TexasCHLforum.com

soccerguy59 wrote:Also include the Supreme Court has ruled several times that LE are not responsible for your safety, only you are responsible for your personal protection. I don't know the cases but this would be something to include.

• See, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
  Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1985);
  Cal. Govt. Code §§ 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody);
  Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rptr. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982);
  Stone v. State 106 Cal. App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1980);
  Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983);
  Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981);
  Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
  Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102; Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968);
  Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App.3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
  Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.);
  Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969);
  N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 59:2-1, 59:5-4 (1972);
  Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, cert. denied, 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978), aff'g 134 N.J. Super. 400, 341 A.2d 365 (N.J. Super. Ct., Law Div., 1975);
  Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981);
  Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Commw. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).
  The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals the 1959 case Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
  Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
  
  Dennis Hevesi, New York is not Liable for Murders, N.Y. Times, July 10, 1987. (I believe this one addresses lack of liability of government to citizens murdered/injured by criminals on parole or early release. elb).

burlingtonfreepress.com

High court upholds dismissal of suit against police in abuse case

By David Gram
The Associated Press

August 31, 2007
MONTPELIER -- A state trooper had no special duty to arrest a man who had sexually assaulted and battered his former girlfriend and continued to do so after the trooper left, the state's highest court has ruled.

Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police, and Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator with the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the case points to the fact that whether to arrest an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence is often a tough call for police who are responding.

Trooper Maurice Lamothe of the St. Albans barracks, responding to a domestic violence call on Nov. 18, 2002, saw marks on the victim's face but did not arrest the man later convicted of battering and sexually assaulting her, despite what Baker described Thursday as a "pro-arrest policy" in the state police manual.

Also contrary to the manual, the court said, the trooper interviewed the woman about the case within the perpetrator's earshot.

After Lamothe, who Baker said is still a trooper in St. Albans, left the scene, the man beat and sexually assaulted the woman again; he did both things again after breaking into her apartment early the next day, the court said.

The court's decision said the man was arrested a week later. He was later convicted of sexual assault and domestic assault and is serving a 20-to-45-year sentence. The court did not identify the man; the woman's lawyer, Kurt Hughes, identified him as Stephen Desautels. The state Corrections Department's online offender locator lists a Stephen Desautels, 47, serving time at the Lee Adjustment Center in Beattyville, Ky., where Vermont houses inmates.

The court did name the victim; she was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Associated Press does not identify the victims of sexual violence.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Brian Burgess, the court said there is a high bar for someone suing the state, because it is protected by a legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity."

The victim would have had to show gross negligence on the part of the trooper, Burgess wrote, and his failure to foresee and prevent further violence did not rise to that level.

"Ordinarily, the duty owed between strangers does not extend to controlling the conduct of third persons to prevent physical harm," he wrote. And while Vermont law calls on police officers to protect public safety, "the statutes create no special relationship between crime victims and law enforcement personnel."

Baker said domestic violence is a high priority for the state police because so many homicides result from it, but he said it is not always possible for a trooper to make an arrest at such a scene, or to interview the victim outside the perpetrator's earshot.

While saying he could not comment on the specific case, Baker said, "Sometimes the victims are not cooperative with us. ... The whole idea is to get them separated but sometimes that is easier said than done."

Kenney said she, too, could not second-guess the trooper's actions. "I don't know the facts of the case well enough to say that" he acted inappropriately, she said.

"In terms of the police response, we don't have mandatory arrest laws or policies in Vermont," Kenney said. "We do have pro-arrest policies, but they allow law enforcement officers some discretion at the scene of a domestic violence incident. And that affords an opportunity for increased safety for victims."

A quick arrest can sometimes result in a perpetrator's being released the next day on bail or conditions, Kenney said, "and potentially be even angrier."

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." The criminals who commit these crimes are also fairly unusual, recent evidence suggests that about half of these criminals have received a "formal diagnosis of mental illness, often schizophrenia." Yet, economists have not studied multiple victim shootings. Using data that extends until 1999 and includes the recent public school shootings, our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates and these attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.