Dissident Veteran For Peace

If Black lives really mattered to BLM, the media, and academia then they would tell the truth about the Black homicide rate instead of promoting specious, unfounded narratives about racism and police brutality. I was reminded of this once more while listening to an almost hour-long program on National Prevarication Radio (NPR) yesterday.

The show was Freakonomics Radio and the episode was "What Are the Police for, Anyway?" I actually agree that the US has a murder and incarceration problem. I also support an end to the War on Drugs and evidence-based police reforms that are effective at increasing the safety of both officers and the communities they serve. 

Unfortunately, BLM, most of the media, and most academics don't care about facts. They are driven by false narratives that sow division and enhance their careers and the power of politicians and business elites.

Here's an illustrative excerpt from the radio show transcript:

Black Americans are five times more likely to be arrested than white Americans. On a per-capita basis, Blacks are also much more likely to be fatally shot by the police. There has of course been a racial reckoning around policing lately

    PROTESTORS: Hey, hey! Ho, ho!  These racist cops have got to go!

Highlighted by the police murder [sic] of George Floyd. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 51 percent of U.S. adults have either 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in the police.

Anyone with even a modicum of common sense, let alone statistical education, realizes that on "a per-capita basis" is a wholly inadequate way to analyze police shootings by demographic group.

According to the Washington Post 2015-2021 police shootings database, 95.5% of the people shot and killed by police in the US are males and yet they make up slightly less than half of the US population. Thus, on a per capita basis, men are far more likely to be shot and killed by police but no one screams about systemic police misandry. An honest, sensible person looks at that discrepancy and say, yes, but males commit proportionality far more violent crimes than females.

In fact, year after year, Blacks commit around 50% of the murders in the US and most of their victims are Black. Anyone who thinks this fact bears no relation to outcomes of police encounters with Black people is profoundly stupid, profoundly dishonest, or both. Cops of all colors may not be able to cite the precise statistics but they know by experience that, ceteris paribus, Black people they encounter are far more likely to be a threat to police and others than people of any other race. (That doesn't mean police should not regard everyone as putatively law-abiding individuals, most Black people are not violent criminals and they deserve to be treated respectfully unless objective circumstances dictate otherwise.)

Moreover, FBI data (Zip file) reveals that Black criminals upped their game in 2020.^* In 56.6% of cases where the race of the "murder offender" is known that offender is Black; the comparable figure for Whites is 40.6%.^† Academics have long known that Black Americans have a criminal violence problem that dwarfs that in all other communities but, by and large, they haven't had the courage or integrity to vocalize that and hold the media and activists accountable in discussions of police conduct.

For instance, in 2013, Siegel et al. published an article on the predictors of firearm homicide rates in arguably, the premier US public health journal, but they buried the lede. They claimed "ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates among the 50 states."

In their final statistical analysis they found that the strongest predictor of "gun-related homicide" rate was a racial factor. In their tables 2 and 3 they reported: "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%" and "For each 1-SD [standard deviation] increase in proportion of black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 82.8". The comparable firearm homicide rate increases associated with an "increase in proportion of household gun ownership" were 0.9% and 12.9%.

There is no discussion whatsoever of the relationship between proportion of Black and firearm homicide rate in the body of their paper, which was titled "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010". Now, if you really cared about reducing homicides wouldn't you foreground the strongest predictor found in your analysis? Needless to say this finding, as far as I can tell, has never been reported in any mainstream media outlet. In the only coverage I could find of the study anywhere was in Science Daily and they didn't report on any predictor but household gun ownership.

Notes

^* See "Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2020".

^† 8,142 ÷ (20,982  - 6,592) = 0.5658 = 56.6%; 5,844 ÷ (20,982  - 6,592) = 0.4061 = 40.6%

Labels: Black America, crime, George Floyd, guns, media, National Public Radio, police, race, science

American society has never upheld or realized truth and justice in a manner fully consistent with American rhetoric. Yet, for most of my life I thought our society was at least headed in the right direction. No more.

