The Supreme Court has ruled

[China_cat]

that a woman with a restraining order has no RIGHT to police protection if they don't feel like coming to the scene.

Decided on a case where the police blew off 6 calls from a woman with a TRO against her abusive ex when he took their kids. He killed the kids, she gets told she shouldn't have expected help.

[Squatch]

1. Police are not bodyguards

unless the person they are protecting is under their custody, in which case they are responsible for his or her health.

[China_cat]

4. That's exactly what a restraining order is

a protective document that says the offender MUST be taken into custody when they defy it.

This woman called the police -6- times. The man not only broke the restraining order, he took the kids. Which he wasn't supposed to do. Then he KILLED them.

And you're saying she had no right to expect help? That's sick.

[Squatch]

7. The police are under no obligation to protect individuals

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol.

[mikelgb]

37. yeah

"we're making too much revenue on traffic tickets to help you"

[AX10]

39. There are 850,000 officers, first of all. Second, the police...

do not have to come to your house when you are being assaulted (restraining order is a legally binding letter that forbids said person from entering a premisis) but they can Taser (torture) you for acting too slowly on orders from a cop?!? :wtf:?

:argh:

[Squatch]

55. A person intent on doing something illegal cares not for which laws

they are breaking.

Crook: "Ooh! You have a restraining order, which is a legally binding letter that forbids me from entering the premesis? Damn, I'll get you next time, when you don't have your precious TRO to save you!!!"

Get a grip.

[LightningFlash]

80. You get a grip.

Fascism like tasering people is against the law and should be reprimanded period. And for christs sake, they need to do something about abuse. It is against the law to abuse and kill children, now what the fuck does the supreme court say when it rules against it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. "No obligation to protect people"???? I guess all of those comments...

...like "protect the people" and "protect and serve" are just nonsense, right?

You stated that you can't count on a policeman responding to a "911" call, is that correct?

How about an ambulance, or fire-fighting vehicle, or a rescue squad vehicle...do you think they can get away from their obligation to respond to an emergency?

This was a miserable ruling, IMHO.

[K-W]

15. Making it illegal to do something doesnt garuntee protection,

it simply garuntees that if the person violates the order they will have broken the law.

These orders set up legal guidlines they dont promise bodyguards.

[China_cat]

18. No one is saying this woman

or ANY woman is asking for a bodyguard. Just that the police take action when the law has been broken. He broke the law, she reported it. He killed the kids. She got told in effect 'so what?'

Since everyone here seems to feel that the police are under no obligation to take action when a crime has been committed then I guess I'm under no obligation to pay my part of the taxes that goes to support them.

Let's see how well that will fly.

[Squatch]

19. Look at that hyperbole fly!

This is the problem: You have an unrealistic idea of what the police are obliged to do, and that is very dangerous.

Instead of bemoaning the obvious lack of any sort of worth a TRO has, think about protecting yourself.

[China_cat]

20. I am

that's why I will no longer pay the police to do nothing. I will need the money for arms, ammunition and hardening perimeters.

Pit bulls are expensive, too. Especially the ones that really like to eat people.

[Squatch]

21. Ah, yes, I can see you have nothing more to offer this

conversation other than wild hyperbole.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

54. Or, are you so socially crippled that you rely on the state for

everything?

The woman erred in not taking measures to protect herself and in assuming that a TRO would do anything.

[passy]

70. Are you in a militia or something?

The point is not that the police are supposed to be bodyguards it is that they are there as a deterrent, that their presence is supposed to stop you from considering committing a crime.
Now if they had responded to any of these six calls they could have been a deterrent in so much as the man could have realized the seriousness of his actions.
As for measures to protect herself you seem to reason with an outdated, almost barbarian logic.
Her easiest solution would therefore have been, if we apply that logic to preemptively defend herself by killing him.
If I understand you wrong please let me know.

[Squatch]

72. Definitely wrong

Where I have specified the actual means of protection?

She should have done something...realizing, possibly after the first of six calls, that the TRO was USELESS.

Leave the state. Get a dog. Buy a baseball bat. Anything.

She did nothing but rely on the "protection" of a TRO.

The thing about that is, a TRO is only enforceable AFTER it's been violated.

Oh, and I am not in the militia, nor do I rely on the protection of others.

[passy]

79. Specify no implied yes.

In any case you seem to imply also that she is a victim of her own weak will.
Now that is a weak argument to make.
You could apply it to every single crime or accident, quite simply if the victim hadn't been there, there wouldn't be any victim.
Well applying some logic along the same lines I think we should blame her parents for bringing her to the world.
I think that you've reached the bottom of your argument, so please give up and simply admit that the police wasn't doing its job, which is to prevent crime and act as a deterrent.

[LightningFlash]

81. Yes, his logic is bullshit.

But the problem with a restraining order is it is not legally enforceable for these situations. She should have simply called the cops and filed a police report for attempted murder and other charges, and after the fact filed a full report.

Instead she tried to rely on a restraining order. That is not how our law system works, unfortunately. Also she needs to consult a counsel immediately rather than putting herself in harms's way.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. What's the point in getting a restraining order issued if it's not,....

....legally enforceable? That doesn't make bit of sense, IMHO.

[DistressedAmerican]

87. IT WAS VIOLATED!!! SHE CALLED 6 TIMES.

They may not be 24 hour body guards as you say. But when someone has broken that order you should be able to expect ENFORCEMENT of that order. Her's was NOT ENFORCED!

Your assessment of this is way, way off. She never asked for a guard. She asked for a response to someone breaking the legally obtained and binding order and repeatedly got none. She had every resaon to believe that if the order was violated, and she notified the authorities that they WOULD ENFORCE the law.

Suggesting that she should have to move or get dogs or something because the police REFUSE TO ENFORCE the order is just plain rediculous. Why even have the restraing order option, if noone can be expected to ENFORCE it?

I seriously wonder about your posts on this matter. Way off base!

[dogday]

23. Now you see why Women take it...

People always say, well she doesn't have to take it.. Well no she doesn't if she does not mind getting the crap seriously beat out of her as opposed to minimal beatings or just getting killed period.

Ever been to an accident scene? Ever see too many police standing around with their fingers up their ass? Ever seen the police harassing people for no reason or stopping people for no reason. All these police and not a one could help a person from getting beat up.

[zinndependence]

74. the most dangerous time IS after she's left...

Domestic violence is about control....I'm so sick of people saying, "why doesn't she just leave?" Wait a minute.....did she break the law?!? No, he did. He should have to leave. Why should she completely disrupt her lie (and possibly her kids) to move? Leaving is assuming that she has money, a car, a place to go....

Statistically, the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is after she has left....and she's probably tried to leave many times. Again, since control is the issue, he is probably going to stalk her, threaten her...make her life a living hell until she either comes back...or, he'll kill her.

Women stay in abusive relationships for many reasons. These relationships have been compared to pow situations and concentration camp situations. These women don't have the psychological or physical strength to leave...they have been broken down....it is learned helplessness.

like I said, I'll keep this short. I'll shut up now.

[mikelgb]

38. yeah

she should have kept a handy gun or two in the house...

[Squatch]

52. No, she should have realized that a TRO would not protect her

and taken measures to ensure her own safety.

[tsuki]

75. If you protect yourself, they get you for being a vigilante.

[Squatch]

77. So, what would you rather have?

Being dead or living to have your day in court?

How's the saying go? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. (not that she should have killed anybody...but she should have done something besides rely on the TRO)

[Tux]

78. Or

Privatize the police. What else would libertarians do?

[K-W]

22. You are making a deceptive argument.

The police certainly do have a responsibility to enforce the law, that is not the issue. And you have every right to hold your government accountable for not doing its job, but that doesnt make the police criminally or civially liable for the result of an unenforced crime.

[zinndependence]

73. what?!?!?I thought their job was to protect and to serve?

Why even waste your time getting a restraining order if you know the police aren't going to enforce it. I'm sorry, but this is total bullshit! I going to restrain myself and not go off on a multi-page rant here...but I thought this was the 21st century...a man DOES NOT have a right to terrorize his wife, ex-wife, girlfriend, whatever...If this was a man fucking with some stranger, the police would have been right on it, but since the bastard was terrorizing his ex and their kids...well, that's ok.

If you really want to understand this issue, watch the documentary, "Defending Our Lives." I saw it in a college law class. I'll never forget it.

