No, the Police Don't Always Have to Help You | Castle Rock v. Gonzales
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2022
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html.
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
In episode 67 of Supreme Court Briefs, a mother's three children are murdered after the local police don't enforce a restraining order.
Produced by Matt Beat. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @TrackTribe.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-278
Additional sources/further reading/watching:
www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of...
www.aclu.org/other/castle-roc...
www.lexisnexis.com/community/...
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...
www.law.columbia.edu/news/arc...
www.abajournal.com/news/artic...
• Gonzales v. United Sta...
#supremecourtbriefs #scotus #supremecourt
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
Buy Mr. Beat's book:
amzn.to/386g7cz
How to support Mr. Beat:
Donate to Mr. Beat for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
Subscribe to my channel @iammrbeat
Turn on notifications
Like, share, and comment on my videos
Connect:
Mr. Beat on Cameo, yo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat?qid=1...
Mr. Beat on Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Mr. Beat's TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@iammrbeat?lan...
Mr. Beat’s website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat’s second channel: @mattbeatgoeson
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/62BsM...
Mr. Beat favorites:
POP! Icons: George Washington go.magik.ly/ml/11jrb/
Shampoo: rb.gy/vlqeym
Acne fighter: rb.gy/a6dnb0
Wallet: shop.ekster.com/mr-beat2
Recommended books:
Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessing go.magik.ly/ml/11jul/
Truman by David McCullough go.magik.ly/ml/11jwc/
How the States Got Their Shapes by Mark Stein go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvf/
Command and Control by Eric Scholosser go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvi/
The Age of Fracture by Daniel Rodgers go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvn/
Blowback by Chalmers Johnson go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvw/
The Third Reich at War by Richard Evans go.magik.ly/ml/1fdvt/
Railroaded by Richard White go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwq/
The War on Normal People by Andrew Yang go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwi/
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwk/
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt go.magik.ly/ml/1fdwn/
Studio equipment:
Canon EOS M50 Camera EF-M 15-45mm Lens amzn.to/3dcNPen
Samtian LED Video Light Kit amzn.to/3llDwHO
TroyStudio Acoustic Panel amzn.to/33CkqHn
Blue Snowball iCE USB Mic amzn.to/2GseOHa
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Typesy: ereflect.postaffiliatepro.com...
Kids Connect: kidskonnect.com/?ref=iammrbeat
Ekster: ekster.com?sca_ref=444709.jvl...
I use MagicLinks for all my ready-to-shop product links. Check it out here:
www.magiclinks.com/rewards/re...
FTC Disclosure: This post or video contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission for purchases made through my links.
Mostly because of the horrific nature of the case, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent decades. In 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemned the decision. Critics have argued that it basically says it’s ok for the police to ignore restraining orders.
Decided on a technicality, it’s easy to understand why this decision is so unsettling to so many when it began with police refusing to enforce a restraining order, and learning that them actually enforcing that restraining order could have prevented the murder of three children.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Wow, what a tragic case. The least people should expect from police officers and a police department is that they do their best to protect their community. The fact that they didn't arrest this estranged husband before he had the chance to commit murder of his 3 kids is truly sad
It's just depressing
While the police officers were on the wrong here it really falls onto the local government and the state they are the ones who have to insure that police do their jobs not the SCOTUS
Remember: cops do not work for you. Cops work as enforcers of the rich and powerful.
@@luisandrade2254 If you agree that this should be common practice across all state/local jurisdictions, then that’s exactly what the authority of SCOTUS should be used for. SCOTUS was designed (in part) to align many different local policies into one standard.
In most jurisdictions in the USA the police exist to serve and protect those who pay their salaries, meaning, rich (and mostly white) folk. Poor people don’t pay police salaries, so police have no incentive to do anything for poor people. Perhaps if communities were to defund the existing police that serve special interests and instead use consent-based policing (aka Peelian policing principles) where police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform who exercise their power to police with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens, abiding by a consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers, and their accountability for doing so, then perhaps poor and minority communities would be safer and we will all see more justice.
Very cool that we pay cops that don't have any actual duty to protect
Very based
right it says protect and serve on the car
@@kylelawson91 protect assets and serve the ruling class.
@@nickthompson1812 sad
Uvalde spends 40% of its budget on the coward cops that they hire. Imagine being a parent of a school age kid in Uvalde knowing 40% of your local taxes go to people that sat around for an hour while kids where being gunned down a few classrooms over.
This case has always disgusted me so freaking much.
Me too
Yes. It literally hurts me. And I'm not even from the US.
