Duty to Protect?

[X_Digger]

What's your first memory of a police officer? Mine is from a coloring book as a kid. Farmer, fireman, doctor, police officer, construction worker- those were the archetypal figures I remember. The farmer had a straw hat and bib overalls, the fireman had a hat with a shield and a hose, the doctor a lab coat and stethescope, the police officer had the belt and badge, and the construction worker had a hard hat and hammer.

During the first year of school, I remember classroom visits from some of these professions. I remember the navy blue uniform with slate gray stripe of the Virginia State Police officer, his straight brimmed hat, and his crew cut. I recall feeling safe knowing that if bad people ever wanted to hurt me, he'd come and rescue me. I was tempted to have him haul off some of the bullies at school, but somehow I resisted the temptation. Just knowing he was there was enough.

It's funny how childlike ideas tend to persist until reality rips them away. No, the animals on the farm don't crowd around the farmer, gazing adoringly up at him. No, the doctor tends to spend more time doing paperwork than actually saving lives. No, the fireman doesn't actually get kittens out of trees with his cool ladder truck. And no, the police officer doesn't usually pull up when bad guys are threatening you.

As of 2008, there were about 700,000 police officers across the United States in the field (1). There are approximately 310,000,000 residents of the US (2). If you assume three shifts, and 10% are out sick, on vacation, in court, in training, or desk duty for one reason or another, that means that there is one officer for every 1476 people.

Assuming that "your" officer isn't busy with one of the other 1475 people, average response time from 911 to flashing lights is about nine minutes nationwide, but if you live in a city like Detroit, the average is 24 minutes (3); Chicago often has times as high as 26 minutes (4); in New York, ten minutes in 1999 (5). According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, most violent crime is perpetrated in under eight minutes. (6)

With a ratio like that, and response times like those, it's a practical necessity that the person most responsible for your safety is you.

But what the heck, let's assume we had one patrol officer per person, shadowing you at all times. He or she would be obligated to protect you from harm, right? After all, the slogan on the side of the car says "to protect and serve". Right?? RIGHT??? No, not really.

In multiple states, at the local, state, and federal level, police have not been held accountable for failing to protect individuals. Let's examine some of the cases.

Riss v. City of New York
http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
...
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital visit in January, 1983, prompted the county Department of Social Services (DSS) to obtain a court order to keep the boy in the hospital's custody. Three days later, "On the recommendation of a "child protection team," consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father." The DSS entered an agreement with the boy's father, and five times throughout 1983, a DSS social worker visited the DeShaney home and recorded suspicion of child abuse and that the father was not complying with the agreement's terms. No action was taken; the DSS also took no action to remove the boy from his father's custody after a hospital reported child abuse suspicions to them in November, 1983. Visits in January and March, 1984, in which the worker was told Joshua was too ill to see her, also resulted in no action. Following the March, 1984, visit, "Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse." Randy DeShaney served less than two years in jail. He currently resides in Appleton, WI.
...
The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause protects against state action only, and as it was Randy DeShaney who abused Joshua, a state actor (the Winnebago County Department of Social Services) was not responsible.

Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means." Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.
...
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

Regardless of what the oath they take says, police cannot be held liable for protecting you, John Q. Public from harm. Even from a well-defined threat. Even from a threat for which you obtained a protective order. This isn't new doctrine, either.

See also sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.








(1) http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm - 900k total, 700k who are not detectives, supervisors, managers, fish and game wardens, or transit and railroad police.
(2) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
(3) http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/04/19/in-detroit-improved-911-response-times/
(4) http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/476590,CST-EDT-edits20b.article
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/24/nyregion/police-are-criticized-for-responding-more-slowly-to-911-calls.html
(6) http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS/

[depakid]

1. Like most firearms proliferation advocates- you confuse immunity from liability with duty

in order to construct a scary argument.

This stuff is as stupid today as it's been since the paranoid NRA types first floated it.

[X_Digger]

2. Please explain how one can be obligated (duty) but not liable?

As the dissent in Riss said, "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

[depakid]

3. Why do you think response times are such a big issue in communities?

Inadequate response- or failure to respond appropriately (or at all) can and does raise a major outcries and can and does come with political and administrative consequences.

[X_Digger]

4. Yet it doesn't rise to the level of legal obligation.

It may violate the terms of the officer's employment agreement to nap on the job and let criminals boost the wheels from his car, but neither he nor the locality can be held liable for his ignoring criminal activity.

[depakid]

10. There are all sort of immunity statutes and doctrines that don't vitiate duties

but rather exist for traditional policy (or fiscal) reasons.

[Callisto32]

45. So I can be held liable for dereliction of my duties, but "public servants" cannot?

And that is okay?

One rule for thee another for me?

Lick those boots a little harder, eh.

[MicaelS]

58. Warren v. DC is a perfect example of the hypocrisy

Which is engaged in by TPTB who advocate citizens not being armed. They don't want people to have guns, on the grounds that someone might get hurt. But when someone does get hurt through their own dereliction of duty, they have the temerity to fight it all the way to SCOTUS, instead of settling out of court as they should have done.

[SteveM]

112. on "vitiating duties:"

Duty is different from government liability. Government may charge itself, through politics, policy and its LEOs, with protecting the public -- but they are not any more liable for "failure" than a computer company is when your laptop is out of warranty. Electing new politicians, appointing new police chiefs, taxing your constituency, and bringing more officers on line does not mean the LEO is liable. When any reasonable person looks at it, how can an LEO be responsible for "failing to protect the public?" That is why you have insurance policies, electronic security systems, and if affordable private security. And even that does not afford unassailable (by law) protection.

The only "scary" part of all this, are some members of the public who think they can waltz through life without taking some kind of precaution because government agencies will protect you.

[Glassunion]

6. Administrative consequences.

Ok, so the worst that an officer could face is termination of their job for failing to protect someone?

So let's see, if you use the NY case, the woman begged the police for help(protection) which they refused to provide because it was not their job. So what was thier duty to the woman?

[depakid]

7. Not just the officer- anyone up the chain of command, from the watch commander to the chief

[Glassunion]

8. But it was not their job.

What was their duty to the woman?

[depakid]

9. Oh please

[Glassunion]

12. What was their duty to the woman?

Or is the question too hard to answer?

[Katya Mullethov]

66. If you wanna back out of this one

We could use some of your insight in the Tactical Pleading thread .

[TPaine7]

19. I know that if one of my loved ones died because police

refused to protect them while they were forbidden to have the tools to protect themselves, I would take great comfort in the fact that the police had a unenforceable duty to protect them.

I would be angry at first that they did nothing, and that I would have no legal recourse to take action against them for neglect. It would bother me that they could do the same thing the next day, and that there would be nothing the next next of kin could legally do about it. It would bother me that if people don't pay the taxes that pay the police officers salaries they are subject to fines, seizures and imprisonment, whereas when the state unconstitutionally disarms them they have no recourse under the law (or at least they didn't until recently, when the Supreme Court got off of its heinie and decided to stop allowing lower courts to commit legal fraud).

But then, in the midst of my grief and rage, I would remember this thread. I would remember that any concerns I have about my disarmed, deceased loved one and the lack of any real obligation on the part of the state to protect her is a "scary argument"--nothing serious. I would remember that depakid said it was "stupid" stuff, floated by "paranoid" NRA types.

I would wipe away my tears and forget my rage. It's not so bad to be forced to pay for protection from someone who has no legally enforceable obligation to protect you. Someone who will take your stuff by force if you fail to pay the protection money. Someone who will forcibly disarm you and prevent you from having the tools to defend yourself against other threats. I would remember that this is a pretty good deal--only slightly less favorable than the terms offered by the mob. (The mafia might not actually protect you after they take your money, but they will not punish you for defending yourself against their competition!)

In any event, realizing that I have confused "immunity from liability with duty" I will be comforted by that fine, technical distinction and the wise words of dekapid.

[Euromutt]

60. X_digger is confusing no such thing; read the opinions again

From the SCOTUS majority opinion in Warren v. D.C. (http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf page 4):

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental prin­ciple that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police pro­tection, to any particular individual citizen. Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 357­58, 63 L. Ed. 291, 39 S. Ct. 109 (1919); Rieser v. District of Columbia, supra.

It says so explicitly: "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide <...> police protection <...> to any particular individual citizen." The SCOTUS' position is not that government cannot be held liable for failing to fulfil its duty, but that it has no such duty in the first place.

Insofar as there is any manufactured confusion between immunity from liability on the one hand, and absence of duty on the other, it's not X_digger or so-called "firearms proliferation advocates" who have created it; the Supreme Court has. Now, you don't have to agree that that's way it should be--I certainly don't--but that is the way it is.

[X_Digger]

83. Oh noes!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=103281

[X_Digger]

85. Awww, elvis has left the building..

Bumping this.

[rl6214]

86. It's about time

[Bold Lib]

96. And yet, his spirit remains. . .

[SteveM]

113. Spirit? Sure it ain't swamp gas? nt

[SteveM]

111. In other words, immunity (of government) from liability does exist?

"Scary" or not, this is a hard reality, and it has been a hard reality since court cases on this subject were first heard.

So, I'm not sure of your point, except some version of "don't worry, be happy."

[Callisto32]

118. Zombie thread...

Self-delete.

[tularetom]

5. I can offer some anecdotal support for this argument

I was told, by our local sheriff, during a public hearing on the county's budget, that he was not able to provide patrols to our somewhat remote area because of budget limitations. He further stated that his department had no obligation to provide police protection to any or all citizens regardless of available resources.

His statements were not accepted willingly by the small group of citizens who actually showed up at this hearing, but the county's attorney backed him up. Since approximately 80% of our local property taxes go to fund the Sheriff's Department, there was more than a bit of grumbling from the audience.

As a practical matter, everybody out here is armed anyway. There are no regular patrols and response times from the sheriff's office are in the order of 20 -30 minutes, so as a practical matter we are in fact on our own.

Regardless of what case law has determined, this situation ain't right. But it's a fact and you can choose to deal with it however you wish.

[freebrew]

59. Pretty much the same here..

rural area, response times 30 - 40 minutes. Most folks around are armed.

Leaves the police tp protect us all from .08 drivers...

[sharesunited]

11. You're overlooking something Pedro.

the harm which is done by having guns in the hands of the public.