In the flurry of non-stop anti-Trump (someone I never supported) lies I finally realized that somewhere, in my lifetime or before, the country took a wrong turn. It's tempting to say it happened in the last ten years but it may be more accurate that it was during the 1991 Rodney King police brutality/racism hoax and subsequent rioting when politicians and the media openly abandoned truth, justice, and integrity. The American public, in general, then showed itself to be too gullible and lazy to know or care that vital principles were being gutted.

Don't get me wrong, politicians and the media were not paragons of virtue before then but it does seem like we as a society turned the corner down into dangerous alley back then and things have gotten steadily worse ever since. Academia and the clergy have followed suit or, perhaps, helped lead the way.

In any case, I followed the prosecution of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin very closely. Before the verdict I had estimated the outcome in order of probability (most to least) was as follows:

1. Hung jury
2. Full acquittal
3. Partial acquittal
4. Guilty on all charges

It's obvious I couldn't have been more mistaken. My estimation was based on the clearly erroneous assumption that the jury included at least one intelligent, rational, and principled juror. I don't have a lot of hope that Chauvin will get justice in the appellate courts.

I wish I knew what to tell people to do to turn this country away from the abyss but I don't. I can say there's no hope in Biden or Trump or most of the other denizens of the two wings of the political uniparty. What I do know is that defeatism is a faster path to destruction.

Here are a few more perspectives on the Chauvin trial and verdict:

• "It's a lie: 'Systematic police racism' and the Derek Chauvin Trial" on LawOfficer.com
• "The Derek Chauvin Trial: Reasonable doubt exists" on LawOfficer.com
• "Chauvin Guilty Verdict Completes the Total Collapse of Law, Order, and Due Process in Biden’s America" on Revolver.news
• "Candace Owens: 'This was not a fair trial. No person can say this was a fair trial.' " on Tucker Carlson Tonight via Twitter
  
• "After the Derek Chauvin Verdict: Initial Thoughts and What Comes Next" on RedState.com
• "The Chauvin verdict" on AmericanThinker.com
• "The American Crisis" by Ben Domenech via Twitter

If there were any Left-wing writers who care about truth and justice in the matter of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin then I would link to them but I am unaware of any.

21 April 2021 Addendum: In "George Floyd's Death: Test Your Knowledge" I mentioned that "the written report of the unofficial autopsy of George Floyd requested by Floyd's family and performed Michael Baden, MD, and Allecia Wilson, MD" had never been publicly released. They and their findings were much in the news last summer but unless I'm mistaken neither of them testified in the trial of Derek Chauvin nor was their report offered in evidence by the prosecution. If true, then this suggests that the "family autopsy" was primarily a media prop to advance the financial interests of George Floyd's family and lawyers in extracting a sweet financial payout.

Labels: Biden, crime, critical thinking, George Floyd, Justice, media, police, politics, race, Trump

The prosecution in State v. Chauvin has presented, through its witnesses, an incoherent theory as to how Derek Chauvin allegedly killed George Floyd. Except for an opening statement, the defense has not yet presented it case.

Yet, the prosecution's witnesses have repeatedly given testimony that fundamentally undermines the prosecution's case against Chauvin. For instance, some witnesses testified Floyd died of "positional asphyxia" yet the only witness to perform an autopsy on Floyd testified there was no evidence of asphyxia (see also here). If the state cannot settle on how Chauvin supposedly killed Floyd then how can they honestly argue he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Minneapolis Police Dept. Excited Delirium training slide (cropped)

Judging by the currently available evidence, the Chauvin prosecution is a political show trial orchestrated by corrupt politicians and a corrupt mainstream corporate media. From the point of view of race grifters and their corrupt enablers the trial is a win no matter what happens. If Chauvin is convicted then they will argue that affirms the false narrative of state-sanctioned routine, deadly, racist police violence against Black people. If Chauvin is not convicted or not convicted of the most serious charge(s) then they will claim that proves Black people cannot get justice and you can expect more of the rioting, looting, arson, and violent crimes that we saw last summer and fall.