While the police officers were on the wrong here it really falls onto the local government and the state they are the ones who have to insure that police do their jobs not the SCOTUS
@@luisandrade2254 You keep posting this but it’s a yes or no, SCOTUS is supossed to decide how was are interpreted in regards to constitutionality. In may ways they do have a hand in deciding what should and should not be done by pretty much everyone, including the local governments. Sure, it is up to state and local governments to make sure officers are doing the job, but it’s up to SCOTUS to rule in ways that are in line with the public good and with the constitution. This ruling went against both because, well, cops have a lot of money behind them and you don’t.
@@arlaux1099 thing is it isn’t a constitutional right. The constitution clearly states that states have their own autonomy so they are the ones responsible for regulating their own police forces. Putting state and local police under federal control or influence is not only unconstitutional it could could jeopardize things like weed legalization or sanctuary cities which you may be against but you can see how it opens a pandora box
WTF is the point of a restraining order if you don’t enforce it??! Amazing how we protect those who threaten others more than those who are being threatened…
Um there is no point. If you feel the need to get a restraining order make sure you get a gun as well
not much, when i was working with DV victims in IL (probably varies state to state), we always advised they got an "order of protection", which is similar but harder to get. A restraining order had to go before a judge if someone broke it, but the police were "supposed to" enforce orders of protection
2A rights allow people to protect themselves luckily, as long as the left doesn't get their way that is
@@clayhackney3514 if the left got their way, we’d defund the police and military (and treat the human needs so people aren’t constantly in fight or flight)… what agencies do you think would be coming to collect your guns? Remember the US military is the size of the 10 militaries. If they decide to come for you, that’s it, you’re done. You might make a spectacle, but the end result’s the same
@@clayhackney3514 I'm on the left and I support guns for self-defense if someone knows that they can trust themselves with it. What I don't support and think shouldn't fall under the Second Amendment is assault weapons.
What is the point of the police if they are not required to protect us and why should they continue to be funded? Well, the state needs someone to keep us in line...
You make a very good point
The police are just horrid, they're just legal/ protected criminals most of the time it seems like
@@iammrbeat I'm definitely not a "defund the police" guy, but what incentive do we have to support the police when they are allowed to watch you die or break into your house and kill you in your sleep when no knock raiding the wrong house all while having no real accountability
@@Alex-12381 Then why aren't you a " defund the police " kind of guy in light of these circumstances?
@@Alex-12381 Police reforms are long overdue, and I say this as someone who is friends with a few police officers.
I’m almost certain this is one of those cases where the wrong question was covered here. The main issue here isn’t that the police didn’t enforce the restraining order (kind of, it still involves the order), rather that the police didn’t even try to find Simon and Gonzalez’s kids after Simon abducted them.
Similar to a missing person’s report, the police have a duty to protect those who are in assumed danger, even if the person isn’t actually in any danger: rather, it shows that people have a right for security about themselves and for others. Hence, why the police are often called regarding the suspicious behavior/activity of other persons in an area. Regardless of whether Simon was actually visiting the kids legally or not, the previous behavior of Simon stalking Gonzalez merits a search for the kids with the assumption that the kids could be in danger. And if the kids weren’t in danger, Gonzalez still has a right to ensure that her children are safe.
Added on to Qualified Immunity, this case sets a dangerous precedent for the police to sideline their duty to serve and protect. After all, “if someone cannot be confirmed to be in danger, then better assume they aren’t in danger”.
Police must be held accountable, including in where they fail to hold someone else accountable.
Yep, the framing was all off
Was he ever charged with stalking?
Nothing here suggests that he was going to snap and murder his own kids.
My thoughts as well, only I couldn't word it as well.
The police have ZERO duty to give their life, they can't be balmed for the failings of the likelyhood
@@persoro4015 how is acting on a missing person report risking their lives?
In my opinion, failing to do your job to the point where people are killed due to your gross negligence is ground for criminals prosecution. I believe if this was a nurse, fire fighter or even a parent they would go to jail but in this case police are given complete immunity
Negligence on doctors end happen all the time. Nothing you can do about it either.
@@zukusenryu Malpractice is a thing.
@@rabidrabids5348 it's really hard to get them in trouble especially how hospitals are like corporations now my family had issues with a hospital they cut of my grandma's leg they gave her like 5 surgeries and kept messing her up and literally left a rag inside of her body and they couldn't do anything about it for some stupid reason and she lost way more than she should have because of them it was so traumatic for everyone
@@zukusenryu you're supposed to be able to sue it doesn't always work obviously but still
There are people who actually did their job and tried their best, but still got fired when they didn't deliver results. Imagine such high stakes as the death of children and just refusing to do anything and still keeping your job. People who worked a lot harder and had much lower stakes have been fired.
This is another case I've never heard of but I'm really disappointed in this decision.