[atommom]

2. What an outrage! Why do we have TROs and a police force, then?

[Double T]

3. Restraining Orders Are Not Worth The Paper They Are Printed On......

and you can NOT expect the police to stand guard to enforce a restraining order, that is Not their job.

[China_cat]

6. It IS their job to come

when called about the violation of a restraining order.

[Squatch]

8. No, it is not.

And the USC just affirmed that.

TROs are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

[China_cat]

11. So you are saying that the police

have no obligation to come when you report a crime? Which is what violation of a TRO is.

I hope you remember that the next time you get mugged and try to get police help.

[Squatch]

12. That is correct. The police have no obligation to protect me, an

individual.

"I hope you remember that the next time you get mugged and try to get police help."

I have "remembered that" and have taken steps to protect myself, having realized that nobody else will.

When you get a chance, here are 16 cases that support the USC's decision:

Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).

[smoogatz]

46. Hold on there, Hoss.

Here's a hypothetical for you: Let's say a guy with an axe is breaking into your house at 3:00 a.m. You're away on business. Your wife calls the cops. Your wife and kids barricade themselves in one of the bedrooms. The cops decide they're too busy playing pinochle down at the station to drive out to your house and arrest the guy with the axe--something you say they're not obligated to do. Guy with axe kills your wife and kids, and eats their livers with some fava beans and a nice chianti. But you have no beef with the cops, because they're understaffed and not obliged to protect individuals. Right?

[Squatch]

51. I didn't say it...

"something you say they're not obligated to do"

The courts have said it.

[yankeedem]

56. Then what do we need cops for, exactly?

nt

[dogday]

24. But if two men were fighting in a bar

would it then become their job to come to that fight?

[Double T]

13. I would agree, but like everything else their are THOSE INDIVIDUALS....

with restraining orders against Mr. or Ms. Foe that also abuse the restraining order and drive the police nuts calling for enforcement action every single day, in essence crying WOLF without taking some self responsibility to deal with their own situation. A restraining order should NOT be used as a weapon of revenge.

[China_cat]

14. I guess the 3 dead kids

are evidence that the restraining order was a weapon of revenge?

[Double T]

16. This is a severe case, I would dare say this situation contained a long...

history of physical abuse and this woman should have removed her children and herself from this ongoing threat by relocating to another area. There is a significant amount of help for woman and children in this situation.

[China_cat]

17. No there's not.

Even today. And especially not when your last name is Gonzales.

Even worse? She had to learn about her children's deaths from her ex's girlfriend. The police didn't even get back to her to let her know the kids were dead.

[Double T]

25. If we are going to debate, we need to know the facts.........

This case, Castle Rock vs. Gonzales relates to a case between the Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department and Jessica Gonzales. The restraining order Jessica Gonzales had against her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, was later amended to allow Simon to have dinner visits with their children. From the record, the police DID RESPOND and went to both Simon Gonzales home and Jessica Gonzales home in search of the children and to obtain information in an attempt to find the girls. Jessica Gonzales was able to reach Simon Gonzales on his cell phone and learned that the girls were with him at an amusement park some forty (40) miles north of Jessica's home. After reading the transcript, I believe the police did everything possible, under the law, to find the children. There are additional circumstances and events that were not covered by the GMA MSM news outlet, probably to provide more sensationalism to this story. There is no question Simon Gonzales snapped, but I can't help but think that Jessica might have some responsibility for making the situation worse than was necessary. Regardless, the whole mess is very tragic with innocent children being killed over their parents feuding.
The Castle Rock, Colorado Police Department did everything they possibly could do in these circumstances.

[China_cat]

26. There was no evidence that he really

was at the amusement park, only his word. And that of his girlfriend. When the children were found, the police did not inform their mother. The ex husband's girlfriend did that.

I still say it would have been different if her name was not Gonzales.

[Squatch]

27. Actually, that's the first time you've said that in this thread

"I still say it would have been different if her name was not Gonzales."

What are you saying here?

[China_cat]

29. That the same reason

pretty white girls going missing get law enforcement attention and media coverage and missing brown skinned, non-European named children don't.

[Squatch]

31. Care to back that up with something besides unsubstatiated

claims of racism?

