http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.restraining.orders.ap/index.html

Does this mean should my child be taken, I hunt the the perp down myself, then call the cops?? If my daughter's school is taken hostage, I now need to go in myself to get her...? Because SOMEONE is going in to get her...

no but I would sure go in and get my kid

quote:

Originally posted by French Toast:
What it means is that the police do the best job they can but you can't sue them if they fail to prevent a crime. Where would this have led? My store gets robbed and I sue the police because they didn't have an officer nearby to prevent the robbery? Who would pay the lawsuits that would have resulted? Taxpayers and no one else. The Supreme Court made a very sound decision here.

She did not sue because they did nto prevent a crime, she sued because they did not even try. Knew where he was, did not go there.

Did their best... lmao, Do you even know the case?

She called them said, " my husband is so and so with my kids at such and such, go get them" and they did not go anywhere. They sat and ate doughnuts, thinking she was loony. Of course she was crazed, her kids were taken!!!!

So my question is, you gonna let your kid die because of what you call "best job"?

The Supreme COurt opened the door for vigilantism; one now has no reason to expect the police to do anything. No jury will convict a man of taking the law into his own hands to save his children now. You're carjacked and your kid is inside, can't expect the police to help, carjack the next car and chase them down...

That's what the Supreme Court has done. Turned cops into investigators, and left it up to me to defend myself and my family.