Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders

WASHINGTON (AP) ^ | Jun 27, 10:57 AM (ET) | GINA HOLLAND

[strange1]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

. .

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

[strange1]

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

Small comfort to her three daughters.

And the Anti-second amendment crowd will tell you the police are there to protect you.

[Paloma_55]

I can't restrain myself!

[dirtboy]

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

So, given this decision, then where is that ruling that the 2nd Amendment is actually a guarantee to the right of individuals to bear arms?

--- crickets ---

[Millee]

Soooo who is supposed to help you if you have a restraining order against someone? (Besides Smith & Wesson) What good are they (restraining orders) if they're not going to be enforced?

[Blood of Tyrants]

This was a given. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occassions that the police have no obligation to protect every individual.

My advice to anyone who needs a restraining order is to hold a piece of paper in one hand and a gun in the other and try to determine which one is most likely to save your life from this type of nutcase.

[Alberta's Child]

I think this was a good decision, except that this Supreme Court has no intention of taking this case to the next logical step.

The only "restraining order" anyone needs is a firearm and a sh!t-load of ammunition.

[Blue Jays]

Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're written upon if dealing with a real kook. They make for a nice "paper trail" and all...but if things really take a turn for the worse with a weirdo ex-spouse one needs high-quality hardware on their hip.

~ Blue Jays ~

[lunarbicep]

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

This ruling is scary (but with this court, not shocking). Sadly, if she had wanted an abortion, then she would have had a constitutional right to police enforced protection.

[HolgerDansk]

Those of us who are Second Amendment activists have been telling people for some time that the core fallacy of gun control is that the police are not required to protect you from the bad guys -- they only clean up the mess afterward. It's up to you to exercise your fundamentally human right to self-defense.

[Littlejon]

The only "restraining order" anyone needs is a firearm and a sh!t-load of ammunition.

I must strongly disagre here. With proper practice, only one or two shots is needed to send a punk to the morgue. :)

[Tired of Taxes]

I remember a lot more to this particular story. The police dept. ignored her calls, telling her to wait it out, that he'd probably bring the girls home again.

[Alberta's Child]

Absolutely. I'm just allowing for the possibility that the "restraining order" is needed to deal with multiple punks!

[Americanexpat]

If Jessica had a weapon and shot the SOB we would be hearing the police tell us it is best not to confront the attacker, let the police handle it. just can't come up with the words to say how much this sickens me.

[Littlejon]

I like the way you think! :)

[SJSAMPLE]

Restraining Order = Piece of paper.
It's not armor against bullets.
Take precautions.

[TChris]

A restraining order is simply pre-established probable cause for arrest. That's all. It has never been, nor will it be, a magic protective shield for the victims of violence. Self-defense must be the primary course of action for such people.

[therut]

As someone who was stalked for a year I carried my firearm. To do otherwise would have been stupid. Yes the guy once caught got a felony terrioristic threatning conviction and a permanent restraining order. I am smart enough to not rely on a piece of paper. A restraining order will NOT protect you.

[boofus]

The only purpose a restraining order serves is to make the shooting more defensible in a courtroom full of liberal jurors.

[Soliton]

a short-barrelled shot gun is best.

[Alberta's Child]

LOL -- thanks!