However, unless there is some smoking gun soon presented by the prosecution Judge Cahill should dismiss the charges "in furtherance of justice" pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 631.21 after the prosecution finishes presenting its case. Since it is extremely unlikely that Cahill, given his past performance, will do this defense counsel Eric Nelson should consider filing a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(1)(a).

It's unlikely that Cahill would grant such a motion on any of the three counts but it's not impossible that he might acquit on one or two of the counts against Chauvin and, from my armchair, non-lawyer perch, I don't see that the defense has a lot to lose by filing the motion. The calculus, of course, includes weighing the time and energy involved in preparing the motion and what possible impact a ruling by Cahill might have on the jury. If Cahill acquitted on one of the murder counts would the jury be more inclined to convict on manslaughter?

See also:

• Prosecution Opening Statement
• What was Derek Chauvin Thinking?
• George Floyd's Death: Test Your Knowledge

Labels: George Floyd, Justice, law, media, police, race

On June 11, 2020, Von Kleim wrote a piece titled "Preparing for Hard Conversations" on the Force Policy Institute web site. One of Kleim's claims in his piece was: "Even now, we cannot make sense of what we saw. Experts, who have learned to be circumspect and wait for facts, are struggling to imagine any fact that could adequately explain the treatment of George Floyd."

Less than a week after that piece was published I tried to leave a comment. My comment was never posted although I'm not sure why. In any case, jury selection in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin started last week.

If you, like Von Kleim, cannot imagine such possible explanations then your 'imaginer' is probably broken or you have been bamboozled by media manipulation. I can imagine several possible facts that, singly or in combination, may explain, but do not necessarily excuse, Chauvin's actions, including his failure to stop and place Floyd in the recovery position in the last 3-4 minutes before EMS arrived.

Below is essentially the list I came up with in the middle of last June. Since then more information has rendered some of them implausible and I've struck them out. I don't claim to know which, if any, of the remainders are true but here they are in no particular order:

1. Chauvin is a racist with a disregard for the lives of Black people.
2. He is a misanthrope who dislikes people in general, regardless of race.
3. He had detained others this way before and/or had witnessed it and didn't think any serious harm would be done.
4. He was showing the crowd who was boss.
5. He was showing the rookies how it's done.
6. He was actually putting very little pressure on Floyd's neck (this seems to be consistent with the final report of the Hennepin County M.E.) and thought Floyd would be fine until EMS arrived.
7. He genuinely thought Floyd was just fine but faking.
8. He was having a bad day and/or angry about George Floyd's behavior or something else and expressed his anger recklessly.
9. He was fatigued or stressed and simply made a poor decision(s).
10. He had a personal grudge against Floyd and wanted him to suffer but not die.
11. He had a personal grudge against Floyd and wanted him to suffer and die.

See also: George Floyd's Death: Test Your Knowledge

Labels: crime, critical thinking, George Floyd, media, police, race

Due to a gruesome video of Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officer Derek Chauvin with his knee on George Floyd's neck and the widespread media coverage of it, the death of Floyd quickly became a matter of public outrage and ongoing national interest. Across the United States, Derek Chauvin has been characterized as the murdering poster boy of systemic racist police violence and important public policy decisions are being made in the wake of protests occasioned by Floyd's death.

What follows is a 12-question quiz. The purpose of this quiz is not to amuse, provoke anger, or to make light of George Floyd's death. Rather, the purpose is to give the reader a benchmark to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of information provided by mainstream media coverage of the death of Floyd and subsequent events.

