Moldy, But Meaningful

[Dean]

Ran across this old bit and thought it interesting enough to post. LEO's *aren't* out there to protect us - they're there to arrest and do a chalk outline. Old news. And I offer apologies to all the LEO's who cruise this forum, and I know many, but it's true. Too sadly, they're limited to an 'after the fact' detail. They can't be everywhere at once and the courts hamstring them badly.

(From Fox News Blog)

The Right to Self-Defense

Monday, July 18, 2005

By Wendy McElroy

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court
found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to
police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right
to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her
children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed
an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to
take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family.
The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or
potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not
enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

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.

In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment
right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the
Appeals level.

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court
decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to
protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme
Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no
affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito),
the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no
Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered
by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred.

Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women's groups, such as the
National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to establish that
restraining orders were constitutional entitlements. If they had
succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would have been guaranteed by
due process. Failure to enforce them would have been grounds for a
lawsuit against the police, a precedent that local officials feared
would flood them with expensive litigation.

Public analysis of Rock v. Gonzales has been largely defined by these
two opposing positions.

A third position cries out: Given the court's position that the police
are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the ability to
defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should impede the access to
gun ownership.

Responsible adults — both male and female — have both a right and a need
to defend themselves and their families, with lethal force if necessary.
If domestic violence advocates had focused on putting a gun in Jessica's
hand and training her to use it, then the three Gonzales children might
still be alive. After all, Jessica knew where her husband was. Indeed,
she informed the police repeatedly of his location.

Of course, the Gonzales case — in and of itself — presents difficulties
for the use of armed force by private citizens. Would the same police
who believed Simon Gonzales was not dangerous have believed Jessica to
be justified in picking up a gun to protect her children from him? Would
the police have charged her for use of a weapon? Regardless, these
sticky debates would probably be taking place in the presence of three
living children and not three dead ones.

Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid
gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they
appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no
obligation to provide protection.

When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on
gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, "Guns and domestic
violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day."

In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence
only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always
defined as men — to own weapons.

That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It
ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their
families. Anti-domestic violence and women's groups create the
impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of
the solution.

The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic
violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It
rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws
aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun
in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.

In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the
women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica
Gonzales' three children would have been safer with a mother who was
armed and educated in gun use.

The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will not hear
it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect individuals who,
therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not
matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to "use every
reasonable means to enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has
ruled and that's that.

In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate should
advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense. They should
lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that hinders responsible gun
ownership.

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help
victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.
_________________
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but hollow points expand on impact."

[Bubba]

that is cited a lot and worth keeping in mind !!
_________________
Those who adapt control the future
Gun Websites

[10 Bears]

Which will resolve a violent situation the quickest.


1. Index finger dialing 9-1-1
...or...
2. Index finger pulling a trigger?
_________________
When it comes to evil, to tolerate is to accommodate, to accommodate is to appease, and to appease is to concede defeat.

[johnm]

[KAPRAL-POLAND]

+1

Good point and you've cleary show it to your wife.
That is good that she realized this now not after a tragedy.
_________________
Polish soldiers fight for freedom of other nations but dies only for Poland

[johnm]

[Old Grunt]

+2

Just keeping your head on a swivel makes you less of a target. Just diddybopping along with you mind on who might win American Idol will get you taken out (maybe by a passing car!).

Of course, there is something to be said about natural selection.
_________________
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[johnm]

Strong believer in Natural Selection.

God puts you in my face with a deadly weapon, or threatens the life of my family/ friends/. he wants one of us. who am I to deny god his request. if its my time. well Im already dead, someday, anyway, so I am doing gods work right? besides anyone who knows me (my mom my sisters, they pray for me all the time!LOL so theres my contribution to the theological philosophies of others) ... Me personally my beliefs lie on other paths but thats another thread for another time.
_________________
Why is it when a gun accident happens its the fault of the gun, and ammunition manufacturers and wholesalers, but when a drunk driver kills a family of 4 nobody goes after budweiser? Or chevy, ford or whatevr they were driving.