Supreme Court says you don't have the right to protection

[Guest Hornet Handler]

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

[Cannon Fodder]

What did you expect? Liberals.

[Guest ProguninTN]

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. It stare decisis of precedents to include Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services Dept.

[Guest RN MEDIC]

Well, the supreme court has there opinion and I have MINE. As they don't want me to have arms and the means to use to be safe, I'll just carry my own guns and take care of me and my family/loved ones. I'll also make absolutely sure not to lift a single finger to help a supreme court member should I be present when a bad guy is harming their WORTHLESS HIDE!!

GET READY, FOLKS. There is going to be a very "rough ride" coming I truly fear.

RN

[towerclimber37]

just a question....if the government directs that the police are not here to protect us, a. why do most departments have "to protect and serve" as a motto?

and b. wtf do we need either the police or the government for?

that ruling is horse puckey!

I know there are leo's on this forum..what do YOU guys think about that ruling?

[Guest Len]

Interesting case, but I think we're taking it a bit out of context here.

1) The two dissenters in the most recent SC decision were the two most liberal justices, in other words, all of the court's most conservative justices votes FOR the ruling. So, its more than just politics here.

2) The case revolves around the issue of restraining orders being constitutional obligations of the police to protect those who get the orders issued against those whom the order is issued against. The court basically rules that there is no constitutional right to restraining order protection guarantees. Last time I read the "Big C," the words "restraining orde" were not in them.

3) The court did not rule that the job of the police is not to protect the citizens of a jurisdiction.

4) Gonzalez claimed protection via the 14th amendment right to due process. The relevant section of the amendment is here:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm no lawyer or judge, but it seems to me the issuance of the restraining order itself is proof that Gonzalez was not denied due process rights as outlined by 14A.

5) I think we are arguing a far BROADER point here than the issue the court addressed. Allow me to quote from the text of the decision itself:

The issue presented to us is much narrower than is suggested by the far-ranging arguments of the parties and their amici

. Neither the tragic facts of the case, nor theimportance of according proper deference to law enforce-ment professionals, should divert our attention from that issue.

That issue is whether the restraining order enteredby the Colorado trial court on June 4, 1999, created a "property" interest that is protected from arbitrary depri-vation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

.

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 enti-tlement 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 enti-tlement 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.

(Emphasis added by me.) If we look at the narrow parameters of what the court looked at, outside the glare of the sensationalistic media reporting it, the decision, to this observer, does not seem so bizarre.

6) However, the ultimate point made by the posters here, that we must take action to PROTECT OURSELVES because the cops dont have to/cant be everywhere at once/are not forced to by the 14A is still valid. Could the tragedy that was Gonzalez have been avoided by legal use of firearms per Colorado law? Who can tell, but it makes me wonder.

My 2 cents.

Off to enjoy the snow!

-Len

[Guest Hornet Handler]

However, the ultimate point made by the posters here, that we must take action to PROTECT OURSELVES because the cops dont have to/cant be everywhere at once/are not forced to by the 14A is still valid.

Exactly!

Thanks for the Readers Digest version.

[Marswolf]

Thank you Len. Saved me a bunch of typing.

We can't expect the cops to babysit every person who gets a protective order. No way we could afford that many LEOs even if it was desirable to do so.

The protective order acts like the laws that add another charge if you use a gun while robbing someone. Just as the police have no responsibility to individually guard every convenience store to keep it from getting robbed, they also have no responsibility to individually guard each person holding a protective restraining order.

I don't consider this a liberal decision, but instead a very conservative one. This country was founded on the idea that you protect yourself. If you won't do that, it's your fault. Expecting the rest of society to protect you is a liberal idea, not a conservative one.

[saintsfanbrian]

I have to agree with Mars on this one. To tell the police that they are responsible for keeping tabs on each of the individuals with a protective order against them would be like trying to hold back a river with a fish net. It just isn't going to do a darn thing. We as individuals are responsible for protecting ourselves and our families. I would think that if a person has an order of protection against some one and that person comes on the property, the first thing to do would be to head towards where you keep your firearm. Once you have your firearm, call the police and tell them that the person is on your property and that you are afraid of what they are going to do to you.

That is just my opinion. Of course you could always shoot first and ask questions of them later.

[Guest Hornet Handler]

I know I'm preaching to the choir. But I did not post this as a shot to LEO or there agencies. Just the opposite. Mayor Butnutberg said NYers do not need guns because the police are there to protect them, well the SC seems to say he's wrong and we(lawful gun owners and carriers) have been right all along.

[Guest ProguninTN]

I agree that persons should protect themselves, but someone mentioned NYC. That's where I have a problem. In NYC, one needs gov't permission simply to own a gun. For NYC to prohibit their citizens from owning the means to protect themselves, and the court to rule that the gov't does not have liability, it leaves citizens at the mercy of the criminals.

Secondly, in Deshaney, Josh Deshaney was not able to protect himself due to his youth. In that instance, I think the gov't should protect those who cannot protect themselves.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

Well, the supreme court has there opinion and I have MINE. As they don't want me to have arms and the means to use to be safe, I'll just carry my own guns and take care of me and my family/loved ones. I'll also make absolutely sure not to lift a single finger to help a supreme court member should I be present when a bad guy is harming their WORTHLESS HIDE!!

GET READY, FOLKS. There is going to be a very "rough ride" coming I truly fear.

RN

I couldn't have said it better my self!!!

[towerclimber37]

see? thats why I love to visit this forum. when it comes to this sort of stuff, I'm not that good at parsing out what all the lawyerspeak means. I swear, those folks use 200 dollar words to spell out a 10 dollar concept that any idiot should know right off.

thanks for the clarification Len.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I dont believe I would even want to own a gun in NYC. Those people are crazy up there. I dont know if I would be safe of in danger, with a gun that is!

[Guest db99wj]

I would rather own my gun than live in NYC, the more I think about it, I would rather not own a gun than live in NYC.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I would rather own my gun than live in NYC, the more I think about it, I would rather not own a gun than live in NYC.

I agree! So needless to say, I wont be living in NYC in the near future.

[Marswolf]

I would rather own my gun than live in NYC, the more I think about it, I would rather not own a gun than live in NYC.

I agree too. I also don't vacation where I can't carry my gun. If they hate guns and are stupid enough to ban them, they can do without my money.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

they can do without my money.

Mine too Mars!