Girl Killed, Police Blamed.

[Archangel M]

heres some more info:

http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2010/09/28/news/doc4ca2ad2708ac7501100856.txt

 

[Archangel M]

Always remember that different PD's work differently too. Where I work, the victim signing a sworn deposition stating she recieved a threatening call from the BF would have been enough for us to lock him up. I don't know what this PD's policy is.

 

[ellies]

I agree with your assessment.

I also noticed that when I go for a walk, the only thing that protects me on the sidewalk is the willing compliance of drivers...

I agree also

 

[KELLYG]

I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand I can see why the system does not work well. So many times restraining orders are applied for and with in the next couple of days the tiff is over and the couple are back together. This happens, probably more times than not. So I can see why after soo many experiences that the Police cam get a flippant attitude over this.

I also believe that if a protective order is in effect and it is violated in any way the offender should be arrested do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. The female should not have to call 911 with a knife in their chest to get any one to believe that the threat is real, and the fear for her life is real. The case in question, tires slashed, threatening e-mails, mysterious notes, sworn statements from witnesses, etc etc etc, should have clued someone in on the fact that the situation was escalating. She also had a copy of the order in her hands when she went to the police just before she died. Them being able to find it or not should not at that point should not have been her problem.

A part of the protective order process it to go to an attorney and papers are filed and approved by a Judge. So by it's very existence suggests that their is a serious problem. If they are handled this casually, by the police, on a regular basis it leads me to believe that a protective order is not really worth the paper it is written on.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Sorry for being dense here, but I am still confused. Does this mean that they have the right to choose what to pay attention to, and what to ignore? Even if what they choose to ignore is a felony or a crime?

And if that isn't the case, then isn't their failure cause for liability?
There is something I am missing here but I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Simplistically, I will say yes, they can choose to ignore a crime and there is no legal liability under the law for it.

Having said that, the situation is not quite that simple.

There are certain laws which must be enforced in certain way. For instance, in California, an officer must make a determination who the dominant aggressor is in a domestic violence incident and shall make an arrest. If they don't, then the officer and department can be sued.

Also, as a federal requirement, an officer must take a missing person report no matter where the reporting party is, even if the report is made by telephone (BTW, there is no such thing as a requirement to wait 72 hours). What this means is that if an officer refuses, they are in violation of the law. In fact, not doing so in California is a felony.

But these laws apply to the individual officer not complying with very specific laws in very specific cases. The only way a department is held liable is if the officer was never received, or the training is insufficient, to the task at hand. In other words, if the officer was never told by the department, or had periodic update training, that he was supposed to do these things, then the department can be held liable as well.

But these are very specific actions based on very specific crimes, in very specific circumstances.

The other main way that officers can be held liable in these types of instances is if they violate department policy. In this case, though, the person would have to know what the policy is that the officer / department violated, which most people don't.

So, unless the officers do something that is explicitly against the law or is a violation of specific department policy, they are generally immune from liability for these types of incidents.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Thanks. that makes sense, even though it is a bit counter intuitive.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also believe that if a protective order is in effect and it is violated in any way the offender should be arrested do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars.

Unfortunately, that would require a change to our system of laws.

Imagine if you were the subject of an RO and the person who obtained it was very angry with you (not unusual in domestic situations). They call the police and swear you drove by their house in violation of the RO. So you get arrested, no questions asked. You lose your job, you can't pay your rent, if you had custody of your children you lose that...etc. And it turns out later that the other person just wanted to get revenge on you. Fair?

 

[Hudson69]

"From Bob Hubbard: A restraining order is not a force field around the victim. It's just a 'law' that makes it a crime for the person named on it to perform certain acts or be in certain places. If they break that 'law' then they get prosecuted like they would for any law-breaking. But they don't get locked up to ensure they won't break the restraining order under normal circumstances. That's just not how they work."

And this is what most people do not understand and, as mentioned, the police have to believe that the person restrained did violate the RO/PO. Their are enough people out there that have used a RO as a tool to get someone arrested.

 

[Cryozombie]

IMO The cops didn't fail this girl, Either the politicans did by making sure she couldn't be armed and protect herself, or she did, by not taking advantage of protections availible to her.