[11 Bravo]

32. Have you had access to a newspaper or cable news in the last few months?

You might have encountered some substantiation of the allegation therein.

[Squatch]

33. Reading the newspaper is not substantiation

Can the person I asked provide results of studies that have been done showing what he/she alleges?

[11 Bravo]

34. We need more contrarians around here.

I'm curious, are you aware that while Congress was getting involved in the Schiavo case, a youngster of color in Houston had his plug pulled against the wishes of his mother? Is it your contention that since the "Runaway Bride" and the unfortunate young woman in Aruba went missing, not one person of color has also disappeared? Do you believe that it is mere coincidence that the cases which have monopolized our news ad infinitum have all involved attractive, young, Caucasians? I would submit that substantiation of the poster's views are there for anyone who wishes to see them.

[Deja Q]

5. Link?

[China_cat]

9. Can't find one at the moment

Was on GMA this morning. Woman was Jessica Gonzales. She called 6 times trying to get the police to do something about the violation of the restraining order and the fact that the abusive ex took her children.

He KILLED all 3 kids while the police blew her off. Their defense is that they say she didn't 'sound worried enough' about the safety of the children.

[Squatch]

10. Check out FindLaw.com

[Jack Rabbit]

28. What were the facts of the case?

From what state did the case arise?

It's possible that the Court ruled that the federal government cannot compel a state or a local jurisdiction to provide the woman with police protection. At least that would be a defensible ruling.

The lady has a legitimate grievance. The best way to redress the grievance would be to change state and local laws and provide better funding for police departments so that law enforcement officers aren't stretched so thin.

[NorthernSpy]

47. I really must object to this...

The lady has a legitimate grievance. The best way to redress the grievance would be to change state and local laws and provide better funding for police departments so that law enforcement officers aren't stretched so thin.

No.

No.

Why is it that whenever public employees deliberately shirk their duties -- and disaster predictably follows -- some people try to convince us that "the real answer" is to punish the lazy and incompetent with bigger salaries and less work?

:eyes:

[ck4829]

30. If that is so, then the woman had a right to a firearm

This guy later killed her children BTW.

[slackmaster]

44. Everyone has the right to a firearm

Except those who are prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended by the 1994 federal Crime Bill.

[China_cat]

49. And those who are trying to

raise 3 children on a WalMart salary. What do you buy, bullets or (ground) beef?

[slackmaster]

71. That's exactly why I oppose bans on inexpensive handguns

They discriminate against poor people.

[Senior citizen]

35. This is America. Property comes before people.

I've often thought of the police as working for the insurance companies, since you can't get insurance compensation for a burglary unless you make a police report. They don't seem to look for the perps in most cases, just take the report.

As several people have noted, restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Now if they were printed on Kevlar, they might be of some actual use.

If not for the fact that there's so little oversight and there have been so many cases of children being molested while in foster care, I'd suggest that children be removed from homes where the parents are feuding. Unfortunately, with the present system, there's no guarantee that they'd be any safer elsewhere.

IMO, all patriarchal societies are dysfunctional. Even where females are no longer considered to be property, children still are. I am able to distinguish between a piece of property and a human being, so why can't the law do the same? But the trade-off between freedom and security is a biggie. In countries where females have no freedom, they supposedly have a bit more security, but in fact the danger to females and children from male violence is actually about the same.

The real problem is economic. Most people simply can't afford to pick up and move, particularly when they have kids. Often, it was economic necessity that got them into a dangerous situation in the first place. I'd be interested to see the statistics on domestic violence in countries that have more pay parity than we do, and have guaranteed basic incomes for single parents and the unemployed. My guess is that when governments guarantee even a minimal survival income, survival rates improve.

[Jack_DeLeon]

36. Police are pretty much useless....

most of thier time is spent dicking around with stuff after the fact.

If you want protection better buy yourself a gun.

In the end your are ultimately the one who is responsible for your own protection.

[AX10]

40. I support gun ownership. But why do the police get such a huge...

compensation package if they are not doing their job. Yes, their job is dangerous (in certain areas more so than others) but part of their job is to PROTECT and SERVE the public! :wtf: is this about? The police should have come to the woman's rescue! This is such B.S!

[NorthernSpy]

41. why should a government that accepts no duty to protect you...

