From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:51:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:

[snip]

>>So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
>>spouse.

>This is a problem that perhaps the waiting period is designed for.  By
>preventing the abusive spouse from running out and buying a gun and
>killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
>to wait seven days.

Men almost always kill their wives with their fists or some blunt instrument.
Women often are only able to successfully defend with a gun. See DOJ
crime statistics, any year.

>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
>be more emphasis on it.  As opposed to the NRA line of "Let 'em fight it
>out."  I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

Another data point. I'm fascinated by how often people bring up TV shows.
TV shows and real-life policing bear as much resemblance as ... well
apples and oranges.

You obviously live in TV-land. In real-life woman calls police:

Woman: My ex-husband keeps saying he's going to kill me.
Police: Call us back when he's actually trying to kill you. (click)

So you live on some planet where police have the resources to
run around relocating people and protecting anyone who asks for it.
This must also be some amazing planet where injunctions force ex-husbands
to pay their alimony and child-support. Sounds nice, what are the
emigration policies to this wonderful place?

But let's assume your hypothetical and ridiculous situation
of a husband armed and bent on murder, but with a cop guarding her.
Now my hapless officer is stuck in the middle of this and may end up
dead himself, or having to kill the husband. Does it make you feel better
that we've now involved a third person in this trauma-inducing situation
(your words) of possibly having to take a human life?

Following is an excerpt from an article on the myths of police protection.
The entire article is in the archives at archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:
pub/firearms/politics/rkba/dial911. Riss v. City of New York is
a precedent for modern cases on the same topic.

-----------------------------cut here-------------------------------------
RELY ON THE POLICE: AND PAY HEAVILY.....Even someone repeatedly threatened by
another has no entitlement to police protection until they have been physical-
ly harmed.
        In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend,
who had a criminal record.  Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her:
"If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with
you, no one else will want you."  She repeatedly sought police protection,
explaining her request in detail.  Nothing was done to protect her.
        When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently beg-
ged the New York City Police Department for help:  "Completely distraught, she
called the police, begging for help, but was refused."  The next day, she was
attacked" A "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her
face.  She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred.
        The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss has no right to
protection.  The Court refused to create such a right because that would
impose a crushing economic burden on the government.  Only the legislature
could create a  right to protection:

        "The amount of protection that may be provided is limited
        by the resources of the community and by a considered leg-
        islative-executive decision as to how these resources may
        be deployed.  For the courts to proclaim a new and general
        duty of protection ...even to those who may be the partic-
        ular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could
        and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources
        of the community should be allocated and without predictable
        limits."

        Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victim-
ized not only because she had relied on the police to protect her, but because
she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon.  Judge Keating
wrote:

        "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand
is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any
weapon for self-defense.  Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to
rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all
responsibility to her."  [Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

-- 
The War on Drugs is just a part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns