Who Will Protect You?
Answer: You will. The Supreme Court recently ruled that neither the Police nor the State are obligated to protect citizens. This is not the first time decisions like this have been made. The fact is the police have no obligation and, indeed, are ill-equipped to protect citizens. Their job is to investigate and solve crimes as well as provide assistance to victims of crime. They are civilians, but have a few more rights than the average person (I won’t get into the argument for or against more police power: suffice it to say I don’t want to live in a police state).
Here are some details on what happened in this case:
In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters’ abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed “suicide by cop.” He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon’s pickup truck.
Gonzales sued on the basis that her 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court did not believe that her suit was legitimate. The position of the court, in regards to Colorado’s duty to enforce restraining orders, reads as such:
Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute’s direction to “use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or even to “arrest . . . or . . . seek a warrant.” A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that—despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated—the violation’s circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance.
Basically, Colorado police have no obligation or mandate to enforce restraining orders if, in their discretion, enforcement isn’t erquired. In a related case, the Supreme Court stated the following regarding the right to expect protection from the State:
A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.
The Supreme Court’s ruling basically meant that Gonzales could not proceed with her suit against the town/state. The underlying and all too clear meaning is that the Police have no obligation to protect you from harm. So the next time someone tells you that private gun ownership is unnecessary because we can rely on the police to protect us, make sure you point them to the Supreme Court’s rulings and prove them wrong. Self defense is a basic human right, so don’t let anyone take it from you.
Or, as the quote goes, you could call an ambulance, a police officer and a pizza delivery place and see who shows up first (hint: I hope you’re hungry).
Just for balance, here is the town of Castle Rock’s statement. Also, you can read the full text of the ruling here.