Like that dipshit in Connecticut the other day.

He thought he was administering justice. A gun solved the problem of his fragile and/or bruised self esteem.

People died because of the power he was allowed to wield. LOTS of people. Conveniently dispatched.

A power which you advocate and support his right to hold in the palm of his hand?

You're not using the good common sense you were born with, Pedro.

[Glassunion]

13. You seem to be overlooking something as well.

1. You cannot un-invent the firearm. And as you would see to disarming the population with the exception of the police as you have stated in the past, we would be left with three groups of people. The average law abiding citizen who is now disarmed. The police who are armed, and the criminal who is still armed.

2. Who's duty would it be to protect the average law abiding citizen? Remember it is not the police's job nor is it their duty to protect anyone.

[sharesunited]

14. Pacification as a public policy objective. Got a problem with that?

Or is your idea of a public policy objective the enhanced lethality of the most capricious in society?

You can't have it both ways.

It's going to be pacification or lethality.

[Glassunion]

17. How would you suggest pacification?

Would you have the populous line up for lobotomies? How would you enforce compliance?

[sharesunited]

18. How about treating guns as taboo as child pornography?

Guns don't just psychologically scar. They kill and cripple.

So why should they receive any more acceptance?

[Glassunion]

20. That does not address pacification.

How would you enforce people to be pacifist?

[sharesunited]

21. It's not about enforcing people to do anything.

It's about depriving them generally of the means to conveniently kill and injure each other.

Not a difficult concept.

[Glassunion]

22. So it has nothing to do with pacifism.

Like I said, you cannot in-invent the firearm. You also cannot in-invent crime. All you would accomplish is to disarm law abiding citizens. Depriving them of the means to defend themselves from a violent criminal. Your solution would make the criminal's job easier. Knowing that their victim is unarmed would add security to their profession allowing them to rape, rob and murder with an almost impunity.

[sharesunited]

23. So there's a mass slaughter every now and then. So what? Big deal. Worth it!

[Glassunion]

26. Every 2 minutes in the US someone is sexually assaulted. So what? Big deal. Worth it!

[Atypical Liberal]

109. That is exactly right.

So there's a mass slaughter every now and then. So what? Big deal. Worth it!

That is exactly right. It is worth it.

It is far, far, far better to allow good people to have the means to resist violent crime and oppression, even if bad people do bad things with guns, then to force all good people to be at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are.

[jazzhound]

28. One from the archives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

[spin]

78. One of the all time great videos dealing with gun control! (n/t)

[beevul]

89. It could be improved.

It could be improved.

In the beginning, theres some singing to music:

"Ya yaya, ya yaya, ya yaya Ya yaya"


I propose tha be changed to:

YUP YUPYUP, YUP YUPYUP, YUP YUPYUP, YUP YUPYUP

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

38. What other tools will you have to take away to acheive that goal?

I submit that the list will be quite long...

[Atypical Liberal]

108. In so doing, you also deprive them generally of the means to conveniently defend themselves.

It's not about enforcing people to do anything. It's about depriving them generally of the means to conveniently kill and injure each other.

The problem is, if you do this you also deprive them generally of the means to conveniently defend themselves from violent criminals.

Without firearms, every victim of a violent assault will have only three choices: flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers, if they are strong enough.

It is not acceptable to leave people defenseless in a vain attempt to make it harder for people to commit crimes with guns.

[Callisto32]

46. Guns scar the psyche?

Holy crap, you must have a tender psyche.

[rrneck]

52. How about treating guns as taboo as child pornography?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet.<17><18><19><20><21><22><23> Producers of child pornography try to avoid prosecution by distributing their material across national borders, though this issue is increasingly being addressed with regular arrests of suspects from a number of countries occurring over the last few years.<16><17> NCMEC claims that around 20 % of all pornography contains children

[palmtree guy]

104. so do drunks in cars,

so why should we allow cars on the road? alcohol and cigarettes kill the shit out of people and leave families torn apart...ban that trash too!!

[NewMoonTherian]

63. I think he's trying to convey...

a kind of de facto pacification by removing what he perceives to be the tools of aggression - this, as opposed to any kind of emotional or cultural pacification. This is, of course, an inane argument, as per SU's modus operandi, but there you have it.

[shadowrider]

32. Ahhh yes. SU provides me with my morning chuckle n/t

[oneshooter]

36. Even better, both SU and Depa on the same topic! n/t

[SteveM]

69. Pheww! Sounds like Vietnam. nt

[oneshooter]

72. Hearts and Minds? n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Your solution is a pipe-dream.

Legal obstacles aside... no matter how hard you tried to "make guns scarce" you would fail.
Prohibitions fail. Only the law abiding play by the rules.

[sharesunited]

16. The Morgan silver dollar is scarce. Why? Same principle. They stopped making them.

[TPaine7]

24. As the flies buzz and the vultures scatter...

does it occur to you that even the most severe beating will not make that poor horse rise and pull gun control's wretched wagon?

[sharesunited]

25. What's wretched is the proliferation of guns and ammo and the injustice which flows from them.

[Callisto32]

48. Note injustice is flowing from stuff, not people.

There are only two options:

1. You actually believe this stuff.

2. You are being intentionally obtuse.


Since you can run a computer, that discounts 1....

