in making public policy, that's a bit different. Statistics are very good at aiding that, provided they're used correctly, or at all. A lot of people swayed by strong emotions want to make policy based on the extreme five standard deviations out. That's silly. You end up with nonsense like children being suspended for pointing chicken fingers at each other.

But your example of an urban downtown hospital. That's bad statistics. It would give me a lot of anecdotes which would be a good starting point to start collecting data to see if trends I've intuitively percieved are real. But to put a more human face on the problem would do what exactly? You want to save people from violent deaths, screw murders, assaults, and domestic disputes, get those cops out there strictly enforcing traffic laws. Are the lives of people who die in car accidents worth less? See, silly emotional hyperbole is an endless and futile endeavor. We live in a world where not everyone can be saved. That's just the way it is, and we all accept that fact when we go to the polls and when we go to sleep at night. I just don't see why it should be any different when we share our rhetoric on the internet.

As for my dissertation, I mean that in the long, boring, esoteric meditation that in my case doesn't even have the benefit of a faculty audiance. The assertion would be there are three kinds of knowledge. Science: The search for and collection of truth. Engineering: The application of that truth to devise systems for controling failure. And Art: The practice of actually doing something as opposed to thinking about doing something. They're all interconnected and need each other, but Art is by far the more difficult to obtain.

NERVUN, You do live in that world. Even with as 'effective' as the police in Japan are, there's still the occasional beheading. The world doesn't exist for the personal convience of anyone. You know that, I know that, the would-be millionairess, she doesn't believe that. Hers is the difference between being struck by a bolt from the blue, and playing golf in a thunderstorm. Yeah, she got struck by lightning, but one of those scenerios is far more pitiable.

Ravenshrike, I consider myself something of a Theodore Roosevelt Republican, which means I principally vote Democrat. While my view on the matter is certainly in the minority of democrats, it's hardly unknown.

Cat-Tribe, a little sand in your vagina? Man that must itch like hell. I'd be irritated too. Feel free to read what I've written. The few liberties I've taken in my occasional metaphore are certainly no worse that Stevens confusing the police with a private security company. I remain unimpressed. It's clear that in cases like this, the remedy available too her is through the democratic process, everyone knew she was going to lose going into it, and why. As you note, which is of some credit to you, you're the one who brought in the emotional, and misleading, background (in order to make your argument more compelling). It may not be the thread you wanted, but it's the one you made.

Sinhue, she could have moved from bumfuck nowhere, to a suburb of a city with services, she could have made friends with neighbors (which would have been a little bit more present than in the middle of nowhere), she could have got her oldest a prepaid cellphone, she could had her children supervised in the afternoons, she could have fought for no unsupervised visits with her children, she could have fought for forcing him into a counseling program, I believe GPS trackers were available in 1999, a X10 camera that looked over the yard (internet access in the middle of nowhere is a pain though), afternoon activities for her children such as sports, she could have not told the police that her children were safe with their father, she could have called the police department local to him when she found out where he was, so many things. I bet her list is a lot longer than mine. I haven't had everyday for six years to mull over what might have been. In the end, the big mistake the police made was trusting her. Even if they didn't and followed proceedure by rote there are no guarantees the kids would have avoided their ultimate fate. She had ten years worth of opportunities she didn't make enough use of, the cops had one shot, which might well have been doomed from the start. I'm not really sure where the gun argument came from, it would have been pretty useless in her circumstance outside of an intimidating dark cloud on the horizon.

But your example of an urban downtown hospital. That's bad statistics. It would give me a lot of anecdotes which would be a good starting point to start collecting data to see if trends I've intuitively percieved are real. But to put a more human face on the problem would do what exactly? You want to save people from violent deaths, screw murders, assaults, and domestic disputes, get those cops out there strictly enforcing traffic laws. Are the lives of people who die in car accidents worth less? See, silly emotional hyperbole is an endless and futile endeavor. We live in a world where not everyone can be saved. That's just the way it is, and we all accept that fact when we go to the polls and when we go to sleep at night. I just don't see why it should be any different when we share our rhetoric on the internet.

As for my dissertation, I mean that in the long, boring, esoteric meditation that in my case doesn't even have the benefit of a faculty audiance. The assertion would be there are three kinds of knowledge. Science: The search for and collection of truth. Engineering: The application of that truth to devise systems for controling failure. And Art: The practice of actually doing something as opposed to thinking about doing something. They're all interconnected and need each other, but Art is by far the more difficult to obtain.

The "Urban Hospital" example was meant more for establishment of awareness of lethality issues. To bring home a point so to speak. Yes... to put a human face to the statistics.

Obviously as far as any empirical study was concerned one hospital wouldn't do. Extraneous variables such as crowding, poverty, regional make-up, local traditions, perceptions, definitions, ect.... would have to be addressed. Even then there is no reason to assume that it was not just an isolated problem to the study area The population would have to include many hospitals from different regions; rural to urban, from every imaginable social stratification. culture, also staff knowledge level would have to be measured and again ect...Also the validity of the means of data gathering would have to established. Long story short it could be done. It would just be a bear to do.

As far as traffic deaths being less important than DV homicides... The correlation is unequal. The comparison would be more appropriately drawn between an accidental shooting due to foolishness or inexperience ect. vs. someone drunk/tired or not paying attention ect... causing an accident. The keyword being accidental. Someone causing a death in these matters would be more likely to face charges of manslaughter than murder because the intent of the crime is considered.

If someone were to maliciously run someone down, use their car are as weapon, or if someone picks up a baseball bat and chooses to batter someone viciously and consequently the people who had this violence visited upon them both died.... than intent would again be looked at, and most likely the charge of murder would be brought to the forefront.

This is not in any way to be taken that one death is more important than another.Every death of a person is important but so is the mindset of the one who perpetrates it. I know this point can be argued further but do not wish to post something that huge :).

One point of clarification: Are you saying by the lack of "faculty audience" that you do not need to defend you thesis? Or are you saying that you are not involved in any University mitigated doctorial program?