Yeah this one was troubling
Mee too, you can't really sue the officers though
to me, the qualified immunity for police and government officials is really weird which says government officials like the president and Congress can't be sued or face consequences if they do bad things even if they don't violate the constitution. At least RBG and Stevens understood the implications
However, I'm not surprised how the conservative court like Rehnquist or Thomas but I'm surprised at Breyer's ruling
The decision makes sense constitutionally because of how they framed the question. However, I believe they framed the question wildly incorrectly
Seeing the Uvalde footage and just learning about this is just scary. They need to be held accountable because the fact the kids got kidnapped and did nothing is just wow.
Yeah you could say after reading this case, the cops at Uvalde had no reason to protect the children. There needs to be laws in itself that punishes police officers for negligence disgusting.
Qualified immunity should be stripped from the vocabulary of every municipal entity! It's a scapegoat for police brutality and ineptitude!
I agree
Yes. It's likely something the republicans thought up for when they get caught.
@@Bestsubscriber-js7ik your job being hard doesn't excuse a lack of discipline.
Nor should it prevent you from being held accountable for your actions.
To be fair, police brutality does clearly violate your Constitutional rights, so it isn't covered by qualified immunity.
Unfortunate that you don't know what qualified immunity actually protects and it's not just police or other municipal departments. QI protects all government actors unless they violate your rights. Not stopping a crime is not a violation of any rights.
As an additional comment to your note on Uvalde, the Parkland school shooting also had a police officer who refused to do his job. The Broward County judges said he was fully within his rights to stay in his car, as he did that day
Thanks for bringing that up!
It's a shame that the three children weren't three big piles of money. that might've gotten the police more invested in her "property interest."
Oh dang! Way to turn it up a notch. I love this.
No it wouldn't have. It's not like they could take a portion of the money, all they were was lazy and incompetent officers.
@@Noam_.Menashe Police can actually take money from you if they believe it has been obtained illegally or will be used in an illegal transaction. Of course it’s abused. There was one vid that I watched where a man had thousands of dollars taken after a traffic stop since it was “suspicious” and had “traces of illegal drugs,” on the notes. Just know the Police aren’t your friends or on your side, they work for the Government, not for you.
@@Noam_.Menashe clearly you’ve never heard of civil asset forfeiture
@@Noctem_pasa doesn't seem applicable at all in this case.
Which Supreme Court case should I cover for this series next?
United States v. Zubaydah, though it is extremely recent
Dobbs V. Jackson and/or West Virginia V. EPA.
Laidlaw v. Organ, a landmark case kn contract law from the Marshall court.
Google LLC v. Oracle America
*_KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT_*
Oh man, call me crazy, but it’s almost like all these institutions aren’t designed to protect common people primarily
You're either a far-right loon who thinks the government is after him/her or a communist loon who hates any government that isn't exactly like his values.
Some of them are not
@@iammrbeat the ones that use violence to protect status quos have never been, simple as
Thank you for making this important video, not many people realize the police are not obligated to protect you or your loved ones. You are.
I'm glad I could finally make it!
No, they are not obligated. And you're right, you are; obligated to pay them to choose not to do anything to help you that is. Isn't that great? So the next time you're at work or sleeping or on a business trip or in the shower or taking a shi... and someone attacks your family, you can rest easy knowing that the police have a built-in excuse for when you ask why you have funeral arrangements to make.
You make it sound like they have no duty to prevent crime. What the hell do my tax dollars go to? Funding their doughnut binges?
@@Chrisboy265 no, I said they have no duty to protect you or your loved ones. They cannot be held liable for failing to protect your well being, as was described in the Supreme Court case. Did you actually watch the video or read my comment?
Then strike the “to serve and protect” off the side of police cruisers and inform the public sentiment. They feel more and more like enforcers every day.
They feel mroe and more like this when you hear of historical cases of rare negligence.
I’ll put it bluntly. To protect and serve never meant you or I. Protect property and assets, and serve those paying the bills and the ruling class. Look into the origins of the police in the USA.
I’ve never seen a police car with those words on it. Police exist to enforce the status quo and keep the people with power and privilege, in power and maintaining their privilege.
So if you walk outside your house and someone mugs you, can you sue the police for not protecting you?
Yes we know that. The question is, why should 40% of city's budget goes into them instead of services such as healthcare, therapy, hunger relief, social housing if the police's job is simply to "help if they want to".
What city uses that much budget for police?
@@fatguy9 They're using an obvious hyperbole hun. I know you're not intelligent enough to figure that out but they're not being literal, they're making a point that we spend way to much on police when they do nothing to help average tax payers. Say it with me HYPERBOLE. H Y P E R B O L E. Hyperbole. Dingaling.