[Katya Mullethov]

65. It isnt injustice , it is power

Power flows through the barrel of a gun . That really freaks some people out for understandable reasons .

See : "the de facto gun ban is alive in well in Mexico" thread .

[one-eyed fat man]

27. The Morgan is not scarce.

The Morgan is just not in general circulation.

There are lots of them out there and lots of them tucked away. Some are lovingly cataloged and hoarded by serious big time numismatists. Some are held by some old geezer with a vague idea of leaving them to his grandkids.

The US Mint quit coining 'real' money in 1964. Silver coinage disappeared from cash drawers within a couple years. It wasn't all melted down. Those folks who were alive when the change in coinage took place will tell you. Half dollars were common, in daily use, mostly Franklins, but Standing Liberties were not uncommon. The Kennedy half dollar was issued in 1964 and never made it into general circulation. They left the Mint, and went into somebody's sock drawer. Have you ever seen a dollar coin in general circulation except for the despised Susan B Anthony coin?

What has changed is who has the Silver. Now the coins are held by those who value their artistic qualities and they want the best specimen of every year and every mint mark. Or they are held by those who want them because their melt value exceeds their face value. Thus the minimum value of a Morgan is based on it's silver content, no matter how worn it is. And that will determine what it will cost you if you want one.

Between 1964 and the widespread use of digital camera there are a lot of coins that got turned into film emulsion. Crooks see guns like the guys who melt coins for the silver. They'll saw off the barrels of a Holland & Holland Best grade English double with no more concern that Savage 311. They just want a short shotgun they think will encourage you to give them what they want. The collector will recognize that they destroyed a $60,000 gun just to rob some stock trader of $42.87 and an imitation Rolex. The victim will just see two very large muzzles pointed at his face and his future dependent on the tender mercies of some anti-social misfit.

Your model of making the guns scarce is a doomed.

Mexico has no factories producing guns. The government has little difficulty buying all the modern military hardware it can afford. Drug cartels have no problem bringing in all the machine guns they want from Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, grenades from North Korea, or rocket launchers from Bulgaria. The only poor sap who can't buy a gun is the shopkeeper who wants one to discourage robbers.

And if you expect me to believe, that you, living in Chicago, would have a tough time buying a gun off the street, despite the claims of the Demented Dwarf in City Hall, then you are so hapless you couldn't find a prostitute in Olongapo City!

[Euromutt]

61. Small correction there...

Mexico actually does have an arms industry, though it's quite small and run entirely by and for the federal government. It falls under the aegis of the Dirección General de Industria Militar (D.G.I.M.), and produces small arms for the Mexican army and air force. The weapons in question are mostly H&K designs made under license, including the G3 rifle, a variant of the P7M13 pistol (with a frame-mounted safety lever; superfluous, but that's military procurement bureaucrats for you), the HK21A1 GPMG. DGIM's also acquired a license to manufacture the H&K G36V, but it's not clear who would receive those, since the army is switching from the G3 to the locally designed FX-05 "Xuihcoatl."

It's evident DGIM's output is not huge, since the FX-05 has now been in production for over four years, but has yet to completely replace the G3 in army service. Moreover, the army has to procure its more non-standard firearms (SMGs, sniper rifles) from foreign manufacturers, and the navy and state and federal police forces get all their small arms from abroad.

[X_Digger]

31. There was one source for morgan silver dollars.

Other countries don't make morgan silver dollars. I can't make a morgan silver dollar in my machine shop.

[Euromutt]

62. By contrast, consider the Maria Theresa thaler

The Maria Theresa thaler (aka "MTT") was originally minted in the Austro-Hungarian empire during the reign of the Empress Maria Theresa. It became immensely popular as an international medium of exchange (one might say, a "gold standard," a-ha-ha) that various official mints outside the Austro-Hungarian empire issued them, from Birmingham to Bombay, until the Austrian governments rescinded the licenses in 1946. A total of 389 million are estimated to have been struck from 1751 to 2000, with the Viennese mint striking 49 million post-1946. In addition, due to its long-lasting acceptance as a standard medium of exchange from Mozambique to Indonesia, many unofficial copies (i.e. forgeries, though with a coin that derives its value from its silver content, this is a relative term) have also been made. Silversmiths in the Middle East make them to this day (in the Arabian Gulf, they are often incorporated in women's jewelery, as her jewelry is one of the few possessions a woman retains if she is divorced). It was so widely accepted in Abyssinia that the Italians minted copies in Rome foru se during the invasion and occupation of that country in the 1930s, and the British had copies minted in Bombay for use during the operations in 1941 to drive the Italians out. Around the same time in the (then) Dutch East Indies, the MTT was greatly preferred to the scrip issued by the Japanese government of occupation, so much so that the OSS had forgeries made for use by its agents.

If one regards as genuine MTTs only examples minted at official mints within the Austro-Hungarian empire during the reign of Maria Theresa (1741-1780), then MTTs are extremely rare. If, conversely, you're willing to accept as an MTT any coin that meets the specifications* regardless of where or when it was struck, then MTTs are common as dirt. You can buy them by the dozen (nay, dozens) in any souk on the Arabian peninsula, and for all practical purposes, they're no different from the original.

