Gun Guru's, need advice...

CliffnDallas

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
215
nyc;3326432 said:
A police officers duty is to and I quote. "Protect and Serve". So, you would be wrong in saying that. To protect the public is the entire reason law enforcement was created.

The United States Supream Court has found otherwise.

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


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you have seen to many Adam-12 reruns...:)
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,756
Reaction score
21,941
burmafrd;3326450 said:
Wrong. If you look at what they are required to do by law and regulations- protect is not part of it. Respond to threats and incidents-that is what they are required to do.

lol! Respond to threads to who? Thats right, the public. :lmao2:

Protect the public from threats.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,756
Reaction score
21,941
CliffnMesquite;3326452 said:
The United States Supream Court has found otherwise.

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

What that means is a police officer isn't a personal bodyguard. If her husband was attacking her and the police where on hand, you damn right it's their job to protect her.

Don't confuse being a personal bodyguard with what their actual job is.
 

CliffnDallas

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
215
nyc;3326459 said:
What that means is a police officer isn't a personal bodyguard. If her husband was attacking her and the police where on hand, you damn right it's their job to protect her.

Don't confuse being a personal bodyguard with what their actual job is.

You confuse respond with protect. By definition respond is past tense. The threat already having happened. But please. Dial 911, make a cop come. ;)
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
The University of Arizona is a gun free campus. I will openly admit, several times I had a Smith & Wesson 9 mm with me. I am licensed to carry it. I do not go looking for trouble so I had no reason to think I would ever be searched. Schools are targeted by the deranged because guns are not allowed. They know they can wreak a lot of chaos unabated in a short period of time before they go down in a hail of bullets or from a self inflicted wound. I said it before, I'd have stopped the guy at Va Tech. He might get me. I would get him. He could not have focused on so many innocents.

Do I think any student should have a gun on campus? No, I don't. There is too much drinking, drugs, and testosterone. I will never apologize for the one I had with me many times. I never had to use it. Thank heavens. There was a shooting at the nursing school of the UA. I had been in a writing class with that guy a couple of years before his rampage. His was shorter than most campus rampages.

Not allowing them on campuses makes those campuses a potential target zone. To deny this is to have your head in the sand. Dozens of unarmed targets for a deranged individual. It's a touchy subject to be sure.
 

CliffnDallas

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
215
Campuses, stores, malls any "no gun" zone is an open invitation to mayhem. I don't see many 30.06 signs on business. And when I do they will not get my money.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,756
Reaction score
21,941
CliffnMesquite;3326468 said:
You confuse respond with protect. By definition respond is past tense. The threat already having happened. But please. Dial 911, make a cop come. ;)

What are they doing when they respond? Watching whatever is happening go down?

There are 307 million people in the United States. There is not 307 million police officers to personally protect each one.

I am an Infrastructure Engineer. There are WAY more servers, storage devices, routers, and switches than there are of me or anyone on my staff to stand around watching each device. Instead, each device can warn me of an problem or a monitor will warn me. (ie dial 911)

As I noted, police aren't personal bodyguards, but their job is to protect the public. You're right, the do "respond", they have too. They can't be at every crime as it happens. What else are they supposed to do?

It's simple logic. You (or a police officer) can't be everywhere at the same time. Think about what you're saying.
 

SaltwaterServr

Blank Paper Offends Me
Messages
8,124
Reaction score
1
nyc;3326459 said:
What that means is a police officer isn't a personal bodyguard. If her husband was attacking her and the police where on hand, you damn right it's their job to protect her.

Don't confuse being a personal bodyguard with what their actual job is.

Which is why so many here are openly advocating protecting yourself in any situation from anyone. A person with 2 strikes against them and one away from life will probably looooooooooove to sit down with you and discuss the aggravated assault and b&e they just committed in your home because you left the door open and they didn't think you were home.

Nah, they won't take a frying pan and crush your cerebral cortex into jelly to eliminate the only witness that would put them behind bars for life.

Two in the chest, one in the lethal T. If they are still standing, walk behind them and kick out whatever they're leaning against because the Tango has been suppressed.
 