@@fatguy9 Uvalde actually. Lotta good that did (sarcasm)
Mr. Beat, there was a somewhat similar case about 2 years ago in Leavenworth, Kansas. Long story short: Bitter custody battle. The father went to the house, killed his two sons and abducted his daughter. (Mom was at work.) A baseball coach found the dead bodies and called police. There was a massive 15-hour manhunt. The father was finally caught by the Oklahoma Hwy Patrol only a few miles from the OK/TX border as you enter the panhandle of TX. Thankfully, the little girl was unharmed. Divorce makes some people crazy. 😧
I don't remember this, but thank you so much for bringing it to my attention.
This guy was crazy before the divorce. Anyone who murders their own kids is a bad person who can't blame it on divorce or custody issues.
Bullcrap. I'm sorry she had to go through all that foolishness. It's bad enough she lost 3 of her daughters. Now they're gaslighting her about the restraining order. She's right and they are wrong.
I feel so sorry for her
Just so I’m clear, did any of the courts that heard this case address the glaring question of who is supposed to enforce a restraining order if it’s not the police? If the person supposedly protected by the order is expected to enforce it entirely by themselves, why even issue the order?
Nope. SCOTUS has a long history of ignoring the very simple logical implications of their rulings when it comes to police work. Usually, not always but usually, the court bends over backwards to give police whatever they need to avoid having to actually do their job, whether that be removing some mechanism of accountability, enforcing our 4th amendment rights, etc. Just look at how Miranda was gutted the day before the Dobbs v Jackson decision. SCOTUS said that there was no legal recourse for having your Miranda rights violated by striking down the only way you have to hold police accountable. If there are no consequences for having your rights violated then they will continue to violate your rights. If your rights can be violated freely, consistently without concern of consequences and no mechanism of accountability or protection then then you have no rights.
That's... A great question.🤔🤔🤔
This is by far one of the worst Supreme Court decisions, sometimes I wonder why the Supreme Court is like this and what exactly is the point of police when most of the time they don’t even do anything
It is certainly frustrating
And when they do something, it's sometimes something really bad, but they still get immunity. Insanity.
Exactly, this is why 2A rights exist, at least as long as the left don't get their way
To document the doing of nothing, ofc.
@@clayhackney3514 You're going to have a lot of work to do to prove how, exactly, the 2A has protected people that the police wouldn't. Because there doesn't seem to be much evidence for that
Wow I’ve never heard of this case, that’s sad. This basically means that restraining orders are pointless
Effectively yes
Not quite. 3:44
@@wanderingthewastes6159 that still means it’s pointless
@@wanderingthewastes6159 I guess they should’ve been more specific, and said on the Colorado law, but still
I hate auto correct
I'm glad you tied this case to the recent tragedy in Uvalde. In a just world, the police in Castle Rock, and the police in Uvalde would lose their jobs. Excellent video. Though now I'm in a somber mood.
One question: What's the best way to legally overturn this decision? Would it be possible for lawmakers to enshrine a law enforcement duty to intervene in either state or federal law?
Imagine if the police were fired. Now what? Do you think other people will rush in to take the job knowing that the previous guys were fired for not risking their lives enough?
@@benjamindover4337 deadbeats wouldn't apply, but people willing to protect their communities will still put in applications.
@@benjamindover4337 Yes, I believe exactly that. Protecting peoples' lives isn't a job for cowards or the faint of heart.
@@TheSkizz89 what makes you so sure? Why wouldn't those heroic people go into another line of work instead?
Circumvent? Buy a gun maybe? I say we end qualified immunity. To do this, we must vote in ALL elections, especially local elections.
That's horrific. I was in second grade in Colorado when this happened, and I had no clue. This sort of negligence needs to change.
The case is solid proof that "Protect and Serve" is BS
It can certainly be a meaningless phrase
The decision makes constitutional sense because of how they framed the issue, but the framing of the issue was wildly incorrect in my humble opinion.
Perfectly said there, Chuck.
Sounds like an indictment of the constitution more than anything else
Maybe this is addressed in a different video, but I would love to hear more about how court cases get framed. Seems like incorrect framing can cause serious issues. Who gets to decide what’s being decided?
@@Noctem_pasa How so?
Fair enough...
I was having a Mr Beat's videos marathon and suddenly I get this notification. What a horrible scenario it must have been for that mother and the fate of those three daughters. I wonder how many times things like these happened: when a major crime could have been prevented had the police intervened before.
To continue the marathon, check out Graham v. Connor :)
I live 30 minutes south of Castle Rock. Sad to say, that's the sort of non-response you'd expect from the Castle Rock PD. They'd rather spend their time harassing travelers along I-25 (to/from Denver).
Qualified Immunity applies if officers, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR duty, violate a citizen's rights. As these officers were malingering, qualified immunity should not apply.
Qualified Immunity protects all actions *unless* a right is violated. QI does *not* protect any actions that violate rights.