Thanks once again.

Scrotus?

You are making assumptions about what she did and did not do that are not in evidence. Moreoever, many on here -- and I think some of them are the same ones blaming Ms. Gonzales -- would go apeshit at the idea that a mother estranged from her husband should teach the children to be afraid of him and scream anytime he comes near. She may still have done that. You don't know. You are just assuming she did not.

Neither you nor Tex have yet to explain what she should have done once her children were missing that she did not do. Beyond the rhetoric of "don't just rely on the police that is what the Democrats want," you and Tex have failed to point to an actual failure on her part. She did look for the kids on her own -- and she passed on the information she discovered to the police as well as try to act on it herself.

I won't even touch your ridiculous analogy. It simply is not relevant.
Given that when the police asked if he would harm the children she said no probability would suggest that she did not take any precautions with how he kids should act around him. As for what she should have done once her children went missing, she could have easily have lied to the police and said that he might hurt them. In fact, given that he had already done something unexpected(taken the children when he wasn't supposed to) to me that seems a perfectly logical conclusion. But then I always see the dark side of peoples' motives that I have reason not to trust, which she obviously didn't because she pulled a restraining order out on the guy. I would think that if she went through the process of getting a restraining order on him that she would assume he was dangerous. It looks like she didn't translate the suspiciousness of his activites concerning herself to the people and things she held most precious. The easiest way to hurt someone if you can't get at them is to go after what they most treasure. Basically, she wasn't paranoid enough.

Cat-Tribe, a little sand in your vagina? Man that must itch like hell. I'd be irritated too. Feel free to read what I've written. The few liberties I've taken in my occasional metaphore are certainly no worse that Stevens confusing the police with a private security company. I remain unimpressed. It's clear that in cases like this, the remedy available too her is through the democratic process, everyone knew she was going to lose going into it, and why. As you note, which is of some credit to you, you're the one who brought in the emotional, and misleading, background (in order to make your argument more compelling). It may not be the thread you wanted, but it's the one you made.

Add another one to your belt. I'm a man, not that it makes any difference. :rolleyes:

I cited the facts contained in the Supreme Court opinion. I later added context. You first accuse me of hiding the facts or choosing them selectively. Now it is my fault for introducing facts at all? :headbang:

The factual context of the Supreme Court opinion are the only relevant facts. If you know that, why did you talk about anything else? I never did. I merely provided links for those who might want additional, irrelevant background.

You still fail to even remotely address either the relevant facts or the actual issue.

Your off-topic trolling is no more legitimate just because your misanthropy is genuine.

Scrotus?
Uncertain to whether you are being humorous or just quoting someone's misquote.... but SCOTUS not scrotus...mirthful snicker.... stands for Supreme Court of the United States.... at least that is what "I" think it means :)

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]
Your off-topic trolling is no more legitimate just because your misanthropy is genuine.[/QUOTE,

Admittedly off topic but I love that word, misanthropy. Not necessarily the meaning ... just one of those words that is a plain blast to use. :)

:eek: :D

Agreed. :)

Police seem to be scarcely accountable as it is. The language in the restraining order in question seemed rather unambiguous to me.

I feel that we have a long way to come in matters of domestic violence and stalking. Most states don't even have language nearly as specific, and most law enforcement officers seem to regard domestic violence situations as "he said, she said" until someone actually is physically harmed in some serious way (more than a black eye - the woman actually has to receive injuries serious enough to warrant a stay in the hospital in most jurisdictions).

It's hard enough to get a restraining/protective order. Having helped many women get them, I can tell you that it proves only three things: a) the system is geared against the victim of domestic violence because she must prove that the batterer/stalker is a proven violent threat (this requires that she be seriously injured or threatened with death in the presence of police); b) the batterer/stalker WILL take this as an act of escalation, raising the odds that the woman will be attacked; c) the police will be loathe to enforce the order - if they show up and the batterer is not there, they WILL leave without doing anything.

Many women file for these orders. If you don't have sufficient proof, most lawyers will not even bother helping you file for one.

Uncertain to whether you are being humorous or just quoting someone's misquote.... but SCOTUS not scrotus...mirthful snicker.... stands for Supreme Court of the United States.... at least that is what "I" think it means :)

A truely outrageous SCROTUS decision is when I decided to shave it

*hopes that clears things up* :p

A truely outrageous SCROTUS decision is when I decided to shave it

*hopes that clears things up* :p

Hmmm....little too adventurous..... ouch.... but yes... your point is extremely clear :D

Right. And had she done this, you folks would be screaming that she 'poisoned' her children against their father.

And what precautions didn't she take? She took out a restraining order! She called the police! Short of becoming unlawful, what could she have done? Had she killed the father, no doubt she'd be hard pressed to prove it was in defense of her children (I mean, how could she have proven he was planning to kill them?) and put in jail.
I like the "you folks". Actually, had she done as I outlined, nobody would have reason to. She would have no reason to tell them it wasn't ok to go with him at the proper times and if she tried she could easily have lost custody of the kids. I'm not saying she should have told them to be hostile towards him, but to clear beforehand with her when they were going out with him and if he tried to stop them, for them to make a godawful fuss about it. Instead, he basically performed a de-facto kidnapping with what appears to be little to no resistance on their part and then ended up murdering them. Now, if someone were to kidnap my kids in this fashion(this assumes that I have kids at some point) I would instantly think that they had bad intentions. Especially if I had previously gotten a restraining order against that person.

This is not in any way to be taken that one death is more important than another.Every death of a person is important but so is the mindset of the one who perpetrates it. I know this point can be argued further but do not wish to post something that huge :).