... still have the authority to disarm you so that you can't protect yourself?

:think:

[Debbi801]

42. Doesn't surprise me, I've seen this first hand...

My ex-husband is horribly abusive. His current wife got a restraining order out against him in October, two actually--one protecting her and one for her child. The judge issuing the restraining order took the abuse seriously enough that he issues the restraining orders for the maximum period of time, 1 year. I was at the hearing as a witness to testify that he had a long history of this. He has violated the restraining order more times than I can even count. I've seen him violate it. The police get called, they give him a slap on the wrist and tell him basically to be a good boy and go home, he is not supposed to be there. The courts don't care, the police don't care. And then one someone is killed, nothing changes. And people wonder why so many victims stay with their abusers. No one is there to protect the victims.

It pisses me off to no end.

Debbi

[AX10]

45. and the woman in Florida was tasered twice for having a "big mouth"

Go figure. I guess the police are just buerecrats.

[nolabels]

48. So then is there an obvious question do we, the public, need police?

All of them elite money grippers, billionaires and other assorted sundries need police to protect their financial interest mostly. Protection of the publics safety is now playing second fiddle in the current way the law is being written and interpreted.

I wouldn't of expected much less from intellectually challenged bag of old geezers btw

The insulated pig sty they call the SCOTUS is only as good as the swill that flows in there

[ananda]

50. no help for poor women in real danger, but..

.. plenty of police protection and bodyguards for white male politicians who put out a restraining order on terrorists, Democrats, demonstrators, protestors, and activists.

Sue

[Selatius]

53. If she owned a gun, at least she would've had a fighting chance

The police are nice to have, but when someone is trying to smash your door down and slaughter your whole family, you do not have the luxury of waiting 5 to 10 minutes for the police or never if they are not going to come help you. You've got to defend your home and family NOW, not later, NOW.

[yankeedem]

58. An old friend of mine

used to say "the only reason I'm going to call a cop is to say come get the dead body out of my house".

[China_cat]

63. Which the will probably do.

Except if you happen to have been married or still are married but not living with what is now a dead body in your house.

[anarch]

59. that's something that's always baffled me...

on the one hand, the police have no legal obligation to protect anybody...on the other hand, in many places your means of self-protection (especially with firearms) are severely curtailed.

I don't get it...although (puttin' on the tinfoil now) abridging the peoples' right to keep and bear arms, in conjunction with the fact that there is no right to protection from harm provided by the police, could be a key factor in keeping people in a constant state of fear or something...meh, I don't know.

[Squatch]

61. Especially in the city where you live...

D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the following was found in the text: "Carrying a handgun in the District is prohibited. All firearms are to be kept at ones home or place of business." (Title 7, Subt. J, Ch. 25, ) Requires the registration of all firearms that are owned by private citizens.) ( 7-2502.02.) Registration of certain firearms prohibited. (a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a: (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976)

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/washington+dc

[anarch]

62. yep...long guns only

and, by law, you are supposed to keep your firearm disassembled or locked up in your home. So, if someone breaks in to murder you, I guess you could hit them with the barrel?

[MsTryska]

57. Actually what they ruled was

that the Supremes have NO business even taking on a case like this, and that it is to be dealt with on the State level.

States rights people, states rights.

[Branjor]

60. Weird......

They have "no obligation" to protect and serve but "protect and serve" is printed on all Chicago police cars.

[MsTryska]

64. The Supremes don't....

nor does the Federal Government - you're state government does.


what's wierd to me is that the Supremes will abide by States Rights in this case, but not when it come to marijuana.

[Zodiak]

65. Get a gun..that's the message

This Supreme Court ruling is the best argument for guns I have ever heard. If we do not have a right to police protection, then we HAVE to take it into our own hands to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sad, really. I want to be "liberal" on this issue, but the government makes it impossible for me to trust that the laws will be enforced near my home.

And this is also a good explanation why the cops blow off practically all calls to this neighborhood (we have no right to protection). They only respond, it seems, when white people are involved. If a black man is beating his wife in the streets in my complex, the cops don't even show up (I know because I have called, numerous times).

Justice by negligence.

[Bravo411]

67. I agree ...

Restraining orders are worthless in the sense that the police have to actually be there when they're violated, which won't happen unless you've got a cop watching you at all times. But if you choose to get a gun to protect yourself, then it would definitely help in court to have one on file.

