Thread: Why use shotguns over other guns?

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The case in 05, and a few of the other recent ones, say they do not have a duty to protect Domestic violence victims Even if they have sworn out a restraining order.

The Right to Self-Defense | Fox News

Castle Rock Vs Gonzales, The SCOTUS ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. Writing for the Majority Justice Scalia said: Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.



Most states have laws/statutes that precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to provide police or fire protection.

Nope, re-read it for what it actually says. Gonzales lost because you cannot tort a process (restraining order), not becuase no duty was owed. The burden of proof is high but it does exist under various duty of care doctrines- state custody or care, state created danger and affirmative negative/failure/ refusal to act.

Gonzales sued because the police did not enforce the restraining order, she should have sued for the police refusing to enforce the restraining order. A small but important change because it adds a deliberate act by the state actors refusing to enforce the law) which also opens up the officers individually to liability and strips them of their immunity by making their actions wanton, malicious and shocking and the outcome of those actions foreseeable.

State care: She could also have sued arguing that the restraining order placed her and her children in state care and thus she and they were owed a duty of care to be protected from harm such as owed to prisoners, motorists and anyone dealing directly with the police.

State Created Danger: Because of her prior acts this one would be harder for her, but assuming she had not been inter-acting with her ex. The police failure to act could (depending on all the facts) be argued to have created a danger that did not previously exist.

Affirmative failure to act: Recast the lack of action as a refusal to act.

None of these are easy, but all have been proven in court to establish a police duty of care. A victim of multiple [documented] attacks has a stronger claim than a newer victim or one without an established history but the duty is there.