The Police Arrived In Time – This Time

 Print This Post

Does This Snake Oil Salesman Look Familiar?

 Print This Post

Constitutional Q&A

Q. Why does B. Hussein Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A. Because it stands between him and the First.

 Print This Post

Obama White House Tries to Freeze Out Fox

In the span of just a couple of weeks, the Obama administration has gone from merely accusing Fox News of bias, to meeting and strategizing with more pliable members of the media, to actively trying to freeze Fox News out of covering administration officials. On Thursday, the Obama White House made “Pay Czar” Ken Feinberg available to the White House press pool, of which Fox has been a member since 1997 (along with ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN). The White told four members of the pool that they were welcome to interview Feinberg, but Fox was not invited. In fact, Fox was told it could not come to the interview. The other members of the press pool stood with Fox, and the network was eventually allowed in.

The White House does not get to choose who is and is not a member of the press pool. But it tried bullying Fox directly, and the other pool members indirectly, in a move that was indefensible, to say the least. And make no mistake here – the White House’s actions Thursday were not merely childish or petulant reactions to unfavorable news reporting. They directly threatened the First Amendment.

The threat from this administration to our basic freedoms grows by the day. This time, the Obama administration attempted to crush dissent out in the open by trying to isolate and disable a news networks’s ability to cover the executive branch of our government. It does this while its agencies are bullying the US Chamber of Commerce over health care, negating previously existing compensation contracts with corporate executives, and demonizing insurers and Wall Street. This is what they’re doing out in the open. What are President Obama and his many radical czars and appointees attempting to do behind closed doors?

 Print This Post

Bend Over – Here Comes Our Change

 Print This Post

No Guns for Negroes Part 2

 Print This Post

No Guns for Negroes Part 1

 Print This Post

Boycott New York City-Bloomberg Lies Too

Check out time mark 1:37.

 Print This Post

Our Children – Our Future

 Print This Post

Who’s protecting you?

Warren v. District of Columbia

- from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warren v. District of Columbia^[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate’s screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers’ sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC’s highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.^[2]

Incident

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2″ assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble;” it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants’ Claim

Appellants’ claims of negligence included:

• the dispatcher’s failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
• the responding officers’ failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
• the dispatcher’s failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.

Decision

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.

References

1. Warren V. District of Columbia (444 A 2d. 1, D.C. ct of Ap 1981)
2. Caffrey, William (May 12, 2000) “Do You Have a Right to Police Protection?”

 Print This Post