One point of clarification: Are you saying by the lack of "faculty audience" that you do not need to defend you thesis? Or are you saying that you are not involved in any University mitigated doctorial program?
The funny thing about death is we're all find with the bargain of the specter lurking in the shadows so long as he plays by our rules. We seem to think that Death owes it to us to walk up to us look us in the eye, and in the case of some people, decrement what they might consider to be a fair amount of 1ups. Death's a gregarious character, and he mixes it up. He prefers to leap out of shadows, but if someone invites him in, well, he'd just not in the habbit of turning down invitations. He's on a mission to get to know everyone eventually, anyway. Suffocating, or bleeding to death in a car accident, is as violent and premature an end as being murdered, though perhaps not tortured to death. Yet those deaths are acceptable in aggregate, unless they happen to our kid, or someone we knew, in which case "There ought to be a law." Paradoxically, their shear number contributes to the impression of unavoidability, and thus makes them more acceptable, while they are far easier to prevent than psychotic father's. The police don't exist to stop people from dying. They exist to preserve order, or at least its impression, in the face of the realization that bad things happe to people who didn't deserve it.
(Re clarification: It's just a philosophical musing that is not, and will likely never be affiliated with any doctor program which itself is not affiliated with the PhD one can buy from the Universal Church of Life. But, it is entirely the product of a welding lab.)

Cat-Tribe,

You're a man, and it didn't make any difference. In fact I might wager that it would persist even if your name were Kyle Broslofski.

But you're being modest. You cited the Supreme Court Opinion, and provided at best an incomplete, and at worst and intentionally misleading context. (I would note that even in light of my addition, the context is far from complete, there are many unanswered questions, mostly because I'm to lazy to google for then argue over them, such as the time of death of the girls, more about Simon Gonzoles, etc) The context you provided, and you have adttmited, as flawed as it was, also had nothing to do with the decision. You provided it entirely because of its inflamitory nature, due partly to the bias introduced by it's very incompleteness. I simply called out some of the rhetoric. It is your thread, why shouldn't you make it as broad or narrow as you like. Why, I wasn't even the one who first brought the neglegence of the police into the thread AT ALL. And certainly their negligence over the course of that night must be weighted against the negligence of the mother over the previous decade. How else is one to judge it?

As for my addressing "the facts", I have (repeatedly; posts #38,#50), to the extent I thought they merited it. She didn't have a contract with her local police department much less the people of her community. In less litigious, and more sociological terms, she made her social contract and had all the police protection she was willing to obtain. A bargain she suffered for. We all do the same things hundreds of times a day. I live in Seattle, when the big one comes, I hope I'm not driving on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, or at Qwest Field. I bet Dennis is a little scary for people who live in New Orleans, one great hurricane away from completely screwed. But the smaller, personal disasters too. Do I change the oil at 3,000 or wait till 5,000. Do I speed a little, traffic is light, but the roads are slick? Or how scary is the short cut through that alley? Every second is its own opportunity for a miraicle or tragedy. Our hands constantly in motion inviting and rebuffing what might be, quite shrewdly, or concealing great surprise.

She made a bad bet on her kids lives. That's an emperical fact. By the time she called the police it was already completely out of her control, and the control of the police. It turned out that their combined efforts after the fact weren't enough to bring them another opportunity regain control and save the lives of her daughters. Of the living, she was the person with the last best chance. Everything after the father collected the children was a hail-mary. (I can only assume that if you didn't want to discuss such things, you wouldn't have invited, no demanded, their discussion in post #24.)

If you don't like the replies you get, feel free to write better and more precise posts. That your response to your inadaquacies in your posts, and your inability to keep on your idea of your topic is to call me a misanthrope, well, it's certainly amusing. But, in the intrests of civility, and placating you, I submit we add a definition to it. In addition to "one who hates mankind," we can also agree to add, "one who advocates diligent and dutiful parenting." For my part I'll agree to not bring up the obvious way in which her advoacate's view of what should be would cripple the legal system leading to far more crime, and poverty, and to never point out any discrepancy between the "two" definitions of "misanthrope." I recognize I'm far from being magnanimous here; but I figure it's a little more than half way :). Perhaps not in light of the South Park reference....but maybe you'll forgive that.

By the time she called the police it was already completely out of her control, and the control of the police. It turned out that their combined efforts after the fact weren't enough to bring them another opportunity regain control and save the lives of her daughters.
So the police couldn't do anything and thier "efforts" couldn't help? I wasn't aware of putting people off who repeatedly ask for assistance was any sort of effort. The police said wait until 10, after what, THREE different calls? Once it was after 10 and she called, they kept putting her off, they made NO attempt to aid the woman until the guy showed up and shot up a police station.

Ihatevacations']So the police couldn't do anything and thier "efforts" couldn't help? I wasn't aware of putting people off who repeatedly ask for assistance was any sort of effort. The police said wait until 10, after what, THREE different calls? Once it was after 10 and she called, they kept putting her off, they made NO attempt to aid the woman until the guy showed up and shot up a police station.

This is typical, btw. Police are often called for enforcement of restraining/protective orders. Usually, the man in question has run off, and the police turn around and go home.

The woman can ask them to enforce the order, and issue a warrant for his arrest for violating the order, but the police will usually refuse. She requires hard proof that he violated the order - either some sort of major physical injury (in which case he can be arrested for assault, etc.) or a video tape with the time marked on it and a fully identifiable picture of him on the tape.

Short of that, even if the police arrest him for violating the order, the magistrate will release him.

We have a saying in the domestic violence community: the police only account for killings; if no one is killed, the police will leave.

This is typical, btw. Police are often called for enforcement of restraining/protective orders. Usually, the man in question has run off, and the police turn around and go home.

The woman can ask them to enforce the order, and issue a warrant for his arrest for violating the order, but the police will usually refuse. She requires hard proof that he violated the order - either some sort of major physical injury (in which case he can be arrested for assault, etc.) or a video tape with the time marked on it and a fully identifiable picture of him on the tape.

Short of that, even if the police arrest him for violating the order, the magistrate will release him.

We have a saying in the domestic violence community: the police only account for killings; if no one is killed, the police will leave.
I'm sorry but us here outside shoot-em-up, va expect teh polcie to do their job. He violated the terms of the restraining order by picking up the children without knowledge, that should also double as an abduction, especially since she was not informed of his location until 3 hours after the girls went missing., there was more than likely a reason for a restraining order against the man. The polcie should have, by law, searched for the two girls, and arrested the man once informed of his location.

Ihatevacations']I'm sorry but us here outside shoot-em-up, va expect teh polcie to do their job. He violated the terms of the restraining order by picking up the children without knowledge, that should also double as an abduction, especially since she was not informed of his location until 3 hours after the girls went missing., there was more than likely a reason for a restraining order against the man. The polcie should have, by law, searched for the two girls, and arrested the man once informed of his location.

Police, when involved in anything "domestic" automatically assume that both parties are lying.

Most of the time, they assume that the woman is making it up to get the man in trouble.

Yes, by law or by order, they should have acted responsibly. But as a rule, the police DO NOT.

And you wonder why I teach these women to arm themselves.

And you wonder why I teach these women to arm themselves.
Yeah, I bet the police, who refused to help the woman search for her abducted children, would feel compassion when she goes vigilante in an amusement park to kill her estranged husband. I thoguht we debunked that asinine idea when Texpundistan gave it pages ago

Ihatevacations']Yeah, I bet the police, who refused to help the woman search for her abducted children, would feel compassion when she goes vigilante in an amusement park to kill her estranged husband. I thoguht we debunked that asinine idea when Texpundistan gave it pages ago

No, the women I train do not go vigilante.

The restraining/protective order defines the man as an immediate threat to life and limb - proven in court before a judge. Once in place, if the woman is attacked again, this serves as hard evidence to support a shooting in self-defense.

Once the woman is trained and armed, we inform the man. He suddenly realizes that the "bright line" is not drawn by the police, but drawn by his ex-wife.

Over the past two years, these women have remained completely unmolested. It is a highly effective system - one far more effective than the police.

Go ahead. I have 104 women who are waiting for you to debunk the idea.

No, the women I train do not go vigilante.
Then your training her to be armed wasn't help, he picked them up while she wasn't around. She can't be reasonably expected to watch them every second of everyday, no one can.


The restraining/protective order defines the man as an immediate threat to life and limb - proven in court before a judge. Once in place, if the woman is attacked again, this serves as hard evidence to support a shooting in self-defense.
Again, every state is not shoot-em-up, USA and would not support a woman for killing some one violating a restraining order.

Once the woman is trained and armed, we inform the man. He suddenly realizes that the "bright line" is not drawn by the police, but drawn by his ex-wife.
or he brings a gun and shoots her. He went to a POLICE STATION and OPENED FIRE, this wasn't a guy who gave a shit.

Go ahead. I have 104 women who are waiting for you to debunk the idea.
In relation to this case, I just did.

Ihatevacations']Then your training her to be armed wasn't help, he picked them up while she wasn't around. She can't be reasonably expected to watch them every second of everyday, no one can.

It's a significant deterrent in most cases.
Ihatevacations']Again, every state is not shoot-em-up, USA and would not support a woman for killing some one violating a restraining order.
35 states are.
Ihatevacations']or he brings a gun and shoots her. He went to a POLICE STATION and OPENED FIRE, this wasn't a guy who gave a shit.
Very few of these men fall into the "I don't give a shit" category. Most, at the very least, have a cowardly desire to live.
Ihatevacations']In relation to this case, I just did.

It is arguable that at least in the beginning, he might have been deterred from action by not knowing where she was but knowing she was armed and intending to shoot on violation of the order.

The men I've dealt with are extremely frightened. Good. Compared to other women who do not take these measures, the women in my group are doing far, far better - there are no repeat attacks, no stalking, and no murders.

It's hard enough to get a restraining/protective order. Having helped many women get them, I can tell you that it proves only three things: a) the system is geared against the victim of domestic violence because she must prove that the batterer/stalker is a proven violent threat (this requires that she be seriously injured or threatened with death in the presence of police); b) the batterer/stalker WILL take this as an act of escalation, raising the odds that the woman will be attacked; c) the police will be loathe to enforce the order - if they show up and the batterer is not there, they WILL leave without doing anything.

Many women file for these orders. If you don't have sufficient proof, most lawyers will not even bother helping you file for one.


The woman can ask them to enforce the order, and issue a warrant for his arrest for violating the order, but the police will usually refuse. She requires hard proof that he violated the order - either some sort of major physical injury (in which case he can be arrested for assault, etc.) or a video tape with the time marked on it and a fully identifiable picture of him on the tape.


LOL! This may be true where you live, but it isn't true everywhere. Apparently, in Florida, one can get a restraining order with no proof of a threat whatsoever (unless, "He turned in my drug-dealing boyfriend who had a warrant against him" is considered "proof"), and can get someone arrested for supposedly breaking it on nothing but their word. Looks like some states go too far one direction, and some go too far the other way.

It's a significant deterrent in most cases.

35 states are.

Very few of these men fall into the "I don't give a shit" category. Most, at the very least, have a cowardly desire to live.


It is arguable that at least in the beginning, he might have been deterred from action by not knowing where she was but knowing she was armed and intending to shoot on violation of the order.

The men I've dealt with are extremely frightened. Good. Compared to other women who do not take these measures, the women in my group are doing far, far better - there are no repeat attacks, no stalking, and no murders.
Again, otuside of shoot-em-up, USA, we expect the polcie to do their damn jobs and they have no sympathy for people violating the law because the polcie wouldn't do their job, vigilanteism isn't legal. And agian, in that case I just proved you wrong, you can talk in circles all you want. It was no deterrent because he specifically picked them up withotu her knowledge while she was nto around then opened fire in a police station.

Ihatevacations']Again, otuside of shoot-em-up, USA, we expect the polcie to do their damn jobs and they have no sympathy for people violating the law because the polcie wouldn't do their job, vigilanteism isn't legal. And agian, in that case I just proved you wrong, you can talk in circles all you want. It was no deterrent because he specifically picked them up withotu her knowledge while she was nto around then opened fire in a police station.

