I think the argument of the police is that, basically, they can't be arsed (that's a britspeak phrase I'm stealing) to send out a cruiser every time a person who has another person under a restraining order makes a call to 911. Maybe they should write in a "justified self-defense" clause to restraining orders ... if X has Y under a restraining order, Y's violation of the order justifies X in feeling threatened, and since there is no (legal) obligation to retreat from a threat, X is justified in (pre-emptively?) defending him- or herself.
It's that they *will* send a cruiser, but they *won't* assign you a bodyguard, and if the cruiser doesn't get there in time, *they're not responsible for your injuries*. You don't get to sue them, any more than somebody who didn't have a restraining order would get to sue the cops for getting attacked.
And if you're in your home, there's already no obligation to retreat. As soon as you start talking "pre-emptively" defending, you're into the realm of the stupid - if the person approaches you, they're violating the restraining order, so it's not pre-emptive. If you approach them and legally have no obligation to retreat *and* a right to pre-emptively protect yourself if you feel threatened, then what you REALLY have is not a restraining order, but, instead, a license to commit murder.
Not all restraining orders are justified. Allowing anyone who gets a restraining order license to "pre-emptively defend themselves" is insane.
Not to mention that the concept of "pre-emptive defense" is a repugnant one to begin with.
Well ... it was just something I was putting out there, not anything I'm ideologically married to (there's very little of that, actually). That's why I put "pre-emptive" with a question mark after it. It arguably isn't pre-emptive if they're violating the restraining order, which is something that I specified.
Actually, the case was from Castle Rock, Colorado, not Maine.
And I am still boggling over this ruling.
Personally, I think the woman bringing the case took the wrong approach. The argument was the the restraining order became her property, and by not enforcing the order, the police took away her property unlawfully. Me, I would have approached it as a contract; i.e. the government signed a contract with her by providing the restraining order, and it failed to live up to the terms of the contract when it failed to enforce that order.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:41 pm (UTC)It's that they *will* send a cruiser, but they *won't* assign you a bodyguard, and if the cruiser doesn't get there in time, *they're not responsible for your injuries*. You don't get to sue them, any more than somebody who didn't have a restraining order would get to sue the cops for getting attacked.
And if you're in your home, there's already no obligation to retreat. As soon as you start talking "pre-emptively" defending, you're into the realm of the stupid - if the person approaches you, they're violating the restraining order, so it's not pre-emptive. If you approach them and legally have no obligation to retreat *and* a right to pre-emptively protect yourself if you feel threatened, then what you REALLY have is not a restraining order, but, instead, a license to commit murder.
Not all restraining orders are justified. Allowing anyone who gets a restraining order license to "pre-emptively defend themselves" is insane.
Not to mention that the concept of "pre-emptive defense" is a repugnant one to begin with.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:50 pm (UTC)And I am still boggling over this ruling.
Personally, I think the woman bringing the case took the wrong approach. The argument was the the restraining order became her property, and by not enforcing the order, the police took away her property unlawfully. Me, I would have approached it as a contract; i.e. the government signed a contract with her by providing the restraining order, and it failed to live up to the terms of the contract when it failed to enforce that order.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-28 03:52 pm (UTC)My bad. Still, Stephen King is having a field day.