CliffnDallas

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
215
nyc;3326524 said:
What are they doing when they respond? Watching whatever is happening go down?

There are 307 million people in the United States. There is not 307 million police officers to personally protect each one.

I am an Infrastructure Engineer. There are WAY more servers, storage devices, routers, and switches than there are of me or anyone on my staff to stand around watching each device. Instead, each device can warn me of an problem or a monitor will warn me. (ie dial 911)

As I noted, police aren't personal bodyguards, but their job is to protect the public. You're right, the do "respond", they have too. They can't be at every crime as it happens. What else are they supposed to do?

It's simple logic. You (or a police officer) can't be everywhere at the same time. Think about what you're saying.

By your own admission the police respond to incidents. Incidents that have already happened. Incidents they were unable to prevent. We are arguing in circles. And frankly I'm getting dizzy.
 

ScipioCowboy

More than meets the eye.
Messages
25,053
Reaction score
17,311
nyc;3326524 said:
What are they doing when they respond? Watching whatever is happening go down?

There are 307 million people in the United States. There is not 307 million police officers to personally protect each one.

I am an Infrastructure Engineer. There are WAY more servers, storage devices, routers, and switches than there are of me or anyone on my staff to stand around watching each device. Instead, each device can warn me of an problem or a monitor will warn me. (ie dial 911)

As I noted, police aren't personal bodyguards, but their job is to protect the public. You're right, the do "respond", they have too. They can't be at every crime as it happens. What else are they supposed to do?

It's simple logic. You (or a police officer) can't be everywhere at the same time. Think about what you're saying.

Think about what you're saying, and apply simple logic to it. If the servers are too numerous for you to do anything more than respond after they've alerted you of a problem, how does your analogy bode for police in their job?

The only difference is this: Servers can be repaired or replaced far more easily than human beings can.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,024
Reaction score
41,255
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It must suck living in an area where criminals are constantly breaking into your or your neighbors house to the point of being so scared that you must buy a gun. Or being in an area where you are constantly attacked and forced to buy a gun to protect yourself.

I am not being sarcastic here...it must really suck.

I know I have read stories from various people on the board where there is always something going on in their area, I think Hos has told plenty of stories, and I just can not imagine having to deal with that all the time.

I think the worse thing that has happened in my road the last few years is some dope/crack head out at 3:00 am talking loud as hades on his cell phone. The dogs heard the noise, I let them out, they started barking, I go out shirtless and yell at the dogs (but looking directly at him) SHUT THE F UP!...he took off running and did not come back. Problem solved.

Again...just lucky to live in an area that we don't have to worry about the constant threat of someone breaking in, car jacking, attacking or other things.

Now I want a hand gun, not for home protection, although I can use that excuse to the wife to sway her, but just to go out and shoot on the range during the warm months.

IF something does go down where someone breaks in...maybe I am just such a tough guy or think of myself as ok to deal with issues that I think I can handle it with knives or my own self without a gun...but again I just don't have that constant threat where I live. I guess that is one good thing about living in a rural area.

I don't know how some of you guys with kids or wives can stand it in some of the areas you are in. I would hate to have to live somewhere where I am constantly on guard 24/7 or worry about someone coming after my wife or even worse my kids.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
BrAinPaiNt;3326559 said:
It must suck living in an area where criminals are constantly breaking into your or your neighbors house to the point of being so scared that you must buy a gun. Or being in an area where you are constantly attacked and forced to buy a gun to protect yourself.

I am not being sarcastic here...it must really suck.

I know I have read stories from various people on the board where there is always something going on in their area, I think Hos has told plenty of stories, and I just can not imagine having to deal with that all the time.

I think the worse thing that has happened in my road the last few years is some dope/crack head out at 3:00 am talking loud as hades on his cell phone. The dogs heard the noise, I let them out, they started barking, I go out shirtless and yell at the dogs (but looking directly at him) SHUT THE F UP!...he took off running and did not come back. Problem solved.

Again...just lucky to live in an area that we don't have to worry about the constant threat of someone breaking in, car jacking, attacking or other things.