The Maria Theresa thaler is the Avtomat Kalashnikova of coins; if you want an original AK-47, manufactured in the Soviet Union between 1948 and 1959, well, it's going to cost you a lot of time and money to get hold of one. If, however, you'll settle for any copy of the Kalashnikov design manufactured somewhere in the Eurasian land mass (from East Germany to North Korea) that'll spit out the thirty 7.62x39mm rounds in its detachable magazine in three seconds without jamming, there's no shortage of options to choose from.

* - 39.5mm diameter, 2.5mm thickness, massing 28 grams (of which 5/6 fine silver), with on the obverse the portrait of Maria Theresa and the inscription "M. THERESIA D. G. R. IMP. HU. BO. REG." and on the reverse the Habsburg coat of arms and the inscription "ARCHID. AVST. DUX BURG. CO. TYR. 1780"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. The morgan Stanly is rare for two reasons... supply and utility.

Currency's one use is to be valuable. There was only one source for valuable Morgan Stanleys.

Sure, counterfeit/homemade/imitation/blackmarket Morgan Stanleys can be produced... just like guns.
Unlike guns though, a fake Morgan Stanley will not be authenticated as real and be therefore not valuable.
To produce a counterfeit that would pass as authentic would likely cost more than it would be worth.
There is no demand for "Morgan Stanleys"... only "Authentic Morgan Stanley".

On the other hand... a homemade/imitation/blackmarket gun can be just effective as a legal factory gun.
Criminal demand for guns doesn't distinguish who made the gun, it's authenticity, or it's brand.
There are unlimited sources for weapons, people can make their own ammo, and nearly 300,000,000 exist.

Getting rid of weapons is tactically impossible, logistically impossible and constitutionally insurmountable.
Just deal with it and quit whining. We win - you lose... get used to it. :P

[rrneck]

53. The Morgan silver dollar is scarce.

Analogy fail.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/United_States_one_dollar_bill,_obverse.jpg

[spin]

79. I have a couple of Morgan silver dollars ...

and I don't collect coins.

Had them for years, my grand kids will inherit them.

The same thing will happen with my firearms. With moderate care they will be as functional 100 years from now as they are today and ammo (if properly stored) can also last a couple of lifetimes.

[ileus]

90. Morgans have went sky high, I've thought about selling all mine.

I could triple or more the price I paid for all mine. Of course I only have 25 or 30 total...

My BIL's sitting on 180 junk morgans waiting for the right time.

He sold 80 silver rounds a few months ago.

[S_B_Jackson]

103. Really?

I've got 5 of them....so do each of my siblings. presents from our grandparents.

[Atypical Liberal]

110. But dollars are still quite common.

The Morgan silver dollar is scarce. Why? Same principle. They stopped making them.

Of course, there were new dollars that served the same function that took its place.

[rrneck]

51. Then why don't you show in a red cape

the next time somebody is assaulted and save the day? Or better yet, why don't you have your ideology show up for you. I suppose it has a duty to protect the innocent.

[Hoyt]

29. Still no excuse to pack a gun in public -- openly or concealed.

I strongly agree with the posters above who said we need to make guns taboo -- especially in public, in my opinion -- not keep coming up with "scary" tales to make them as common as a fashion accessory.

[shadowrider]

30. If you aren't willing to personally guarantee my safety

And be personally responsible for monetary damages should something occur while you're guaranteeing my safety, then I'll pack.

I have for 20 years, and will continue.

[X_Digger]

33. Do you think the police should be legally responsible for your protection?

If not, by what moral precept would you deny my ability to protect myself while allowing the police to avoid such responsibility?

[shadowrider]

35. Dude, you're using logic on someone who's arguing from emotion

I kinda doubt you'll get a logical response, IF you get a response at all.

[Hoyt]

37. "Logic" with folks who feel the need to pack in public?

That is a waste of time.

[PavePusher]

39. It's not difficult.

I suggest you give it a try.

[Callisto32]

50. You deny the argument, based upon your emotions regarding the testator.

Fail.

[rrneck]

54. Try some Windex on that crystal ball. nt

[benEzra]

34. Then don't.

I disagree with your assessment, and I will choose differently. It is my right to choose, after all.

BTW, the "make responsible gun ownership taboo" approach was tried in the early '90s. How'd that work out for the party?

[Callisto32]

49. Except that pesky Second Amendment.

Oh, and the right to self-defense.

And the fact that you can't punish me for what I MIGHT do.

But, those excuses don't mean anything on the altar of the gun-control sacred cow.

[cowman]

56. It seems that

a majority of states disagree with you.

[MicaelS]

68. Those on the Left who are obssesd with disarming civlians

Blind themselves to an important fact. If civilians are disarmed, the only ones left with guns are law enforcement and the military. Both groups which are frequently accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic and fascist by those on the Left.

[SteveM]

70. Make something "taboo?" Like "assassin of youth" marihuana? sure. nt

[KansasVoter]

40. So as more people become armed and CCW our murder rate should drop way below..

England, Canada, Etc. I can't wait!!!

[X_Digger]

42. You seem to be the only one promulgating that straw man.

Why is that?

I mean, the overwhelming response when you asked that, was 'No.'