Also, learn how to shoot and hit your target. You don't want any innocent people killed by mistake. I'd also recommend a small caliber weapon, 32cal is good. There's less of a chance that you'll kill the person, which creates big problems for you if you do. If you shoot somebody and injure or seriously injure them, it will give you enough time to get away and you wont have murder or manslaughter charges brought against you. Plus they'll have to go to the hospital and Doctors are required by law to report gunshot wounds.

[Zodiak]

68. Rant...to get it off my chest

Sounds like good advice. I have been against having a personal gun for years (although I am not against them per se), but this decision is making me ask my step-dad if he is willing to let go of that shotgun he always said I would get when he upgraded.

I am not leaving my wife home alone every day in a neighborhood where the cops will not come when called. It is that way here...they see my complex and (well, I don;t REALLY know what they are thinking) think "Mexicans and Blacks...screw it".

Sorry....I've just had my hide chapped by this issue. I realize I am white and didn't know better and all, but I REALLY thought the cops would come if you called no matter where you live (I live in a poor apt. complex in Columbus, OH...grad student so I have limited income). I already felt sorry for the minorities in this country, but now I understand even better. No wonder why there are so many gun shops in poor neighborhoods. The cops treat the neighborhood like a jungle rather than a place where people live.

And the Supreme Court just said "go on neglecting...it's A-OK"

This goes further than restraining orders.

[Greyhound]

66. To Serve (the rich), and Protect (the status quo)

is a slogan from a television show. The job of the police is to police.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=police&x=0&y=0

The concept of a police force is, historically, very new and is still being defined.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_069700_policeforces.htm
Police have always had the duty to attempt to stop a crime in progress, but their primary role is to come along after the crime has been committed, clean up the mess and, when possible, assign blame. They are (were) not a domestic military power, for the same reason the Legions were not allowed to enter Rome. They help maintain order, but can do so effectively, only with the help and consent of the local community.

So, the issue comes down to what kind of society you want to live in.
A large part of what was America, was due to an informal attitude toward crime in general and especially domestic conflicts. Crimes are handled locally, by locals, pretty much any way they wanted to. Of course, there are a great many negative consequences to this attitude, many of them documented in this thread.

The alternative is not much better. It is a police state. It is Amerika. If the police have a duty to protect you from crimes, we have to give them the power to preempt crimes, to arrest someone before they've committed a crime because someone in authority believes a crime will be committed.

I feel sorry for the loss of the children, but I've yet to meet someone in an abusive relationship that had no part in creating the situation. People make their own decisions and must live their own lives. Are we, as a people, so afraid and unwilling to accept responsibility for our decisions, that we will surrender our hard-won freedoms to a totalitarian government? So far it looks like we will.

[China_cat]

69. This is just what I'd expect;

"but I've yet to meet someone in an abusive relationship that had no part in creating the situation"

Oh yes, being there is part of creating the situation. But you don't know that until the jp pronounces you married and he turns to you and says "your mine now, bought and paid for" and your life turns to hell.

The most dangerous time for a woman trying to get out is when she actually does leave. She or her children are most likely to die then. But, of course, that's all her fault too, right?

[zinndependence]

76. are you serious?!?!?

If you are, you are incredibly lucky. Look, nobody has a right to lay a hand on another human being! I'm sick of the bullshit argument..."she must have done something to provoke him..." We all know people who are a pain in the ass....get away from them then! You don't have to smack them around or kill them!!!

[LightningFlash]

83. You do in a fascist country.

In a post modern era like this, survival of the fittests is always the repetoire. Before this time even happened, I have been chased before by a man with a gun and basically had to physically dislodge him. Cops simply blamed me for being on "drugs" and whatever else you call that bullshit.

It is indeed, a land where survival of the fittest is upheld. That is what you're dealing with. And if you want to take the country back from fascism, you must first recognize it and work with full unified protection and duty to overthrow the corrupt and hold power to all accountability. Even if it requires severe penalties.

[Vladimir]

82. Oh goodie, lets all blame the victim

this is fun fun fun game all the family can play!

[LightningFlash]

84. Sick, isn't it? Many on the right and far left do just that. n/t