The following story is provided by Wendy McElroy. She
is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and
editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan
R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002).
On June 27, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that we do 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 Jessica Gonzales, Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, had no right to sue her local police department for failing to
protect her and her children from her estranged husband. In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged
husband which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, he abducted their three daughters. She repeatedly telephoned
the local police station and nothing was done. The next morning they found the three children murdered and he committed suicide
by cop. He shot repeatedly through a police station window and was shot and killed. Jessica sued and won $30M at the Appeals
level but lost at the Supreme Court level.
In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th
Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million.
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.
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.
You can read more of Wendy's articles at www.WendyMcElroy.com.
What does this ruling mean to us? Simply said it means that
if the police are not required to protect us, then we have to take the responsibility for our own self defense and that of
our family. The Supreme Court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must
realize: calling the police is not enough.
If necessary you must also be ready to defend yourself.
Remember the best form of self defense is "anticipation and avoidance". Do whatever necessary to walk away.
However, if you are caught and you have no other choice, then you have the right to defend yourself with reasonable force
and this includes using items you have with you such as self defense products. However, don't carry or use anything that the
police would regard as an offensive weapon.
Please review your local laws.
Ultimately, it's your responsibility to ascertain the legality
in your area. Know your rights!