[KansasVoter]

44. LOL....because you don't want to be held responsible for being wrong!

[X_Digger]

47. Please continue to tell us what we really think, in contravention of what we say..

.. it's always worth a chuckle.

Did you get a special hat in the mind reading kit?

[one-eyed fat man]

55. There is a gun free paradise in Kansas.

No one except for the authorities is allowed a gun. Gun control is absolute!

According to you that should result in absolutely peaceful, crime free Utopia.

Murder, extortion, robbery, rape, drug use, or gang violence are not occurring in Lansing?

There are two more exclusive gun-free gated communities in Leavenworth county you could move to since you seem convinced that has more to do with crime than the temperament of the inhabitants.

[SteveM]

71. England's murder rate was low when firearms had few restrictions...

restrictions were enacted later because of fears the working class in England might arm themselves, if they hadn't already.

But you knew that, right?

[X_Digger]

87. *sniff* and we hardly knew him..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217544

[rl6214]

93. Two in one thread?

How awesome is that.

[Callisto32]

43. My first memory of a REAL police officer?

Well, that would be the asshat PA state trooper, one Mr. Reeves. My step-brother was a hellion and he came to the house, wanting to talk to him about some kind of vandalism that had occurred. When I told him he wasn't around, and no he couldn't come in to check (I may have been 13 but I wasn't stupid) he decided that it would be a great idea to kick our aluminum screen door so hard that it would break the sheet metal out from the frame and send a jagged piece of metal pointing into the entry door behind it.

My step-father was home, but asleep as he worked the night shift, and the impact woke him up and he came down stairs yelling something about trespassing and needing a warrant. The trooper cursed something under his breath and left.


We called the barracks directly and told them about what had happened. Two "officer" level troopers came out and took my (apparently worthless) 13 year old statement, and the statement of my step-father about what had happened. They asked him what happened, and he denied the happening, and (because the word of the police is just worth more, apparently) we were told that our story, and the dent in the door that matched the shape of the boot of the PA state troopers, didn't really matter, because he said it didn't happen.

A few years later, we were talking with an uncle of mine, and started to tell the story. He interrupted, "Reeves? Yeah, I had a run in with him on a traffic stop. He was completely unprofessional, and didn't treat me with respect until he saw my gov't papers. The uncle was/is a high-up admin at a federal penitentiary. He also complained, and nothing occurred, because (again) the cop said it didn't happen.

Trust them with my safety? They can't even handle internal discipline.

[Glassunion]

57. He he... You said dootee... Gigity!

[X_Digger]

64. *bump*

We've had some recent posts talking about how the police are there to protect you (the individual)..

thought I'd bring this one up again..

[Katya Mullethov]

67. Oh damn , August

I guess he did back the hell outta there !

[Hoyt]

73. Believe it or not -- one can protect themselves without a gun.

Heck, a women with her purse did it the other day with an armed man.

[Katya Mullethov]

74. She went Full Buzzi

Her screams of horror at her anticipated death were noteworthy to those not blinded by , by , something . Lesson ? Never go Full Buzzi .

[rl6214]

92. You can't even be honest enough to answer a simple question

that was not about guns but you made it about guns. You have got to answer questions with the least amount of honesty of anyone here, and that's saying a lot.

[PavePusher]

99. I think you replyed to the wrong person... n/t

[X_Digger]

75. Which is neither here nor there.

Care to actually address the OP?

[Hoyt]

76. I did address your OP -- by saying most of us can protect ourselves without a gun.

With all the statistics, etc., in your OP, the point is: "With a ratio like that, and response times like those, it's a practical necessity that the person most responsible for your safety is you"
And I posted that it is possible -- for 90+% of the population -- to protect themselves without a gun tucked down their pants.

[jeepnstein]

77. Makes no difference.

Arms are Constitutionally protected. Lawful citizens have every right to own them and to carry them for lawful purposes, including self defense. You are free to choose to go unarmed, as I do many times. I am free to choose that option. That's the way it should and for the most part does work.

[spin]

81. If you are facing a man with a gun who knows what he is doing at ten feet or more ...

you better be damn good at protecting yourself.

You can disarm a person fairly easily if he is stupid enough to be too close to you, but the difficultly increases with the distance.

For example please explain to me what you would have done to protect yourself at the school board meeting in Florida when Clay Duke decided to start shooting.

[X_Digger]

82. Did you not understand, or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Do you, in fact, agree that the person most responsible for your safety is yourself?

If so, then we can expand further to discuss the means- be it purses or guns.

[spin]

80. If you are talking about the lady in Florida who attacked the shooter in the school ...

board meeting, she would have been a lot more effective if she would have had a .38 S&W snub nosed revolver in the purse and used it.

The shooter just knocked her on her ass and said, "You stupid bitch!"

When she thought about what she had done, she had to agree with the stupid part.

Ref: "School Board Shooting Video Shows Heroic Woman Attack Gunman" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101215/tr_ac/7410242_school_board_shooting_video_shows_heroic_woman_attack_gunman

[X_Digger]

84. *bump* and more cases..

Thanks, Statistical, for digging these up..

South v. Maryland (1858)
Cocking v. Wade (1896)
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11611213653413829948&q=Davidson+v.+City+of+Westminster&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975)

The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Another quote:

"And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - The Monsignor.

