And yet, the anti-gunners in this country and the U.N. taking advantage of the Virginia Te

Another ruling that the government has no duty to protect
Posted by David Hardy · 10 May 2007 12:04 PM
Hudson v. Hudson, a recent 6th Circuit ruling. (pdf).

"First, we briefly recount the tragedy that led to this
lawsuit. Jennifer Braddock was issued three protective orders against James Hudson, the father of
her son, because Hudson repeatedly abused Braddock. In August 2001, while the third protective
order was in effect, Hudson broke into Braddock’s home and threatened her. She called the
Memphis Police Department, but it made no attempt to find him. Hudson eventually was convicted
of aggravated criminal trespass, vandalism, and violating the protective order, and sentenced to one
week in jail. Over the next two years, Braddock called the police several times to complain about
various violations of the protective order, including acts of physical violence, but the Memphis
Police took no action. Braddock’s struggle against Hudson’s violence ended when Hudson broke
into her home, killed her and two of her friends, then turned the gun on himself and committed
suicide."
.....

"As a general principle, state actors cannot be held liable for private acts of violence under
a substantive due process theory. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S.
189, 196 (1989); see also Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 2810. We recognize two
exceptions to this rule: (1) when the state has a special relationship to the victim, and (2) when the
state creates the danger that led to the victim’s harm. Jones v. Union County, 296 F.3d 417, 428 (6th Cir. 2002). In Jones, the plaintiff claimed that Union County, Tennessee, violated her substantive
due process rights when it failed to serve a protective order on her ex-husband, who later attacked
her. We held that “the Tennessee Legislature’s imposition of affirmative duties upon state officials
to serve ex parte orders of protection timely does not give rise to a due process claim cognizable
under § 1983 based upon a special relationship between Union County and Plaintiff.” Id. Similarly,
we hold that a protection order does not create a special relationship between police officers and the
individual who petitioned for that order.

Nor may the plaintiffs establish their claims under the state-created-danger theory. Under
this theory, a plaintiff must show “an affirmative act that creates or increases the risk, a special
danger to the victim as distinguished from the public at large, and the requisite degree of state
culpability.” McQueen v. Beecher Cmty. Schs., 433 F.3d 460, 464 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Kallstrom
v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1066-67 (6th Cir. 1998)). These officers’ alleged inaction fails
to satisfy the “affirmative act” requirement."

[Update in light of comments: the Court's treatment of due process falls into two categories. "Procedural" due process is what you'd normally think of as due process. A person got what process was due, a fair trial or procedure. "Substantive" due process is a strange bird, largely created to make the 14th amendment apply the Bill of Rights to the states. For example, if a state outlaws freedom of speech, it deprives a person of liberty without "due process" no matter how much process they give that person.]

------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: JT at May 10, 2007 01:34 PM

No duty to protect. And yet, the anti-gunners in this country and the U.N. taking advantage of the Virginia Tech Massacre claiming the individual has not right of self-defense as they now call for a global gun control treaty! That is due cause for despare being forced legally to be a "sitting duck" for the oncoming genocide. Forget about going to a therapist to sort this out because there is not a movement to strip people with emotional problems of their Second Amendment rights. That's the old "Give the Government an inch worth of your rights and they will take a mile. Can you say, "slave?"

May God help us all!



The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !