Supremes on Self Defense

Yeah yeah, so I'm late on this discussion. Link is from SCOTUSblog.

Not really surprised by the finding. Though the arguments discussed are interesting.

In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court reversed a Tenth Circuit decision that permitted a due process claim against a local government for its police department's failure to enforce a restraining order.

Castle Rock presented two questions: (1) Whether federal law permits a procedural due process claim against a local government for failing to enforce a partial restraining order, exposing its holder to private violence; (2) If such a claim is allowed, what kind of process is required? Sixteen years earlier, the Court rejected an analogous substantive due process claim in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept of Social Services, but made it explicit that DeShaney created no precedent regarding a procedural due process claim of the same variety.

Justice ScaliaÂ’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices OÂ’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, held that Gonzales could claim no property interest in the enforcement of the restraining order and declined to reach the second question. Justice Souter filed a concurrence, which Justice Breyer joined, and Justice Stevens filed a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsberg.

From what I read it's all realted to this section of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can read the case. It's not excessively legalese.

Not unexpected, the lawyers for the case performed a lot of whining.

"We need to put pressure on our elected officials to pass laws that offer real protection to women and their families," she said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which championed her cause.

After the court defeat, the ACLU urged state legislatures to adopt tougher laws on restraining orders and police negligence.

Gonzales' lawyer, Brian Reichel of Broomfield, doubted that would happen in Colorado, considering the immunity the state already has extended to police.

"For us, there's nowhere to go," Reichel said. "For Jessica Gonzales, the fight is over."

Reichel said the Supreme Court had "given the green light" to police to ignore restraining orders. "Police now have unfettered discretion to ignore these directives."

"Unfettered discretion to ignore" I would say is over the top. Do they honestly wish us to believe that the police will intentionally ignore restraining orders? Police are professionals, and I don't see them just ignoring any such case. I doubt that was even the case here.

Now, where does this leave one on the topic of self-defense? Again affirming that the police have no requirement to provide protection, and you have no right to be protected by a governmental agency, they are telling you "you're on your own."