If you do well on this quiz then you may conclude that the media sources you rely upon are providing you with important factual material in context (or it may be that you have also done your own research independently). Otherwise, you may want to consider what your sources of information are and whether they are trustworthy when it comes to controversial and important subjects. The answers to the questions appear at the end of the quiz.

1. According to the statements of probable cause in the criminal complaint and the amended criminal complaint against former officer Chauvin, what was the relationship of Chauvin and George Floyd before May 25, 2020?

a. They had both worked at El Nuevo Rodeo nightclub.
b. They had worked at the nightclub and knew each other.
c. They had worked at the nightclub, knew each other, and had clashed there.
d. The statements of probable cause do not indicate that the two men worked together or knew each other.

2. The conversations in the publicly available bodycam transcripts of former MPD officers Thomas Kiernan Lane and J. Alexander Kueng reveal that Chauvin knew Floyd and/or Floyd knew Chauvin.

a. True
b. False

3. David Pinney, a Black man who told CBS News he worked with Floyd and Chauvin at El Nuevo Rodeo, retracted his claims that Floyd and Chauvin knew each other "pretty well" and "bumped heads" with Pinney later saying he mistook George Floyd for a different Black former co-worker.

a. True.
b. False.

4. According to the Lane and Kueng bodycam transcripts officers expressed concern that Floyd might be at risk of or suffering from which potentially lethal condition:

a. None, they expressed no concerns about Floyd's health and safety.
b. Positional asphyxia.
c. Mechanical asphyxia.
d. Excited delirium.

5. According to a 2009 "White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome" by a task force of American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), a 2014 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin article, and a 2016 ACEP newsletter article "excited delirium" is likely to be:

a. A myth.
b. Junk science.
c. A racist fiction created to justify police misconduct.
d. A real condition that can lead to death by a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest.

6. On May 25, 2020, MPD's official use of force policy permitted officers to use neck restraint as a "Non-deadly force option" including the "Conscious Neck Restraint" described as "The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure."

a. True.
b. False.

7. According to information in the official autopsy report by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner and the amended criminal complaint against former officer Chauvin how long did George Floyd live after Chauvin "removed his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck"?

a. Zero minutes, Floyd was already dead.
b. Seven minutes.
c. Thirty-three minutes.
d. Fifty-eight minutes.

8. According to the official autopsy report, the Medical Examiner identified "no potentially life-threatening injuries" to George Floyd's body and no "evidence of injury" to his neck.

a. True
b. False

9. How many times does the official autopsy report mention "excited delirium", "suffocation", "strangulation", "asphyxia", and "neck compression" in total?

a. Once.
b. Seven times.
c. Thirteen times.
d. Twenty-three times.

10. The case title of the official autopsy report is which of the following:

a. Cardiopulmonary Arrest Complicating Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, and Neck Compression.
b. Cardiopulmonary Arrest Caused by Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, and Neck Compression.
c. Cardiopulmonary Arrest Due to Fentanyl and Methamphetamine Overdose.
d. Cardiopulmonary Arrest of George Floyd aka Floyd Perry.

11. On May 31, 2020, according to notes of the Managing Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner "said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death."

a. True
b. False

12. When was the written report of the unofficial autopsy of George Floyd requested by Floyd's family and performed Michael Baden, MD, and Allecia Wilson, MD, publicly released?

a. On June 1, 2020, the same day as the press conference announcing their findings.
b. On June 3, 2020, the day charges against Chauvin were upgraded to second-degree murder.
c. On July 15, 2020, when the Floyd family filed their lawsuit in federal court.
d. It has never been publicly released.

It may be objected that to focus too closely on the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd or any other police-involved death is to miss the forest of systemic racist police violence for the trees. However, if you were in what you were told was an oak forest and found that most of the trees were actually cedars then you might begin to question the competency or motives of those who had misinformed you.