So, do your police provide every threatened woman with a 24 hour a day constant guard of armed police?

Or do they guarantee that they will always arrive before the man has a chance to beat them?

Really?

Ihatevacations']Yeah, I bet the police, who refused to help the woman search for her abducted children, would feel compassion when she goes vigilante in an amusement park to kill her estranged husband. I thoguht we debunked that asinine idea when Texpundistan gave it pages ago
No, I though you and C-T gave up that asinine idea when it was pointed out that YOU two were the ones talking about vigilantism when I was talking about self-protection.

Now, if you would kindly STOP flaming/libelling me...especially when I had already bowed out of this "discussion". :mad:

Now, if you would kindly STOP flaming/libelling me...especially when I had already bowed out of this "discussion". :mad:
That IS incredibly frustrating :(

So, do your police provide every threatened woman with a 24 hour a day constant guard of armed police?

Or do they guarantee that they will always arrive before the man has a chance to beat them?

Really?
We are not talking about battered women or spousal/otherwise abuse in this thread, get off your gun speel, This thread is about the court's decision and the police REFUSING to do their job, stop trying to excuse it by saying she should've had a gun. That does NOT excuse the police from refusing to give their aid. Why must you turn seemingly EVERY thread you post in into a fight about gun ownership?

Ihatevacations']Ware not talking about battered women in this thread, get off your gun speel, same to Texpundistan. And tex, you suggested she take the law into her own hands by saying she should've had a gun. What would it have helped? he specifically got the kids while she wasn't around then shot up a police station. How would a gun have helped unless she hunted him down herself?

We are talking about victims of domestic violence, which is what this woman was - that's how she got the restraining order.

And I challenge you to find any country on Earth that has a domestic violence program that without moving any of the women from their current jobs or homes took 104 women and made them all violence-free for two years.

I know for a fact that you can't. That's because no police force on Earth provides a permanent, 24 hour a day protective service to women who are victims of domestic violence.

We are talking about victims of domestic violence, which is what this woman was - that's how she got the restraining order.
No, we are not. I don't know if you read the original post, domestic violence is NOWHERE near the topic of this thread, and unless you have a copy of the court transcript where she receiived her restraining order, I doubt you can know for certain how she got one. And if it was gotten because of domestic violence I DARE you explain how it was changed to allow visitation rights and for him to take the kids

And I challenge you to find any country on Earth that has a domestic violence program that without moving any of the women from their current jobs or homes took 104 women and made them all violence-free for two years.
I challenge you to not start fights about gun ownership in every damn thread you post in because you like guns. Make your own thread about how much guns are the greatest inventions ever and people should shoot them at things often

Ihatevacations']No, we are not. I don't know if you read the original post, domestic violence is NOWHERE near the topic of this thread, and unless you have a copy of the court transcript where she receiived her restraining order, I doubt you can know for certain how she got one. And if it was gotten because of domestic violence I DARE you explain how it was changed to allow visitation rights and for him to take the kids

I challenge you to not start fights about gun ownership in every damn thread you post in because you like guns. Make your own thread about how much guns are the greatest inventions ever and people should shoot them at things often

I work with victims of domestic violence - yes I know for certain how she got one - it's the only way she could.

BTW, most restraining orders DO NOT exclude visitation with the children, unless you can ALSO prove that he is a danger to the children as well. It's hard enough to prove he's a danger to the woman.

I've seen so many cases like this it isn't funny. And I only put in the part about firearms and self-defense (not vigilantism) because I have a system that WORKS and you can't do anything about it.

I work with victims of domestic violence - yes I know for certain how she got one - it's the only way she could.

Do you work with victims of domestic violence specifically in Colorado?

I only ask to be pedantic, because the rules are different everywhere.

I work with victims of domestic violence - yes I know for certain how she got one - it's the only way she could.

BTW, most restraining orders DO NOT exclude visitation with the children, unless you can ALSO prove that he is a danger to the children as well. It's hard enough to prove he's a danger to the woman.

I've seen so many cases like this it isn't funny. And I only put in the part about firearms and self-defense (not vigilantism) because I have a system that WORKS and you can't do anything about it.
Don't you live in Virginia? I rest my case

Do you work with victims of domestic violence specifically in Colorado?

I only ask to be pedantic, because the rules are different everywhere.

My system would work in any area where a restraining/protective order defines the offender as an immediate threat to life and limb AND where concealed carry is "shall issue".

That, I believe, is 35 states.

Ihatevacations']Don't you live in Virginia? I rest my case
Don't I belong to national domestic abuse organizations? Don't I give talks on stalking and domestic abuse?

Don't I have friends who work in Colorado whom I've discussed this with?

I rest MY case.

My system would work in any area where a restraining/protective order defines the offender as an immediate threat to life and limb AND where concealed carry is "shall issue".

That, I believe, is 35 states.

Makes sense.

Like I said, it wasn't an attack. I just know that things work differently in different places. I know someone in Florida who has a TRO against him for no reason at all - or at least no reason that wasn't completely fabricated, and has been arrested for supposedly violating it on nothing at all but her word.

Do you work with victims of domestic violence specifically in Colorado?

I only ask to be pedantic, because the rules are different everywhere.
Given a bit of researching on the issue, you do not need much evidence to get a temporary restraining order. The permanent one appears to mandate the need for evidence, however it appears to be up to the discretion of the judge just how much evidence. My info is primarily based off of here (http://www.courts.state.co.us/chs/court/forms/restrainingorderforms/restrainingorder.htm)

In this particular case I haven't found out whether it was a temp or permanent order in place.

Makes sense.

Like I said, it wasn't an attack. I just know that things work differently in different places. I know someone in Florida who has a TRO against him for no reason at all - or at least no reason that wasn't completely fabricated, and has been arrested for supposedly violating it on nothing at all but her word.

It also depends on who your lawyer is when you apply for one.