[eqfan592]

91. I wish I could have this post as a sticky at the top of the forum...

...because it clears up what is possibly one of the largest misconceptions there are when it comes to this topic. "We don't need guns, that's what the police are for!" NO IT IS NOT! They are NOT there for your individual protection, because even if it weren't already a physical impossibility to accomplish this task, they have no legal obligation to do so.

[Bold Lib]

95. One of the classic answers to the age old "anti" question. Why do you carry a gun?

Because a cop is too heavy.

[TPaine7]

94. Bump

This is a great collection of cases, thanks X_Digger.

[jpak]

97. Pseudo-legalese GOP/NRA Crapahola

yup

[PavePusher]

98. Cite? n/t

[X_Digger]

100. So you can't refute any of it?

Poor jpak.

The truth stings, eh?

[eqfan592]

101. Hardly.

This is pretty solid stuff, jpak, if you actually read it.

[X_Digger]

102. Another recent case..

Thanks to LAGC for posting this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x426098

Gonzales v City of Bozeman

On the evening of April 3, 2005, Gonzales was the lone clerk at a Town Pump store on East Main Street in Bozeman, Montana. At 9:55 p.m. a man later identified as transient Jose Mario Gonzalez-Menjivar entered the store wearing a ski cap. He held a knife to Gonzales' throat and demanded money. Gonzales was able to surreptitiously dial 911 on her cell phone shortly after Menjivar entered the store but could not talk to anyone and never knew whether the call went through. In the meanwhile, Gonzales began removing money from the safe, which was limited by a security device to dispensing $100 every two or three minutes.
..
..
Meanwhile, Leah will no doubt be dumbfounded by the Court's decision. During the course of a robbery, she managed surreptitiously to call 911. The call went through, the dispatchers ascertained what was occurring and where, and the police were sent to Leah's location. Upon arriving, they established a perimeter around the Town Pump, determined that the door was unlocked, and observed two individuals inside. They ascertained that one of the individuals (Menjivar) was directing the other individual (Leah). When the call from Leah's cell phone was dropped, the dispatchers established a connection on the store's land line. They told the officers that the male (Menjivar) was "threatening" the female (Leah) and that she was "crying" and "very frightened." The police saw Menjivar and Leah enter the restroom, where it turns out Leah was then raped. They arrested Menjivar when he left the store of his own volition. They then threatened Leah with a dog, at which point she exited the store, barefoot and wearing her Town Pump apron. They forced her to the ground and handcuffed her—although she was six months pregnant and one of the officers had recognized who she was.

Leah claims the officers acted negligently and unreasonably, but the Court holds that the officers owed her no duty to exercise reasonable care when they responded to her distress call. The Court explains that because the officers owed all members of the public a duty to protect and preserve the peace, they did not owe this duty to any members of the public. Opinion, ¶ 20. If Leah is confused by this, I, for one, do not blame her. Indeed, the Court's decision makes no sense. We have now ruled, as a matter of law, that when the police respond to a crime in progress, they have no duty to protect the victim of the crime because they have a duty to protect everybody. Thus, the victim is simultaneously entitled and not entitled to reasonable police protection. We have also ruled, as a matter of law, that regardless of expert evidence that the police breached the appropriate standard of care, they are nonetheless immune from liability for such breach.

[Logical]

105. Very informative post! Thank you! n-t

[X_Digger]

106. *bump* n/t

[DonP]

114. Wow, a whole lotta folks no longer with us!

I had forgotten about this thread.

I recall being told that we were being "stupid" and "ridiculous" thinking the police didn't have "a duty to protect", after all it said so on the side of their cars, didn't it?

It seemed a very uncomfortable fact of life for many of them. I had noticed some of them weren't posting here much/at all, but I didn't know so many had been TS'd.

I guess with the way the laws are going for the gun control folks frustration sets in, the invective gets a lot more hostile, more posts are deleted and eventually they step over a line the Mods have set one too many times and Buh Bye?

[iverglas]

117. palmtreeguy, jazzhound, cowman ...

What's that, a tie in this thread?

One of the others in particular was a long-time valuable contributor to the site as a whole who rarely wasted time in this forum. I might guess self-deletion out of being fed up in that case, myself.

I guess that having been ambushed by this old piece of crud, I should go revivify some of my favourite threads and take that overdue stroll down tombstone lane. For every one you find, I'll raise you 20.

[ileus]

107. Excellent post thanks for bumping this back up.

[Kennah]

115. The numbers are probably far worse than a 1 to 1,476 ratio

7 x 24 = 168 hours per week

If cops worked 42 hours each, with no overlap at all between shifts (Officer Bob goes off duty at 7 AM, Officer Sue goes on duty at 7 AM), there would be 4 shifts. I've heard of some agencies with 5 or 6 shifts.

Anecdotally, I've heard that one can approximately expect 10 percent of a local city PDs overall strength is actually on patrol at any one time. If there are two officers and one sergeant working patrol, I would expect there is probably a lieutenant or captain also working at that time, but probably not doing actual patrol work. In larger departments, with more officers on patrol, one could add in a couple of commanders, assistant chiefs, etc. also working, but not on patrol.

