Girl Killed, Police Blamed.
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
I don't really see where they "dropped the ball" based on this news article. An order of protection doesn't mean that you get your own personal cop following you around to protect you. And while the tire slashing and threatening notes would be arrestable and in violation of the order, we still have to PROVE who did it. Im sure the cops knew it was the BF but being able to arrest him for it is an entirely different ball game.
Ray
Master Black Belt
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 with both of you. While it is easy to assume that if there was damage to a car, that it'd be easy to point a finger at the boyfriend, but as you said, with out proof.....
Then again, if there was proof, which I get the impression from the article that supposedly there is some, and nothing was done, well, yeah, in that case, someone did drop the ball.
Then again, if there was proof, which I get the impression from the article that supposedly there is some, and nothing was done, well, yeah, in that case, someone did drop the ball.
Cops are under no legal requirement to be there 24/7 to intercept any and every possible issue. USSC decisions back that up.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
Correct, but if they are notified that someone is violating the restraining order, they are the ones who have to do something about that, right? And if they don't, then that would be a failure of them to properly do their job.
Not saying that this is what happened, but just because the cops don't have to protect you in general does not mean that they don't have to make in effort to protect you in specific cases like, arresting people who violate restraining orders and things like that. No?
Archangel M
Senior Master
If it can be proven that the guy on the order did the crime.
The thing about protective orders; the person they "protect" is usually the victim from themselves. All PO's do is take prosecution out of the victims hands. A person can be convicted of violation the order even if the victim turns uncoperative..which they often do.
The thing about protective orders; the person they "protect" is usually the victim from themselves. All PO's do is take prosecution out of the victims hands. A person can be convicted of violation the order even if the victim turns uncoperative..which they often do.
Nope. USSC cases say even in the event of someone in the act of committing a crime, there is no obligation to respond. 1 particular case involved a restraining order, acid and assault, possibly death as well. Job of police is a deterrent prior, and an investigative afterward. Reasoning for the decision was that cops cannot be everywhere and cannot stop all crime, and to insist they do would be to place them at legal risk when they miss one.
My position is, US Amendment 2, and castle doctrine. However I may be tangenting the topic here...
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
I think you misunderstand.
I understand that the police is only required to act 'afterward', but if a restraining order is violated, doesn't that qualify as a felony / crime that qualifies as an 'afterward'?
Because if violation of RO is no grounds for prosecution, then what good is it?
I understand that the police is only required to act 'afterward', but if a restraining order is violated, doesn't that qualify as a felony / crime that qualifies as an 'afterward'?
Because if violation of RO is no grounds for prosecution, then what good is it?
But there is still no obligation to act under the law.
The only time that the police can be held liable is if they form a "special relationship" as defined under the law. For instance, if they tell you "we will catch the badguy before they hurt you again", then they have formed a special relationship. That's why in real life you never hear that. It also works with such things as them being transported in a police car, or in custody at a police facility.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
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.
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.
The Dixie Chicks said it well in "Earl's Gotta Die": But Earl walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care.
It's not at all uncommon for the victim to permit the abuser to violate it -- until he or she hurts them again. I'm not excusing police ignoring signs of a crime, but it gets real frustrating as you respond to the victim's latest injury to discover that they've been ignoring the protection order that would have kept them safe...
In the end, your safety is nobody's responsibility but your own.
It's not at all uncommon for the victim to permit the abuser to violate it -- until he or she hurts them again. I'm not excusing police ignoring signs of a crime, but it gets real frustrating as you respond to the victim's latest injury to discover that they've been ignoring the protection order that would have kept them safe...
In the end, your safety is nobody's responsibility but your own.
Whether it's a felony or not depends on state law; in Virginia, it's a class 1 misdemeanor. But it takes more than a suspicion or good bet to say someone committed a crime; we need probable cause. A few other things that may be state specific: The order must be served on the person; you can't be charged with violating a protection order unless you know about it!
It's got to be properly filed, and still in force, too. In my state, the initial order of protection is an emergency order; it's only in force until the next regular court day, when they can get a temporary order. That order is only good for a couple of weeks, to give the respondent (the person being told to stay away) a chance to put their case together if they want to fight it. We run into lots of cases where the emergency order is all that the victim ever gets... and we can't enforce it. Or they get the order, but it's never served.
Hudson69
Brown Belt
This is tragic, a woman dies because some guy would not let her go but tt is always easy to say the Police didn't do enough but at what point did everyone just decide that they could not protect themselves. If Mom and Dad were so worried then why were there no attempts at increasing the security of their daughter.
Did she try and move, could she stay with family or friends. Did anyone contemplate getting her pepper-spray, better locks on her doors (how was entry gained to her apartment?) and a lot of other things could have been put in place without the Police having to be there.
