The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Women

MissMak · July 20, 2005, 12:52 PM

Changing the facts - say the plaintiff had a weapon and she went looking for her husband, he refused to give the kids back - would she be justified in using force - or should she call the cops? Surely she would be justified if the husband was threatening her or her children. But if he just had the girls out at the local fair according to the terms of the TRO (the dad had reportedly taken the girls to the amusement park on his custody night and they were a little late, the PD told her that maybe they were having fun and were running late, and to call back if they were not home by a certain time- the PD did not have any idea that he was violent, they did not know he was going to kill the girls- in fact, up until that night - he was complying with the terms of the TRO) - would she be justified in looking for her husband with her 1911 and making him give her the kids back?

About Castle Rock - My Constitutional Law Professor actually did the oral argument for the City of Castle Rock in front of the Supreme Court and I had the privilege of listening to him practice his argument. The plaintiff's claim was that she was denied due process of the law, which she was not - had the local law enforcement officers simply took her report with no intention to follow up - she would have been denied due process. Don't get me wrong - the facts of the case are particularly heinous - but bad facts often make bad law. Initially after hearing my professors argument I had a problem with the fact that the PD holds itself out as an agency you call to protect you and yet it has no affirmative duty to protect you. But IMHO - the decision is more of a balance of limiting liability for law enforcement departments and allowing them still to perform their duties. Placing an affirmative duty to protect each and every person and then allowing them to sue if they were not adequately protected would not only bankrupt cities and municipalities, it would be impractical, and it would almost be tantamount to strict liability.

I think protection should be a combination of both - if someone comes into my home - I will use the 1911 and then call 911. However, I am indeed glad there is a 911 at all - I surely wouldn’t want to break up every dispute in my neighborhood. Surely we all have a duty to protect ourselves, our neighborhoods and our families; however I don't think the decision in Castle Rock means law enforcement is unnecessary.

However - the author's slant of the facts makes it seem as if LE is useless - but sometimes I think its easier spotlight failures than it is to recognize that a lot of LEO's do their jobs and do them well.

July 20, 2005, 12:52 PM	#13
MissMak Member Join Date: March 14, 2005 Location: Orange County Posts: 46	On Topic Changing the facts - say the plaintiff had a weapon and she went looking for her husband, he refused to give the kids back - would she be justified in using force - or should she call the cops? Surely she would be justified if the husband was threatening her or her children. But if he just had the girls out at the local fair according to the terms of the TRO (the dad had reportedly taken the girls to the amusement park on his custody night and they were a little late, the PD told her that maybe they were having fun and were running late, and to call back if they were not home by a certain time- the PD did not have any idea that he was violent, they did not know he was going to kill the girls- in fact, up until that night - he was complying with the terms of the TRO) - would she be justified in looking for her husband with her 1911 and making him give her the kids back? About Castle Rock - My Constitutional Law Professor actually did the oral argument for the City of Castle Rock in front of the Supreme Court and I had the privilege of listening to him practice his argument. The plaintiff's claim was that she was denied due process of the law, which she was not - had the local law enforcement officers simply took her report with no intention to follow up - she would have been denied due process. Don't get me wrong - the facts of the case are particularly heinous - but bad facts often make bad law. Initially after hearing my professors argument I had a problem with the fact that the PD holds itself out as an agency you call to protect you and yet it has no affirmative duty to protect you. But IMHO - the decision is more of a balance of limiting liability for law enforcement departments and allowing them still to perform their duties. Placing an affirmative duty to protect each and every person and then allowing them to sue if they were not adequately protected would not only bankrupt cities and municipalities, it would be impractical, and it would almost be tantamount to strict liability. I think protection should be a combination of both - if someone comes into my home - I will use the 1911 and then call 911. However, I am indeed glad there is a 911 at all - I surely wouldn’t want to break up every dispute in my neighborhood. Surely we all have a duty to protect ourselves, our neighborhoods and our families; however I don't think the decision in Castle Rock means law enforcement is unnecessary. However - the author's slant of the facts makes it seem as if LE is useless - but sometimes I think its easier spotlight failures than it is to recognize that a lot of LEO's do their jobs and do them well.