For example, the high-profile police killing of Michael Brown in 2014 helped propel Black Lives Matter onto the national stage. That case has been independently investigated three times in the last six years. Two of the three prosecutorial inquiries were under the supervision of Black officials—there was the federal inquiry under the Obama administration's Attorney General Eric Holder and then, this year, a five months long investigation by St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell. Each time a grand jury or prosecutors found there was insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed against Brown. Yet, Brown's death is still unqualifiedly characterized by BLM as a "murder". Why is that?

Answers:

1) d. The statements of probable cause do not indicate that the two men worked together or knew each other (see the criminal complaint and the amended criminal complaint).
2) b. False (see the bodycam transcripts of former MPD officers Lane (p. 16) and Kueng (p. 33)).
3) a. True (see "Man who claimed George Floyd and Derek Chauvin 'bumped heads' changes story").
4) d. Excited delirium.
5) d. A real condition that can lead to death by a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest (see ACEP "White Paper", FBI Bulletin, & ACEP article).
6) a. True (see the MPD Policy & Procedure Manual use of force section 5-311).
7) Either c. Thirty-three minutes or d. Fifty-eight minutes may be considered correct. According to the amended criminal complaint Chauvin "removed his knee from Mr. Floyd's neck" at 8:27 PM (see p. 4). The official autopsy report says that an "antemortem blood draw" ("antemortem" means preceding or before death) was performed on Floyd at the hospital at 9:00 PM (see p. 2) and that Floyd was not pronounced dead until 9:25 PM (see p. 1).
8) a. True.
9) a. Once. The report uses the term "neck compression" only once, in the title, and never uses the other words.
10) a. Cardiopulmonary Arrest Complicating Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, and Neck Compression.
11) a. True (see "Notes from conversation with Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County Medical Examiner").
12) d. Never. As of September 14, 2020, the report has not been made public.

See also: "What was Derek Chauvin Thinking?"

Labels: crime, critical thinking, George Floyd, media, police, race

Arson in Minneapolis on May 28, 2020

In the wake of the George Floyd protests and riots a particular quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been repeatedly trotted out (see e.g. here and here and here). As Time noted after the Freddie Gray riots: "One quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., has become a touchstone for those who seek to understand [sic] why those individuals have taken to the streets: 'A riot,' King said, 'is the language of the unheard.' " (On the origins of this quote see the 2013 CBS News piece "MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard".)

It is doubtful that there has been any time in American history when more Black people occupied positions of prominence in the media and power in politics. Even Demon Trump has the same percentage of Black cabinet members as Obama did in his first term.

In Minneapolis, the police chief and the state attorney general are both Black men. The city's representative in Congress is a Somali-American woman. There are apparently four Black members on the city council, one of whom is the son of the state attorney general.

So, how is it that the Minneapolis rioters are supposedly "unheard"? What are they saying and who isn't listening? More importantly, why is it that when pundits, politicians, and other propagandists quote King about the "language of the unheard" they seldom quote the text below from his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize speech?

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

In a real sense nonviolence seeks to redeem the spiritual and moral lag that I spoke of earlier as the chief dilemma of modern man. It seeks to secure moral ends through moral means. Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. Indeed, it is a weapon unique in history, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it.

I believe in this method because I think it is the only way to reestablish a broken community. It is the method which seeks to implement the just law by appealing to the conscience of the great decent majority who through blindness, fear, pride, and irrationality have allowed their consciences to sleep.

In 1968, shortly before his death, King reiterated his position on the "language of the unheard" while "condemn[ing] riots", saying: "... I am still committed to  militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the [race] problem from a direct action point of view ... And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method  that  brings about tangible results."

Labels: Black America, Christianity, crime, critical thinking, Ilhan Omar, Martin Luther King, nonviolence, Obama, police, quotations, race, Trump, violence

Labels: class, economics, media, police, police repression, politics, race, Tucker Carlson, video

Police in Arlington, WA, recently seized the legally possessed firearms of Kaleb J. Cole, reportedly a "neo-Nazi" member of Atomwaffen. The weapons were seized pursuant to an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) issued by a King County judge at the request of the Seattle Police Department (SPD). Arlington, where Cole apparently lives, is in Snohomish County, WA. The long reach of the SPD, via RCW 7.94, across county lines is notable here.

