FIRST EVER - ACLU going to int'l court after SCOTUS stonewalling.

[rucky]

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/010106First...

First Ever Domestic Violence Claim Filed
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Jessica Gonzales, the mother of three girls killed by her estranged husband whose domestic violence protection claims were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition, the first of its kind, asserts that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abusers.

In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Gonzales when it found that the Constitution does not recognize an entitlement by domestic violence victims to enforcement of their protective orders.

"Jessica Gonzales' quest for justice met a dead end at the U.S. Supreme Court," said Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, an attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "She suffered devastating harm as a result of police inaction and if the U.S. Supreme Court won't hear her case on the merits, we will bring it to the international community. The police department's failure to protect the lives of Jessica's three young daughters should be internationally condemned."

...

The petition in Gonzales v. USA is available online at:
www.aclu.org/womensrights/gen/23227lgl20051223.html

More information about Jessica Gonzales' Supreme Court case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/20919res2005021504278/20919res... 1-1-06

[hlthe2b]

1. I remember this tragic Colorado case well....

I was SO angry when SCOTUS gave their misogynistic decision. This was a travesty of justice and I'm proud of ACLU for taking this bold step though I don't hold much hope of it impacting much. I fear we have already lost our democracy.

[Fridays Child]

3. Soon, the SCOTUS will force women to bear the children...

...it refuses to protect. :mad:

[thefool_wa]

8. Wow

That is one of the strongest condemnations I have ever heard. I wish it were not true.

[Fridays Child]

14. Me, too.

:(

[Straight Shooter]

2. If only the abortion outrage were redirected towards domestic violence.

Too many Americans have their priorities all screwed up.

[ThomWV]

4. Can We Step To The Side For A Moment?

I think this case shows us something that we ignore to our peril.

Notice the SOTUS decision does not say what should or should not be, only what law exists and what does not.

In some cases a decision by the Supreme Court does more than tell us what can and can not be done. Sometimes the decision is a message to legislators that says here is a hole in the law. I think that may have been the case here. The court seems to say not that the lady is undeserving of legal protection, only that it is not available under current law. In theory this would lead to an outraged populace who would then demand that their representatives, particularly those well versed in the law, to fill the gap and write legislation consistent with the Constitution that would extend the law to its expected and desired purpose.

Could be.

[Fridays Child]

7. In that regard, here's a WaPo article on the SCOTUS decision...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700580.html

[rucky]

13. "These guys are called upon to make judgment calls...."

That right there opens the door to the anti-woman bias and violation of equal protection.

This is all based on some fear that if police actually acted to protect women from domestic violence, they would be overwhelmed with calls - some more important than others. So their policy is "faith-based" - not knowing how serious the victim or perp was until after the fact.

What if police responded to other 911 calls like this? A kid goes missing and there are statewide Amber Alerts within an hour. A man in a car slows asks a kid for directions and there's a statewide APB. Usually it's nothing, but that doesn't stop the police from making their "judgement calls" in favor of the person reporting the crime.

[Fridays Child]

17. Also, "They would have been second-guessed every time they didn't...

"...enforce an order the way someone wanted."

There are not multiple ways to enforce protection orders. The terms of such orders are always made clear. The consequence for violating those terms are also made clear.

What a bullshit argument.

[thefool_wa]

10. Excellent point

I hadn't thought of it that way. This case has enraged me since I first heard of it, but I hadn't seen that point in their decision at all.

It seems to me that, while it would be great to fill this hole and legislate guaranteed enforcement of the protection order, that there are other legal ramifications in the protection of the rights of the person restrained by the protection order. I'm no lawyer, but I would bet if that law ever got to the SCOTUS it would be overturned for due process, equal protection or something like that.

The decision said that, absent of the perpetrator at the scene of the complaint that the police are under no obligation to search for someone who has been reported in violation of the protection order. All that the court is required to do is file the complaint, issue a warrant for his arrest (under contempt of court, not considered a high priority crime) and wait for him to commit a traffic infraction so he can be arrested.

What I don't understand is why, on the initial complaint, it wasn't investigated and treated as kidnapping. I'm sure its because the protection order was listed as Jennifer Gonzales and not her and her minor children.

I will edit with a link to the text of the decision.
on edit: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=police&url=/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

[hlthe2b]

11. How could this not fall under the "equal protection clause?"

I'm sorry, I'm no lawyer, but it seems that SCOTUS can be very creative in identifying law or precedence for issues upon which they want to rule.... It seems no stretch that they could have upheld a woman's right (and that of her children) to live and for law enforcement to intervene when an acknowledged threat has been identified.

[thefool_wa]

15. They did provide equal protection

They gave her the same protection they would have given anyone else under these circumstances. Disgusting: yes, but true.

[hlthe2b]

19. Yes... sadly so....

[Bike Punk]

5. Theres a nice short article

...on this in a book I have called 50 things you're not supposed to know by Russ Kick.

He cites many more cases from years ago to illustrate that the police are not obliged IN ANY WAY to protect you or your family.

(Hartzler v city of San Jose : The government owes no duty to protect any individual citizens from criminal attack. the CA legislature later enacted a statue making sure that the courts could NOT CHANGE THE RULE.

in DeShaney v Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services "the US Supreme Court declared that the constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm."


What a wonderful country we have...


:WTF: :sarcasm:

[ThomWV]

6. It Is A Rational Argument

Of course its a sensible argument for every case but here we aren't looking at every case.

No one in their right mind would say that it is the duty of police to prevent crime, because that is simply impossible. It would require perfect knowledge of all persons and the police do not have that power. However in some specified cases police do have reason, if not perfect knowledge, to drive them. The reason can be an order by a court for the police to provide protection. That is a different matter than preventing crime in the population in general.

[Fridays Child]

12. So, once a protection order is issued, the police should have no...

...authority to exercise discretion in the case because, to do so would be tantamount to overriding a decision of the court. Is the issue, then, that the states need to write specific legislation directing law enforcement to act immediately on appropriate requests for intervention from holders of protective orders?

[Fridays Child]

18. Then, what's the point of a protection order?

It's pretty expensive toilet paper, for all it's worth.

[barbtries]

9. read ever word

recommed

[no_hypocrisy]

16. I took municipal law during my tenure at New York Law School.

I shocked and dismayed to discover that private citizens do NOT have the right to protection from harm. Police are available but not constitutionally mandated to protect the public from crime,or injury by other citizens or spouses. Thus, they are not ultimately held accountable for nonfeasance of duty. Once they become involved, it's a different standard of duty as far as their actions. But, no mandate to get involved.

http://flyservers.registerfly.com/members5/policecrime.com/policeprotection.html

[DELUSIONAL]

20. and yet these same jerks found a way to GIVE bushie the white house

in 2000.