If you have money, or are willing to spend it, you can get one - and you can even get it enforced. In a lot of divorces with high money stakes, the woman nearly always gets a lawyer who can automatically get one of these restraining orders. But this is not an option for most women.

Even in states like Maryland, which are fairly liberal - and will give one easier than Virginia - and will not allow the woman to drop charges in domestic abuse - the courts and magistrates are generally unwilling to involve the state - unless they know your lawyer or you have a lot of hard evidence.

Given a bit of researching on the issue, you do not need much evidence to get a temporary restraining order. The permanent one appears to mandate the need for evidence, however it appears to be up to the discretion of the judge just how much evidence. My info is primarily based off of here (http://www.courts.state.co.us/chs/court/forms/restrainingorderforms/restrainingorder.htm)

In this particular case I haven't found out whether it was a temp or permanent order in place.

In most locations, the temporary order is only in effect for a few days.

They also do not include specific language, such as the part about allowing visitation. Those are the province of the permanent order.

Tell you what. Go to any domestic violence site you care to on the web. Then contact one of the people there who are authorities, and ask them how effective a protective order really is.

Part of the reason Colorado added such specific language to their protective orders is because the police were NOT enforcing them at all. And it looks like they will continue NOT to enforce them, despite highly specific language.

Here's an example from http://www.women-law.org/howwehelp/tools.php

Safety with a Protective Order
Keep your protective order with you at all times. Leave extra copies at work, with a friend, in your vehicle, etc.
Inform family, friends, and neighbors that you have a protective order in effect and ask them to call the police if they see the batterer near you or your home.
Call the police immediately if the batterer violates the protective order. Try to keep a cell phone with you at all times for this purpose.
Plan for alternative ways to keep yourself safe. Police intervention may not be sufficient to prevent a dangerous encounter.

That's putting it mildly.

And here http://womenscenter.timberlakepublishing.com/content.asp?contentid=188

"NOTE: Many victims are urged to get restraining or protective orders. Remember that this is just a piece of paper. It is only as good as the moral makeup of the stalker, who may or may not choose to follow the restrictions. If a stalker feels thwarted, a protective order may provoke rage, and the stalker may feel humiliated and further rejected. Many times, when a victim obtains a protective order, the threat of bodily harm actually increases."

And when we're talking about a woman who left a man who abused her, and needs a protective order to keep him away, we're now talking about stalking.

Intimate partner stalking.

Many stalking victims are routinely told to get restraining orders. When they do, they often assume that the stalking will finally end, either because the stalker will stop on his own, or because the police will stop him. Neither of these outcomes happens with any frequency.

About a quarter of stalking victims obtain restraining orders; in two-thirds of these cases, the restraining order is violated. About half of all stalking cases are reported to the police; a quarter of these result in an arrest.
note that for the women in my group, there are ZERO violations of the restraining order

Remember that a restraining order is just a piece of paper. It cannot protect you. In fact, the restraining order is just a tool police use to show intent by the perpetrator. Obviously, the police will not be there when the perpetrator violates. Only after.

In many, many instances, restraining orders only make a bad situation worse. From the stalker’s point of view, restraining orders are humiliating; the victim has just announced to the world that she wants nothing to do with him: She has stepped-up the rejection. Because of this, many perpetrators feel they must step-up the pursuit. Or they just get mad and plan to get even. There have been far too many cases of stalking victims found murdered after they had obtained restraining orders; one victim’s estranged husband knifed the order to her chest.

There are two types of stalkers that are most unlikely to respond to restraining orders: those former intimate-partner stalkers who are very invested in the relationship and delusional stalkers.

Former intimate partner stalkers are less likely to adhere to a restraining order the more they have invested in the victim. For example, a man who was married to a woman for ten years and had three children with her, follows her around until she gets a restraining order. The same man, a year later, dates another woman a few times until she becomes concerned about how controlling he is and breaks it off. In which scenario will the same man be more likely to let go: In the former instance, in which he has ten years and three kids invested, or the latter in which he has only invested a few dates?

And finally, when a restraining order violation occurs and the police just go out and talk to the stalker or even give him a citation, they have just made the situation worse. The victim would have been far better off never obtaining such an order. What the police have done in this instance is given the stalker further proof that nothing will happen to him, that he can act with impunity. After all, what more can the victim do to him than call in the full weight of the legal system; first a judge to issue the order and a police officer to enforce it?

Well, she can buy a gun. And if he comes around again to threaten her, or attack her, she can shoot him.

spam much?

No, I though you and C-T gave up that asinine idea when it was pointed out that YOU two were the ones talking about vigilantism when I was talking about self-protection.

Now, if you would kindly STOP flaming/libelling me...especially when I had already bowed out of this "discussion". :mad:

Agreed.

[NS]Ihatevacations, your attack on Tex is unwarranted.

Texpunditistan clarified his position many, many posts ago. He was unfairly grouped with Kibolonia (sp?) to begin with. Although I disagree with some parts of Tex's position, it is far, far more reasonable.

On a similar note, although Whispering Legs and I disagree on many issues and I believe I have a fair degree of experience and knowledge related to domestic violence, I also believe WL has forgotten more about the subject than you or I will ever know. Not that his experience makes him always right about the subject, but I would shy away from insulting his understanding of domestic violence. He's worked directly with scores of victims.

Moreoever, referring to the entire US as "shoot-em-up" isn't helpful. We've discussed and almost everyone has agreed that -- beyond the possibility of deterrence -- Ms. Gonzales's arming herself would not have changed the situation here regarding the outcome. In response, you make a good point about his not being deterred from shooting up the police station.

FWIW, it otherwise it seems to me the argument comes down to a few separate trains of thought:

1) A few who support the SCOTUS decision on the grounds that the police had no obligation/that Ms. Gonzales's expectation is unrealistic. Few seem to really be arguing the former other than Kiblonia. (I'm not saying no one else agreed, I'm just talking about arguing. Others may also have been arguing that point.)