Was a photo of the suspect given to the security company for her apartment complex, work and school (whatever applies) with the notice that he is capable and willing to break the law?
It is as others have mentioned, just because you get a protection order doesn't mean that an Officer is going to be able to hang out at your door. LEO's do their best but cannot be everywhere and to say they dropped the ball without announcing what you have done to keep yourself safe in some manner is wrong; especially if it is nothing.
Did she try and move, could she stay with family or friends. Did anyone contemplate getting her pepper-spray, better locks on her doors (how was entry gained to her apartment?) and a lot of other things could have been put in place without the Police having to be there.
Was a photo of the suspect given to the security company for her apartment complex, work and school (whatever applies) with the notice that he is capable and willing to break the law?
It is as others have mentioned, just because you get a protection order doesn't mean that an Officer is going to be able to hang out at your door. LEO's do their best but cannot be everywhere and to say they dropped the ball without announcing what you have done to keep yourself safe in some manner is wrong; especially if it is nothing.
Hudson69
Brown Belt
In regard to the R.O. you would have to see the restraining order, some are broad and some are very narrow. If it said no contact (telephone, person, second hand through another person or something else) or if it said stay at least 100' from the protected person's home, vehicle, place of business that is pretty generic but I have seen some that say no contact at work, or no contact that is not warranted(?). In Colorado it is mandatory arrest for violating a protection order (domestic or not) but the person has to have been properly notified that there is a restraining order in effect. This can be as simple as a phone call telling the restrained that there is one. In regard to the criminal mischief/damage to property you have to prove that "he" is the one doing it.
Another note to add is that lets say the responding Officer goes out and takes a report, fills out a DV (Domestic Violence) summons for the bandits arrest, places a pick-up in NCIC/CCIC so that the moment he gets contacted by an LEO he gets detained and if within extradition limits he gets arrested ---You still have to have hands on. For example I have arrested people with warrants from all over the country for various things but for an out of state warrant it usually has to be a serious felony and I have arrested "locals" with multiple warrants (my personal record is 11). People who know they are wanted (most do) can easily avoid the law or lie when contacted; this is even better when they have a good story/ID history for someone else they resemble.
I see the issue of liability coming up would be if the Police did have probable cause that the bandit in question committed a crime and there was no pick-up/warrant for his arrest. But as with my previous post on this subject self-protection is the key when dealing with someone who can show up an almost any time and has no schedule.
My .02 only
Let's take a step back here and talk about what a restraining order is and is not.
Ordinarily, a person can go anywhere, talk to anyone, and do anything that is otherwise legal for everyone else. I can knock on your door, I can call you on the phone, I can stop you on the street and talk to you. None of these things are crimes, so long as I do not restrict your liberties in any way (you can not answer the door or slam it in my face, you can hang up the phone on me, you can refuse to stop and talk to me).
In some special circumstances, the courts have recognized that for the physical safety of a person, another person's rights have to be restricted in ways that are normally not done. This is a 'restraining order' and it can be either temporary or permanent.
The person applying for a restraining order generally have to show the court that there is a good reason for issuing it. But in domestic cases where violence has been involved, restraining orders are not uncommon.
Now, let us say that you have a restraining order against me, and it states that I am not to contact you in any way, and it further states that I must remain at least a mile away from you at all times.
If I violate that order, and you complain to the police, the police are required to investigate as they would any crime. They take a statement from you, they attempt to located and interview me. If there are witnesses or physical evidence, they collect statements and evidence.
If they decide that there is enough probable cause to believe that yes, I did in fact violate the restraining order, then I may be arrested. As with any crime a person might be arrested for, I will be booked, processed, and I will appear before a judge, who may set bail conditions. If I meet the bail conditions, I will be released pending prosecution.
It may be that the police cannot find probable cause to arrest me. Perhaps you say I showed up at your house, but they interview me and I say I did not. You say I vandalized your car, but I say I did not; and there there is no evidence to prove it was me. In such cases, the police may continue to investigate, but without probable cause, there may be no arrest and no charges. Like running a red light or robbing a bank, if there is no probable cause to believe I did it, then I won't be arrested.
It may also be that I get arrested, processed, make bail, and then return to hassle you even more. Of course I am in violation of the restraining order, which remains in effect. Of course I am subject to being arrested yet again. But this does not mean that the police will follow me around or guard your house. They MIGHT do that - if they believe the threat that I'm about to kill you is great enough. But there are no promises that this will happen, and no guarantee.
It must also be said that often, the victim who obtained the restraining order will choose not to enforce it. Let's say I call you in violation of the restraining order and you don't report it this time. I stop by your house and you let it go without doing anything about it. If I can prove this, your restraining order is worthless - you have to enforce it EVERY SINGLE TIME I violate it, or it will be ruled to have been abandoned by the courts; you don't get to pick and choose when it is in force and when it is not. Many victims do not know this or they forget it, to their sorrow later on.
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.
Ordinarily, a person can go anywhere, talk to anyone, and do anything that is otherwise legal for everyone else. I can knock on your door, I can call you on the phone, I can stop you on the street and talk to you. None of these things are crimes, so long as I do not restrict your liberties in any way (you can not answer the door or slam it in my face, you can hang up the phone on me, you can refuse to stop and talk to me).
In some special circumstances, the courts have recognized that for the physical safety of a person, another person's rights have to be restricted in ways that are normally not done. This is a 'restraining order' and it can be either temporary or permanent.
The person applying for a restraining order generally have to show the court that there is a good reason for issuing it. But in domestic cases where violence has been involved, restraining orders are not uncommon.
Now, let us say that you have a restraining order against me, and it states that I am not to contact you in any way, and it further states that I must remain at least a mile away from you at all times.
If I violate that order, and you complain to the police, the police are required to investigate as they would any crime. They take a statement from you, they attempt to located and interview me. If there are witnesses or physical evidence, they collect statements and evidence.
If they decide that there is enough probable cause to believe that yes, I did in fact violate the restraining order, then I may be arrested. As with any crime a person might be arrested for, I will be booked, processed, and I will appear before a judge, who may set bail conditions. If I meet the bail conditions, I will be released pending prosecution.
It may be that the police cannot find probable cause to arrest me. Perhaps you say I showed up at your house, but they interview me and I say I did not. You say I vandalized your car, but I say I did not; and there there is no evidence to prove it was me. In such cases, the police may continue to investigate, but without probable cause, there may be no arrest and no charges. Like running a red light or robbing a bank, if there is no probable cause to believe I did it, then I won't be arrested.
It may also be that I get arrested, processed, make bail, and then return to hassle you even more. Of course I am in violation of the restraining order, which remains in effect. Of course I am subject to being arrested yet again. But this does not mean that the police will follow me around or guard your house. They MIGHT do that - if they believe the threat that I'm about to kill you is great enough. But there are no promises that this will happen, and no guarantee.
It must also be said that often, the victim who obtained the restraining order will choose not to enforce it. Let's say I call you in violation of the restraining order and you don't report it this time. I stop by your house and you let it go without doing anything about it. If I can prove this, your restraining order is worthless - you have to enforce it EVERY SINGLE TIME I violate it, or it will be ruled to have been abandoned by the courts; you don't get to pick and choose when it is in force and when it is not. Many victims do not know this or they forget it, to their sorrow later on.
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.
Archangel M
Senior Master
I have seen judges issue protective orders on both parties to keep them apart.
So, if thats the case, am I safe to assume that the orders, both protective and restraining, are useless? If the person violates it, then aren't the cops obligated to enforce it?
Agreed, and I see this all the time. Cops will pull over a car, run the people, and sure enough....2 of the people have orders. Go figure. LOL.
I agree with the last part as well, however in this case, it seems from what I've been hearing, that the girl was complaining to the police, nothing was done, and thus, she ended up dead. So, in a nutshell, she should have moved, changed her phone numbers, cell numbers, email, bought a gun, etc.?
I'm not saying that the cops should have provided her with 24hr protection, but if she was coming to them with solid proof, maybe something should've been done.
According to page 2 of the article:
"A few hours before Notice was killed, she went to Plainville police with printouts of e-mails Carter had sent her, also in violation of the no-contact order. It was her second visit that day; he also had left a handwritten, unsigned letter, the report states.
Instead of arresting him, the officer called Carter and threatened him with arrest, which the report states is "akin to pouring gasoline on a fire."
Could he have said that someone used his computer w/o his permission? No idea, maybe he could have, but on the surface, it sounds like she did have proof.
Edit to add more:
"On Friday, Feb. 13, the day before she died, Notice went to the Waterbury police station with a copy of her restraining order and a written statement from a witness and told police Carter had called her at work in violation of the order. She talked to an officer who couldn't confirm the existence of the order, the report states. It characterizes the way the officer treated her as "at best condescending."
"A few hours before Notice was killed, she went to Plainville police with printouts of e-mails Carter had sent her, also in violation of the no-contact order. It was her second visit that day; he also had left a handwritten, unsigned letter, the report states.
Instead of arresting him, the officer called Carter and threatened him with arrest, which the report states is "akin to pouring gasoline on a fire."
Could he have said that someone used his computer w/o his permission? No idea, maybe he could have, but on the surface, it sounds like she did have proof.
Edit to add more:
"On Friday, Feb. 13, the day before she died, Notice went to the Waterbury police station with a copy of her restraining order and a written statement from a witness and told police Carter had called her at work in violation of the order. She talked to an officer who couldn't confirm the existence of the order, the report states. It characterizes the way the officer treated her as "at best condescending."
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
-
-