SCOTUSblog previews a case which will be argued Monday at the Supreme Court; the previous court decision in this case demonstrate clearly the kind of logic which leads to the commonly-held negative opinion of lawyers. A Colorado woman’s husband, from whom she was separated and had a temporary restraining order against, took her three daughters in violation of the TRO; the woman called the police several times and even went by the station but was turned away each time. The husband had taken them, killing the little girls before committing suicide by cop.
Generally speaking, SCOTUSblog’s Stephen Wu explains, American law bars suits against governments for failure to prevent acts of private violence, that is, one private individual against another. This remains true even when the hurt individual has gotten a TRO against the offender.
However, the Colorado legislature passed a law stating that law enforcement officials must (1) “use every reasonable means to enforce” such orders; and (2) arrest anyone who violates them. Reasonable Americans reading this would expect a police officer after receiving a call such as the first one made by this plaintiff to take immediate action to secure the safety of the children and not to put her off as was done–several times, in fact.
The town government of Castle Rock, Colorado, where this happened, supported by the Bush Administration, claims that the cited state law should be taken to provide nothing stronger than guidance despite the plain and obvious meaning of the words used and therefore the town should not be held liable for the failure inaction of its police department.
From today forward, every time I hear or read whining and complaining from Republicans about activist judges overiding elected legislators, not to mention the sanctity of life and family values, I will think of Jessica Gonzales and her murdered daughters.
BillSaysThis 