@@w_6880 This is factually incorrect. QI most certainly protects officers that violate your rights. That's literally what it's for - it grants government employees immunity from civil suit if they happen to violate your rights in the course of carrying out their governmental work. QI doesn't apply only when the action taken has been *clearly established* by the courts as a rights violating action and the ruling is well known enough that any *reasonable person* should have known it was a violation.
Thank you for bringing this case up Mr. Beast. I was researching about this case a while back and noticed that there weren't much attention to it. I hope more attention will get to this case and real changes would happen.
Mr Beast?????
I only heard about it after listening to an episode of More Perfect, a podcast I highly recommend btw
Beat, not Beast. Two different creators.
@@shrekswife2687 Collab when?
Thank you for making this! I learned about this from a play called What the Constitution Means to Me, absolutely insane they came to this decision. Really makes you rethink the concept of rights given to you in the Constitution
I must check out this play!
This page is invaluable man. I’ve learned so much on topics I never thought to look up on my own time. You’re the man, Mr. Beat! Thank you much again!
This court case should be taught in every high school civics class
I hope it will be someday!
@@iammrbeat It won't be. This case will make people pro gun because then they will know the police will never come to their aide
another way that could have played out:
Police: Sorry we can't help you. You're on your own.
Person: went after the kidnapper and shot him in the process
Police: You are charged with murder and vigilantism. Also, we're going to take your kids away... You know, for the added irony.
That guy in Indiana doesn't seem to be having any problems.
@@PieMaster2425 that one guy is an exception sweetheart police love to take people in even when they're justified just because they feel like it accept the police aren't here to help you or you can just keep licking their boots like the degraded little object they see you as you don't have to be so pathetic you know
3:53 The state law was actually incredibly explicit about the entitlement over restraining orders. The law very clearly says that police "shall" enforce it. "Shall" as in "you will do it." The law was written that way because in the past the police would not enforce these orders because they didn't want to have to enforce a restraining order against a guy they didn't think was in the wrong or may have even been a friend. It's tough to get them enforced even today, let alone 25 years ago when the law in question was first passed.
Now Scalia, an ardent and principled textualist, did what any principled textualist would do and ignored what the text said when he didn't like the conclusion and tried to twist the meaning of incredibly clear language by playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon with the see: synonym part of every word's definition in a dictionary. Scalia went and prevented that the incredibly clear language "shall" did not actually mean what it means because he wanted to protect law enforcement so that they wouldn't have to do their jobs as written as explicitly as possible under the law.
YES!!! Another video from my favorite RUclips series!!!! (I'm not joking, when I found your channel I binge watched this entire series! Thank you Mr Beat!)
I first learned of this case from the ‘Adam Ruins Everything’ episode on policing and I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
I’m not a Defund the Police guy but this case and the recent response to the Uvalde Shooting makes me think of a recent John Oliver quote
“The best arguments to defund the police, come from the police.”
If you're not for abolishing the Uvalde Police department then you're for totalitarianism. They're openly refusing to cooperate with the state investigation. If they can get away with this they can get away with *anything.* There's a reason why in most of history that police forces were looked at the same way we look at criminal gangs today - because functionally they were. If there are no consequences for their actions or inaction then all they really are is a taxpayer funded gang.
I was thinking about adam ruins everything too. This case is so tragic and depressing.
Quoting an idiot like John Oliver doesn't help your point. In fact it just makes it look worse.
Thank you for highlighting this lesser known SC case, Mr Beat! You never disappoint with enlightening us!
I legit was unaware that this is how “the law” worked. This contributes to the American people continued loss of trust and respect for cops and “law enforcement”.
Effective and meaningful reforms have been long overdue- the inaction is what is fostering the growing support for DefundThePolice. Cant blame folks tbh.
I’ve never heard of this case until today. One of the many reasons I love your channel.
Thank you so much for covering this case, people need to know about it
Thanks for the encouragement!
Just because the police should do something doesn't mean it should be criminal to not do something. This is an important distinction that it seems most people can't understand.
Yes it should. If i let a kid die of starvation i shouldnt be charged because i "didnt do anything"?
@@ryanmedeiros9450 Depends on if it's your kid or not. If it's a random kid with no connection to you, you are under no obligation to help them. If they starve, it's not your responsibility and you shouldn't be charged. Of course you should morally help them, but it's asinine to believe everyone who didn't feed a random starving child should be charged for their death.
@@leosorghum6867 so in this case the cops dont have to help this woman find her children who have been abducted because theyre not related to them?
@@ryanmedeiros9450 Don't HAVE to, correct. But they SHOULD have done so.
"to protect and serve" is about as meaningful as "I'm lovin' it"
That stupid jingle immediately went into my brain :)
20 years later, Colorado passed a bill that ended "qualified immunity." Far too late for this case unfortunately, but a big step for police reform.