2) A few who support the SCOTUS decision or disagree with Ms. Gonzales based on facts not in the record or suppositions. Again, that mostly appears to be Kiblonia. Ravenshrike and Tex may or may not agree with the SCOTUS outcome. I'm not clear on that.

3) Several that disagree with SCOTUS decision and/or are concerned about the policy implications as further undermining the enforcement/effectiveness of restraining orders.

4) A discussion of what Ms. Gonzales should or could have done differently. For some, this is about Ms. Gonzales being at fault. For others, this is simply a matter of what alternatives she had or what victims in this situation should do. This is almost completely based on facts outside the record and speculation. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the SCOTUS decision. Other than the bashing Ms. Gonzales, it is IMAO nonetheless an important subject of what victims of domestic violence can and should do to protect themselves and others.

Despite #1 & #2, it appears there is little real argument about the SCOTUS decision itself.

For the record, Kiblonia feel free to blame me for your going off-topic and outside the record. Whatever floats your boat. My first post framed the relevant issue and gave all the relevant facts. Apparently you think we do and should live in a Hobbesian state of nature where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I disagree. I see no need to argue with you further.

No, i was referring to virginia. You know like "massachusetts, USA" "washington,USA", like how we do with cities, states

and i removed my further references to tex

Cat, while I don't believe that we live in a Hobbesian civilization, neither do I believe that the SCOTUS is a venue for individual relief.

They try their best to give answers that can be used more broadly than the single cases that are brought to them. I believe that this is the reason that we get a lot of decisions that people find unreasonable.

I also do not believe that our nation will ever hold police to the level of responsibility necessary to protect any specific citizen at any specific time (other than the Secret Service to their responsibilities).

When it comes down to it - and you're waiting for the police to show up, and you're attacker is beating down the door, if you need the means to defend yourself, you really need the means right then.

Culturally, the whole world has to address the problem of domestic violence. Prior to meeting my wife, I had the same impression that many have - that it's somehow under control, that the women in question can do something, that the police solve the problem, that social workers help all the women.

Nothing could be further from the truth. More women will die this year from domestic violence than the number of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than the number of people killed on 9-11. More than the number of people killed and wounded on the trains in Madrid and London.

Do we see any war on domestic violence? No. The women have to fight this war alone, one woman at a time, because the system is not working.

Agreed.

[NS]Ihatevacations, your attack on Tex is unwarranted.

Texpunditistan clarified his position many, many posts ago. He was unfairly grouped with Kibolonia (sp?) to begin with. Although I disagree with some parts of Tex's position, it is far, far more reasonable.Thank you.2) A few who support the SCOTUS decision or disagree with Ms. Gonzales based on facts not in the record or suppositions. Again, that mostly appears to be Kiblonia. Ravenshrike and Tex may or may not agree with the SCOTUS outcome. I'm not clear on that.It's my position that, even though Gonzales should have been more proactive in the protection of her children, the police should be held liable if it is obvious that they disregarded the safety of Gonzales and her children.

IMO, when the police played the "ahh, wait a couple hours" game, they immediately became liable since they openly disregarded the safety of the Gonzales children and refused to take the situation seriously. The police, in this case, definitely should be held liable for their inaction.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

I know I am sometimes too nasty and/or put my foot wrong, but I do try not to be a total asshole. :)

It's my position that, even though Gonzales should have been more proactive in the protection of her children, the police should be held liable if it is obvious that they disregarded the safety of Gonzales and her children.

IMO, when the police played the "ahh, wait a couple hours" game, they immediately became liable since they openly disregarded the safety of the Gonzales children and refused to take the situation seriously. The police, in this case, definitely should be held liable for their inaction.

I thought that was what you articulated, but I wasn't 100% certain and I didn't want to misspeak.

We are largely in agreement (which is nice and safer for everyone :D ).

I know I am sometimes too nasty and/or put my foot wrong, but I do try not to be a total asshole. :)I, myself, try not to be an outright asshole very often, but it does happen. You just have a tendency to stomp on my "pissed off" button more than most. ;)I thought that was what you articulated, but I wasn't 100% certain and I didn't want to misspeak.

We are largely in agreement (which is nice and safer for everyone :D ).
I agree. It's much safer for everyone...including ourselves. :D

The thing is: we are both individuals who are very passionate about our beliefs. Since we tend to have different views on certain subjects, we're bound to bash skulls at times. ;)

I, myself, try not to be an outright asshole very often, but it does happen. You just have a tendency to stomp on my "pissed off" button more than most. ;)
I agree. It's much safer for everyone...including ourselves. :D

The thing is: we are both individuals who are very passionate about our beliefs. Since we tend to have different views on certain subjects, we're bound to bash skulls at times. ;)

:D

WL once said I was his mirror-image. :) (Like the Green Goblin in Spiderman? :confused: :( )

We'd better stop being so nice before we end up having make-up sex. :eek: :D

We'd better stop being so nice before we end up having make-up sex. :eek: :D
*falls over laughing*

UmmmmmmmmlemmethinkaboutitNO! :p

*falls over laughing*

UmmmmmmmmlemmethinkaboutitNO! :p

:eek:

Sometimes I am accused on here of being a mere apologist for the judiciary, particular the Supreme Court. My real life acquaitences would find that very funny.

Anyway, although the Kelo decision got most of the attention in these forums and it and the Ten Commandment decisions got most of the press attention, the truly outrageous recent decision was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-278.html), No. 04-278 (June 27, 2005), which gutted the usefulness of restraining orders and leaves domestic violence victims on their own for protection.

Wasn't it decided a few years ago that police didn't have a responsibility to protect individual citizens? Only to deter crime in general? In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court ruled that individuals were not guaranteed protection from the police. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Department of Social Services, the court ruled again that no duty to protect individuals exists. As bad as this recent ruling is, doesn't it just fall in line with what has already been decided?