Now I want a hand gun, not for home protection, although I can use that excuse to the wife to sway her, but just to go out and shoot on the range during the warm months.

IF something does go down where someone breaks in...maybe I am just such a tough guy or think of myself as ok to deal with issues that I think I can handle it with knives or my own self without a gun...but again I just don't have that constant threat where I live. I guess that is one good thing about living in a rural area.

I don't know how some of you guys with kids or wives can stand it in some of the areas you are in. I would hate to have to live somewhere where I am constantly on guard 24/7 or worry about someone coming after my wife or even worse my kids.
I live in a great neighborhood. It seems like I attract the stories. My neighbor George laughs at me all the time. He said I am the neighborhood big brother so when idiots come around everyone calls me.
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
I will be the first one to admit that my neighborhood isn't exactly the "hood" but I think the greatest misconception that people have is that violence only happens in "the hood", which is also a term that is very subjective.

The city I live in reports all crime stats to Crimereports.com and there is quite a bit of activity but nothing has happened to me or my neighbors that I know of.


Regardless, you always want to make sure you are prepared.
 

kapolani

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
374
ScipioCowboy;3326553 said:
The only difference is this: Servers can be repaired or replaced far more easily than human beings can.

This is the reason that I'm adamant about the right to bear arms.

I don't collect guns because I'm a conspiracy theorist and think that the boogie man is out to get me.

I do it so that if the need may arise I'll be able to protect myself and family from those who wish to cause us harm. Shooting is relaxing. It's my hobby. My wife gets out to the range with me at times as well.

Why unarm law abiding citizens when criminals could care less about gun control?
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,024
Reaction score
41,255
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Hostile;3326565 said:
I live in a great neighborhood. It seems like I attract the stories. My neighbor George laughs at me all the time. He said I am the neighborhood big brother so when idiots come around everyone calls me.

I don't know guy...for a great neighborhood you seem to have a butt load of stuff happening around it/you.

If it was just you, I might deport you from my neighborhood.:p: ;)
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,024
Reaction score
41,255
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
kapolani;3326571 said:
This is the reason that I'm adamant about the right to bear arms.

I don't collect guns because I'm a conspiracy theorist and think that the boogie man is out to get me.

I do it so that if the need may arise I'll be able to protect myself and family from those who wish to cause us harm. Shooting is relaxing. It's my hobby. My wife gets out to the range with me at times as well.

Why unarm law abiding citizens when criminals could care less about gun control?

Do you also have a fully stocked nuclear bunker? :laugh2:

You never know there might be a nuclear war or some terrorist that is planning on striking in your area.

Better safe than sorry.:p: ;)
 

CliffnDallas

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
215
There are no "safe" places. Evil, crime and mental illness do not respect boundaries. Or wait around for the constabulary to arrive.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,024
Reaction score
41,255
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
CliffnMesquite;3326576 said:
There are no "safe" places. Evil, crime and mental illness do not respect boundaries. Or wait around for the constabulary to arrive.

I am the only dangerous and evil thing in my area and all others know not to mess with me or I will smite them.
 

kapolani

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
374
BrAinPaiNt;3326559 said:
I don't know how some of you guys with kids or wives can stand it in some of the areas you are in. I would hate to have to live somewhere where I am constantly on guard 24/7 or worry about someone coming after my wife or even worse my kids.

I live in an affluent neigborhood.

To me, though, logic seems to dictate that my area would be the perfect place to commit a robbery/home invasion. If you were a criminal wouldn't you want to get the most out of it that you can?

It's happening all around us. I see/read the news. It's starting to creep into the 'good' areas as well. Just up the road from where we live there have been a few home invasions.

Maryland is having a real illegal alien problem as well. Just recently a woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by 8 of them. It's a sad, sad world we are living in. Homeless people are starting to scavenge/forage in people's garages etc. I fear if the economy doesn't improve this will continue to happen and more frequently.

My wife means the world to me. If I can have just one fighting chance to keep her safe - I'll take it.
 
Top