What a depressing case and ruling
Mos def
So this is why the Uvalde PD just sat there. Not like their obligated to or anything.
This has almost made me throw up, thanks for bringing this to light Mr Beat, truly one of the most horrific unjust decisions I can think of
I love your content, it's educational and fun. I hope you make more supreme court videos.
So I am a police officer and looking at this case, you left off that the mother allowed the father to get the kids at various times and she violated the order. Order of protection works both ways and either party can violate it. The mother was unable to prove that their children life is in danger. I don't know if a report was taken, but in Tennessee if children are taken without permission, it is called a custodial interference report and is usually handled by missing persons units. Police can be held liable for inaction. My ward partner was suspended for several days for not doing CPR for a guy who got beat to death for attempting to rob a guy. What happened to the children is very tragic.
Unfortunately this comment goes against everybody's narrative so nobody's going to give it likes, facts don't matter anymore sadly.
@@Kyotosomo, I didn't post it for likes
@@Kyotosomo you’re consistently the most reasonable commenter I find here lol
That part was indeed in the video. In this situation, the father took them without permission, hence the violation. Are you saying there were specific times set up in advance for the father to take the kids, and the mother tried to deny him one of those specific visits for no reason? That's the only way your argument makes sense, otherwise the father was clearly the one in violation. Even if the mother did violate the order first, the father should've just reported the violation instead of taking the kids by force, even if he was just going to peacefully return them later.
I could be wrong, but doesn't the case rise above a mere "custodial interference report" if a restraining order is being actively violated?
This is the case I always cite in gun control arguments when people ask the inevitable “Why do you need to own a gun” or “We have the police and the military, civilians don’t need guns”.
The police cannot be depended upon for your personal safety. Knowing the horrific decision in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, I refuse to be disarmed.
Even worse SCOTUS has affirmed this case with future cases which means it will be extremely difficult to overturn. Also yes I'm using this case any time someone for gun control asks why I need an AR15
Wait, I’m terribly confused… you are saying that it is important that we protect the murderer’s right to bear arms? Because it would have been harder for him to kill the girls if he hadn’t had a gun? Or do you want the little girls to have had guns so they could have defended themselves? Who else needed a gun in this situation that makes it good to cite in gun control arguments?
@@jpe1 Persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders have been prohibited by FEDERAL law from possessing firearms since 1996.
18 USC § 922 (g)(8)
There seems to be no indication whether the restraining order met the technical requirements (such as the notice, opportunity to participate). The murderer nevertheless passed an FBI background check. This may be attributed to failure of Colorado to contribute data to NICS
It is important that we enforce the laws we have.
web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/Gonzalesdocs/Exhibit%20C%2018th%20Judicial%20Critical%20Incident%20Team%20with%20cover.pdf
Police incident report linked here
@@GeneralRaptor so you agree that the restrictions in the existing law 18 USC sec 922 (g)(8) are appropriate? Then why is the case one you cite as an argument against gun control? What is your end goal? Who do you want to see armed?
Just wanna say thanks for the great videos, its a good series!
Thank you so much!
Everytime You Supreme Court briefs get posted I jump up and start playing it
Too many police forces have become institutions that primarily serve themselves. Qualified immunity, unionization, militarization, and a lack of accountability in both law and culture have incentivized and accelerated this trend. Police exist primarily to protect themselves, secondarily to protect the government, tertiarily to secure revenue, and only after all of that to protect the public. Many now perceive that they need protection from the police and sometimes, though not always, rightly so. Even if all this were not so, there's still the old truism that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Police punish (some) crime and have a limited deterrent effect, but prevention and protection are best something you attend to yourself.
Wow. In my opinion that's probably the worst SCB outcome I've ever seen. As usual another great, well-put together video from the teacher-I-never-had-but-would-have-wanted, Mr. Beat.
This case, Citizens United and increasingly, DC VS. Heller which dealt with local restrictions with gun laws have been among the worst SC Decision’s.
So glad you highlighted this one.
I should have covered it a long time ago!
Antonin Scalia was a real bastard on many issues
This is an important lesson: During times of crisis, your institutions are not going to help you. This is why it’s more important than ever that you keep fighting for what you think is right.
I’m starting to hate the Supreme Court more and more every time I hear about a case like this
I was really looking forward to your video on this case, still hard to stomach that outcome though.
I'm glad I finally covered it. It took too long
Thanks Mr. Beat, i’ve actually shown some of your videos to my students.
Your Supreme Court briefs make my day, always had and always will!! _PleASE DO SOME OF THE NEW OPINIONS RELEASED THIS YEAR_
I will wait awhile until I get to 2022's decisions. I want some time to pass.