Wasn't it decided a few years ago that police didn't have a responsibility to protect individual citizens? Only to deter crime in general? In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court ruled that individuals were not guaranteed protection from the police. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Department of Social Services, the court ruled again that no duty to protect individuals exists. As bad as this recent ruling is, doesn't it just fall in line with what has already been decided?

Good point. IMO, sort of yes, sort of no.

Arguably this case is consistent with those decisions, although Warren v. District of Columbia was only a Court of Appeals decision.

Although De Shaney involved social workers and not police, it is somewhat is more on point and relied upon heavily by the majority.

The primary question was whether the circumstances of a restraining order -- particularly one worded as strongly as this one and with a statute so clearly seeming to mandate police action -- created any obligation on the police. Many other decision from lower courts have decided that protective order and mandatory arrest statutes are different from cases that simply imply a failure of a general duty to protect citizens.

It makes sense that not every citizen that is victimized can sue the police for a failure to act to prevent it. It makes less sense (to me anyway) to say that police can ignore a restraining order and putatively mandatory statutes.

In other words the question would be when on is entitled to some action by the police. This opinion, while arguably an extension of the prior cases, is also not clearly mandated by them. And it appears to take us to the position that no one is ever entitled to police protection.

(Luckily state courts have ruled otherwise in some cases involving state law. The question will be whether the second part of this opinion will undermine some of those decisions as well.)

BTW, I don't think there is anything inconsistent about supporting a robust police force with citizens have some entitlement to protection and vigorously supporting citizens in taking actions to protect themselves. They aren't mutually exclusive. (I'm not saying that you said they were. I'm just getting this sense from self-defense/gun-rights advocates that somehow we can't expect the first.)

It makes sense that not every citizen that is victimized can sue the police for a failure to act to prevent it. It makes less sense (to me anyway) to say that police can ignore a restraining order and putatively mandatory statutes.

In other words the question would be when on is entitled to some action by the police. This opinion, while arguably an extension of the prior cases, is also not clearly mandated by them. And it appears to take us to the position that no one is ever entitled to police protection.

I haven't read this decision as critically as I've read the Kelo case. It looks to me that the result is similar, though, in that the decision makes state legislatures responsible for enforcing yet another Constitutional right. Is that even close? If it is, why does the Court seem to be intent on turning over enforcement of what used to be federal protection to state legislatures?

I haven't read this decision as critically as I've read the Kelo case. It looks to me that the result is similar, though, in that the decision makes state legislatures responsible for enforcing yet another Constitutional right. Is that even close? If it is, why does the Court seem to be intent on turning over enforcement of what used to be federal protection to state legislatures?

One might read the case that way --in which case it could be considered a misguided version of federalism --- but the Court appears to go farther.

The Court says (a) the type of statutory language here -- which appears very mandatory on its face, is far more mandatory that the language of similar statutes in other states, and appears to have been expressly intended by the state to be mandatory -- isn't mandatory and doesn't create an entitlement to action and (b) goes further to doubt whether any statute of this kind could create an entitlement to action.

Now the dissent holds out hope that the majority can be read as merely saying the statute wasn't specific enough. In which case, a state could create a basis for liability with a more specific statute.

Also, a state could create a basis for liability fully under state law.

But you are right. Either way, this seems to retreat further from enforcement of the Due Process Clause.

And, part of my problem is that, unlike Kelo -- where rights are secured so long as the state or local government does not proactively invade them -- here we have government inaction which causes harm. That is arguably more difficult to solve. (Although it just occurred to me that it is an interesting philosophical question whether it is hard to convince government not to do something it is inclined to do or to convince government to do something it is inclined not to do. :eek: )

Intellectually, I can see how both Kelo and Gonzales were arguably rightly decided. But I not only disagree with the rulings, but I also fear for the consequences.

(And, I wish I did not feel that votes of several members of the Court didn't switch because of their political agenda re domestic violence versus property rights. Something I think applies on both ends of spectrum in those cases.)

Sometimes I am accused on here of being a mere apologist for the judiciary, particular the Supreme Court. My real life acquaitences would find that very funny.

Anyway, a restraining order now does not entitle you to any protection or action by the police. They may willfully disregard it. It is an almost worthless piece of paper.

That is outrageous. And a slap in the face of the millions of victims of domestic violence that play by the rules instead of taking the law into their own hands.
I would say the same about the eminent domain case from New London, Connecticut: Owning a house now does not entitle you to keep that house from the depredations of any other entity - they may willfully disregard it. The deed to your house is now an almost worthless piece of paper.

I would say the same about the eminent domain case from New London, Connecticut: Owning a house now does not entitle you to keep that house from the depredations of any other entity - they may willfully disregard it. The deed to your house is now an almost worthless piece of paper.

1. You appear to be under the delusion I agree with the decision in Kelo.

2. There are several differences between a deed after Kelo and a protective order after this case. Your deed must be upheld unless the unlikely event of a properly constituted politcal body expressly and properly deciding under state law that it is in the public good for your property be included in economic development. You still must be paid the fair market value of your home. Mere inaction makes the protective order nearly worthless. You receive no compensation if your protective order is rendered worthless.

3. Are you implying you disagree with this case as much as you disagree with Kelo? I hope that is true.

(And, I wish I did not feel that votes of several members of the Court didn't switch because of their political agenda re domestic violence versus property rights. Something I think applies on both ends of spectrum in those cases.)
This has been a frustrating couple weeks. I guess I have found out way more about law than I ever wanted to. Law shouldn't be so complicated that an educated citizen cannot understand it. I thought I understood the concepts behind due process, freedom of religion, and eminent domain. That was my mistake.

The last couple weeks have made it clear that there aren't really any standards in law. It appears that the laws of the land are just a body of text that can be re-interpreted based nuances, so subtle, that John Kerry would be proud to use them. There isn't even any fine print to publish all the disclaimers that seem to be present in even the clearest language.

I guess I can console myself with the idea that these decisions don't affect the vast majority of people directly. And that doesn't matter because the rights that are supposed to protect the individual are just a mirage, anyway.

I think that's enough ranting for one morning.