Of that 700K, there are a lot of state troopers (who tend to work the highways and executive protection), state investigative agencies with no patrol duties at all (Texas Rangers, GBI, etc.), and federal LE who again have no patrol duties, or incredibly limited patrol duties (like U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, etc.)

In rural areas, there might not actually be ANYONE on patrol at certain times. A dispatcher might call the cell phone for Officer Jones, and if it's 2 AM, wake him/her up out of bed, to get dressed, and go out on a call.

[iverglas]

116. reduce, reuse, recycle

Well, you rejected "reduce" and went for reuse and recycle. If we were to do a search of this forum for all that same blah blah, how many instances would we find? Let's see ...

"democratic underground" guns "Jessica Gonzales"
82 results (including duplicates)


compare and contrast:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x91769

iverglas
Tue Nov-02-04 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. for anyone interested

(and anyone who isn't, just feel free to say so)

I've mentioned the "Jane Doe" case in Toronto occasionally. Here's an interesting column about the aftermath of the case:
http://www.casac.ca/issues/janedoe.htm
(Michelle Landsberg is married to Stephen Lewis, the former leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party and current leading international AIDS Africa activist.)

Here's a summary of the case and decision:
http://www.sgmlaw.com/libr/index.asp?action=show&inhalt=case&area_id=2#case19

In 1986, Jane Doe was raped at knife-point by a stranger who broke into her apartment, from her balcony, while she was sleeping. In the seven months prior to the attack, four other women in her neighbourhood had reported to the police that they had been raped by a stranger in similar circumstances. The police were slow to link the assaults and did not devoted adequate resources to the investigation. Once they determined that a serial rapist was at large, they did not warn the women at risk.

... Represented at trial by Sean Dewart and Cynthia Petersen, Jane Doe sued the Board of Commissioners for the Metro Toronto Police on three separate grounds: negligence, a violation of her Charter equality rights, and an infringement of her Charter right to security of the person. On July 3, 1998, Madam Justice MacFarland ruled in her favour on all three counts.

The Judge held that the police owed a duty of care to the women in Jane Doe's neighbourhood and that they failed "utterly" in their duty to protect these women. She concluded that the police investigation of the so-called "balcony rapist" was "irresponsible and grossly negligent".

The Judge also accepted Jane Doe's argument that the reason for the shoddy investigation was that the police did not take the crime of sexual assault seriously. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the police were aware of long-standing systemic problems in the way that they investigate rape, yet no genuine efforts had been made to correct the situation. The problems stemmed from the fact that the police were motivated by rape myths and sexist stereotypes about women, which impeded their investigations. Sexist thinking also informed the police investigators' decision not to warn the women in Jane Doe's neighbourhood about the "balcony rapist". They believed that, if warned, women would panic and become hysterical, so they deliberately withheld information that could have empowered women to take appropriate measures to protect themselves.

While the police obviously cannot be held to have a duty to do the impossible, they surely have a duty not to deny the equal protection of the law -- to make equivalent efforts to protect everyone to the same level (recognizing that some people, like children, need more protection than others in order to reach that level) -- even under that weaker provision of the US Constitution (i.e. in the absence of the broader "equal benefit" of the law, the requirement that the "fundamental principles of justice" and not just due process be followed, and the tough and express equality provisions, in the Cdn Constitution).

If police respond differently to criminal offences in "domestic" situations (i.e. situations in which women and children, who commonly need more protection in order to be safe to the level of others in the community, are overwhelmingly the victims) than to similar non-"domestic" offences in which the "life, liberty and property of citizens" are being "invaded by private actors" --

Jessica Gonzales alleges that, when Simon Gonzales abducted the three children from her front yard, she repeatedly asked the police to bring the children back, but they would not act.

-- surely they are denying the equal protection of the law and should be held liable for their (in)actions.

I guess one gets the laws and police and legal system and courts and judges one wants.

I wouldn't want yours, but it's a matter of choice, eh? I do know that I sure as hell wouldn't be using the failure of any of those players to perform their actual duties to the most minimal standard as a lever for shoving an agenda that is actually contrary to the interests of the people actually affected.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. As you said, "it's a matter of choice"- Ours, not yours.

You also said something else that bears examining. I've taken the liberty of adding three words that you seem to have left out:

I do know that I sure as hell wouldn't be using the failure of any of those players to perform their actual duties to the most minimal standard as a lever for shoving an agenda that is in my estimation actually contrary to the interests of the people actually affected.

And if those "shoving an agenda" feel it is in the interest of those actually affected? What if some of them ARE the
"people actually affected"?

[iverglas]

120. And if those "shoving an agenda"

... feel it is in the interest of those actually affected?

:rofl:

Sorry. Does that answer your question?

What if some of them ARE the "people actually affected"?

Well, if what they advocate/do is contrary to the interests of the large body of people who are vulnerable/at risk, demonstrably and in the opinion of large numbers of those individuals and their representative organizations, ... I guess those people you refer to are free to argue their case.

Me, I'll listen to the ones who aren't selling their souls to the right wing, haven't been co-opted by the right wing, haven't been duped by the right wing, have a track record of acting out of genuine concern for the people in question and commitment to opposing the right wing, ... that kinda thing.