@@iammrbeat fair fair, Mr. Beat. I endlessly respect you, and comments like this reinforces that belief! Allowing the dust to settle and emotions to wind down could be useful in providing more balanced feedback
It seems that this can directly be blamed for the police’s inactions in the 2018 Parkland and 2022 Uvalde Shooting. In 2018, the police were well informed of the dangerous nature of the perpetrators and the only thing they did was visit his house 35 times before simply leaving. And in 2022, well, I’d assume you’ve seen the picture of a cop checking his Facebook inside the school.
This Supreme Court gave you a lot more cases to cover.
They sure did 🙄
Imagine a firehouse being told there's a five alarm fire down the street, but the firehouse decided not to act because the person who *actually* owned the building didn't call in the fire.
Imagine afterwards the court decided not to indict the firehouse because it was 'technically' none of their business.
Incredible how any of those cops kept their jobs.
Even more reason why I despise Justice Antonin Scalia. I can’t think of a single case where he sided with the clear moral opinion and came out on the right side of history. I think he will be remembered as our generation’s Roger B. Taney.
No one will remember him because the current conservative SCOTUS has already done alot more for conservatives in one term than he has done in his entire career.
Texas v. Johnson is the only one I can think of. It permits the burning of the American flag, and Scalia voted in favour of that (in favour of Johnson). It was only a 5-4 ruling
ruclips.net/video/PNOo5oDpvGo/видео.html
Wow, it's almost like the Supreme court has never cared about us
I miss the Warren Court. :(
Qualified Immunity needs to end for law enforcement.
I had a similar situation in Manitou Springs, CO (just south of Castle Rock). I was much more fortunate than this woman but traumatized none the less.
I had a Protection Order against my ex husband. Twice he violated it and both times the cops ALERTED HIM I HAD CALLED before looking me in the eye and telling me they weren't going to do anything about it.
This among another incident involving me trying to escape an abusive husband had left me completely distrusting of law enforcement.
People always tell me, "Oh... but you'll call them when you need them." No. No I don't. They put me in far more danger. They've always been useless to me, my friends, and my family.
Yay, new episode of Supreme Court Briefs!
Thanks for watching! This video is performing horribly so far. :(
@@iammrbeat oh no :(
My mom got the police to show up once when I forgot to check my phone for a few hours and missed her calls, but these guys wouldn't even bother with an abduction? Also, I really need a further explanation of how a local government is exempt from enforcing a legal document it is bound to, uh, enforce. The decision to me just sounds like bullshit, and an attempt to give immunity to those in authority who fail.
Has anyone argued that Qualified Immunity violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
No because the entire rest of the court working group, legislators and executives all enjoy absolute immunity. In case you were wondering, absolute immunity provides even more protections than qualified immunity.
Excellent break down. I would have liked to know which justices decided which way.
Majority: Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Concurrence: Souter, joined by Breyer
Dissent: Stevens, joined by Ginsburg
This is something you see a lot with courts - in the UK there was a somewhat similar case called Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, a negligence claim brought by the mother of the last victim of the Yorkshire Ripper. Effectively she alleged that the police could have saved her daughter if they had done their job properly. The courts said that to impose a duty of care on the police would lead to "defensive policing". The courts were similarly reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction to force the police to act in R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Blackburn, though they acknowledged a theoretical right to do so where the police had completely refused to enforce the law. They said they didn't want to interfere in the police's discretion.
You can understand the reluctance - if every person who had been robbed could sue the police, things could quickly get out of hand. But then who polices the police?
i think since the police are supposed to enforce the laws, they should help.
I agree with you
I am not even American and I enjoy your videos a lot keep up the good work!
That means a lot!
These videos are great. Can't wait for the Dobbs v Jackson video.
2:22 I remember Attorney Tom saying “it is very hard to sue the government”
So why have restraining orders at all then?
Its a piece of paper with no enforcement? Why is the state making orders if it refuses to enforce them?
Its obviously nonsensical, yes the police have a due process obligation to enforce orders they contractually obligate themselves into undertaking.
I think viewing this as a contract framing would have been more successful.
Exactly, and you should be a lawyer if you aren't one already :)
@@iammrbeat Haven't fully decided for sure yet, but law school next year is one of my main plan options I'm considering atm :P
Good question. Honestly this case should be why everyone should be supporting the second amendment and access to firearms. If the police arent obligated to protect you or your family then you need to do it yourself
"Fidelity - Bravery - Integrity"
According to the supreme court, the FBI motto means nothing.