Under Section 9 (see below) of the ERPO petition, "Violence and Threats", you may notice that it is indicated that Cole has "recently committed or threatened violence" and "shown ... a pattern of acts or threats of violence".


Yet, the SPD produces no conclusive evidence of any of that in its petition. The SPD's evidence consists of the decision by the Canadian government to exclude Cole along with two reports of an "Unknown suspect" placing Atomwaffen decals and two reports of people being offended by Cole engaging in protected First Amendment activities. The videos cited, which I have not seen, are offered in support of the allegation that Cole attended "ORGANIZED FIREARMS TRAINING/HATE CAMPS", neither of which are threats or acts of violence in any meaningful sense. Remarks in a KING 5 report are telling in regard to the lack of evidence of anything but thoughtcrimes here:

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, whose deputy prosecutor Kim Wyatt argued the ERPO case before the judge, said the order to surrender guns is the right tool when law enforcement does not have enough evidence to file a criminal charge.

"In this case, the [FBI] joint terrorism task force had assessed Mr. Cole and said he was somebody who was doing more than thinking and talking about his extremist, violent beliefs, but that he was actually acting on it," Satterberg said.

Yet, if he were "actually acting" on his beliefs in any criminal manner then he would be rightly subject to arrest. The KING 5 report also makes it clear that federal authorities, including the FBI and CBP, were instrumental in bringing this action forward.

The CBP report (Exhibit 3 of the ERPO petition) says: "COLE also stated that he discourages people (other members) from things that are illegal and he stated that his group is not interested in overthrowing the U.S. Government." The ERPO petition also included material about Atomwaffen from the disreputable ADL and SPLC.

If Cole and his associates were carrying out actual criminal activities such as harassment, assault, or homicide or conspiring to do so then I would be the first to say arrest and try them. What we, evidently, have here is a case of someone being deprived of their rights as guaranteed under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution because of his objectionable ideas and his lawful activities in support of those ideas.

The rule of law and civil liberties are only as secure for members of any given majority as they are for a despised minority or individual. Unfortunately, this country has a long history of officials betraying those purported values when it is politically expedient or technically feasible.

In this case federal, state, county, and local authorities have all violated their oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution and I am hoping civil libertarians will put aside their distaste for Cole's ideas long enough to mount a vigorous legal defense of the state and federal constitutions. It would be nice, too, to see some of the oath breakers—including, but not limited to, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, Seattle Police Sergeant Dorothy Kim, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, Kim Wyatt, and Dan Satterberg—held accountable at the ballot box and/or in civil court.

Labels: censorship, civil liberties, freedom, government, guns, police, Seattle, surveillance, thoughtcrime

In the United States you have no legal right to expect that the police will protect you from criminal acts or arrest the perpetrators after the fact. There's actually a lot of case law on this subject but I'll stick to just two cases.

In 1975, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were victimized, at knife point, by Marvin Kent and James Morse in a rooming house in Washington, DC. The police were called numerous times but they dropped the ball with the result that "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse." The victims later "sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services" in federal court. In affirming the dismissal of their lawsuit the en banc District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of a lower court (citations omitted):

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen ...

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order ... Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981)]

In 1999, Jessica Gonzales' estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, abducted their three daughters in violation of a restraining order against him. She made repeated attempts to get police to enforce the restraining order and return her children to her. They did essentially nothing. Her husband murdered the girls and then committed suicide-by-cop.

She filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that "the town of Castle Rock, Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband was violating the terms of a restraining order." The US Supreme Court reinstated the District Court's order dismissing the lawsuit. They concluded that Jessica Gonzales "did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband" (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)).

Labels: crime, law, police, United States