Well to be fair, they don't look at the FBI motto...they look strictly at the Constitution
@@iammrbeat Sadly, you are correct
I really wish you mentioned Stevens’s dissent since he pretty thoroughly dismantled the so-called technicality with a hypothetical. If Gonzales had a contract equivalent to the restraining order with a private security firm, it would be obvious that the contract represented a property interest. He also said that the issue of whether the restraining order was indeed a property interest would have been an issue totally self-contained within Colorado statute, which the appeals court and Colorado Supreme Court would both be more knowledgeable in, and therefore the federal Supreme Court shouldn’t have ever heard the case at all. Just another example of Scalia’s power grubby fingers dirtying everything he touches
This was one of the first cases I thought of when I heard what happened in Uvalde
Protect and...- wait nevermind.
:(
Sounds like the ruling was horrible
Well ya know...
Ending with "Stay safe out there" ... nice one, Mr. Beat! "Good luck kids! You're all on your own!"
Keep ‘‘em coming, I think I watched each one like three times lol
What is the point of getting a restraining order then?
The supreme court is not the objective solely judicial body that people pretend that it is.
It’s sucks a whole lot, actually, is split ideologically, and is basically just Americas high priests at this point
The 5-4 Podcast does really good breakdowns as well
It's not objective, but most of the time it does its job in upholding the constitution.
Or in more recent cases, settling stuff congress kept not doing.
You are correct. Never has a justice completely objective when interpreting the law
@@iammrbeat I should have clarified, I would not expect that of any human, pretty much ever. My objection is not that there is bias, there is always bias, my problem is when we pretend that that isn’t the case.
And that hairline fracture over time becomes the canyon we have now. But we’re still pretending….
I’m angry lol
That title really got me, and it is just really sad how police can ignore a restraining order and that ultimately led to 3 young children getting murdered.
"Serve" and "protect"
Before I start watching the video, the first thing that comes to mind from the title is Stephen King's work. I'm guessing the subject will be unrelated, but anyway, that was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw "Castle Rock."
I haven't read that one! I am a big fan of Stephen King, though.
Yeah I thought that too.
@@iammrbeat It's a whole fictional universe of sorts from King. For more information, see the article "Castle Rock (Stephen King)" on Wikipedia.
To me this has nothing to do with a “legitimate claim of entitlement”. This is literally just the government’s failure to actually provide a service that it offers to its citizens. She got a restraining order. If someone violates a court issued restraining order, that is a crime. Police officers are quick to arrest people for “obstructing governmental operations” but apparently the government can just choose not to actually undergo governmental operations? This decision makes it possible for any police officer to refuse to do anything for any reason; there is no federal guarantee per this decision that police will do their jobs and it’s left entirely up to the states to mandate the police to actually do policing. And when every department is just investigating themselves and deciding that officers have either followed department policy or have “qualified immunity”, it cultivates communities and sometimes entire regions of broken policing. And that’s without considering the times police will act unconstitutionally by what they do, let alone what they do not do. Every court that made a ruling in this case screwed up horribly in my opinion and made interpretations on irrelevant facets of the situation. RIP Gonzales children, and I hope that the mother is able to see justice one day
Came here to post my usual comment of "WOOT WOOT SUPREME COURT BRIEFS IS BACK BABY" but I was so enthralled by this story that I couldn't look away. Wow wow wow wow wow wow what an absolutely insane case with absolutely bonkers results
Ha well thank you and yeah, I agree with you that this decision was pretty messed up 😐
I’m so aggravated this isn’t considered a landmark case.
Cops when somebody has $250 worth of weed:
*Raids house with military grade weapons, throws flashbangs, ceases possessions only to find its the wrong house
Cops when kids get killed:
It's not our job to protect them
That punisher skull with the thin blue line is the perfect metaphor for them. They are destructive when not needed and totally useless in the few situations where they are
Man this is one of the worst cases in American history. Going against all common sense
I agree
This whole case is just incredibly depressing. A case of legal technicalities preventing just punishment of the department's inaction...
Great video Mr. Beat :)
I’ve noticed that RBG tends to rule where I would have agreed. RIP RBG (it’s been 22 months but still a devastating loss especially what had happened recently, although just my opinion)
But this was a bad decision, it’s the polices job to help everyone
I am often left wondering why we even bother to have police.
I'm sure the world would be 1000x worse without police. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean we would be better off without them.
Because vigilante justice sucks.
Well, to be fair, most of the time the police get it right. In fact, this detective has been helping me this week and he is amazing.
This strengthens the argument for keeping the 2nd amendment. The police wont be there to help you.
Damn straight. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
We have far to many guns in this country! The 2nd Amendment is long overdue for a change to drastically reduce gun ownership and access to reduce gun violence.
To many Americans have shown that they can’t be trusted with guns at all!
Holly sh*t I was not expecting it to take that dark turn
*parental discretion is advised
Good video Mr. Beat even though it was very depressing.
Thank you, and yes, yes it was :(