Tuesday, July 19, 2016

We Have a "Duty" to Submit; They Have No Duty to Protect

“Somebody is going to die tonight,” a visibly agitated Anthony Lord told a close friend on July 16, 2015. Lord, a resident of Benedicta, Maine, was a registered sex offender who displayed symptoms of violent derangement. His anger had been kindled by a voice mail message from the Maine State Police reporting that a woman named Brittany Irish had accused him of sexually assaulting her, and asking him to visit a local barracks to be interviewed about the matter.

Lord’s entirely plausible threat was reported to Jaime Irish, Brittany’s brother. His frantic phone call to Brittany interrupted a conversation in her home with two Maine state troopers. They were discussing both Irish’s sexual assault complaint and her report that the barn at her parents’ home had been set on fire – most likely by Lord, who knew the family well. 

Brittany’s initial relief at the presence of two officers sworn to “serve and protect” her was quickly transmuted into incredulity when the troopers refused a request to deploy officers to watch her and her two small children (who were visiting relatives at another location). Protecting a rape victim and her family against a credible murder threat from an assailant who was also suspected of carrying out a retaliatory arson attack was not a priority worthy of the man-hours it would entail. 

Frantically grasping for whatever reassurance they could get, Brittany and her mother, Kimberly, asked if the police could leave a marked vehicle parked outside the home as a bluff. Even that was seen as an unacceptable expenditure of precious department resources that could be used for more important undertakings, such as traffic enforcement. Indifferently assuring Brittany that they would “keep an eye on the situation,” the troopers drove away.
The fire that destroyed the Irish family’s barn was not the beginning of Lord’s depredations. A few hours earlier he broke into the home of a Silver Ridge man named Kary Mayo, beat him, tied him to a chair, and stole his guns and pickup truck 

Early the following morning, Lord shot his way into the Irish home, killing Brittany’s boyfriend Kyle Hewitt and wounding her mother, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Brittany, who suffered a superficial gunshot wound to her arm, exited through a bathroom window and tried to escape, but she was chased down by Lord. When a 60-year-old local resident named Carlton Eddy happened by in a truck, Lord flagged him down -- then shot the driver and stole his vehicle. After strangling her into submission, Lord tied the victim up with a seatbelt and sped away

Future murder victim Kyle Hewitt.
For reasons yet to be explained, Lord drove to a nearby lumber yard, where he shot two more men – Clayton McCarthy, who survived, and Kevin Tozier, who did not. As he drove away from the scene, Brittany pleaded with him to take her to the home of his uncle Carl, who was a mutual acquaintance. That Lord did so is another mystifying decision on his part. Displaying a flat affect and saying not a word about his actions, Lord “unloaded the gun like it was something that he was bound and determined to do,” his uncle later recalled.
Shortly thereafter, fourteen police vehicles surrounded the home and took Lord into custody. It is important to recognize that the police didn’t actually arrest the offender: That was accomplished by the victim and the suspect’s uncle. There was no official competence displayed in clearing this case, and just as little valor. All of the risks were borne by the victims, at fatal expense to two of them. Once the danger had abated, the police were eager to take credit for delivering the suspect into the care of the criminal “justice” system. 

It is a long-established principle that police officers and the agencies employing them face no specific or institutional liability when they fail to protect individuals from acts of criminal violence. Brittany Irish’s ordeal resembles that of the victims in the pivotal 1981 decision Warren v. District of Columbia in which the D.C Court of Appeals ruled that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” (Emphasis added.)

In the earlier case, two women contacted police to report an assault on a mutual friend. Officers were dispatched to the address, but – in the interest of that holiest of all considerations, officer safety -- declined to enter the apartment building. The desperate women called again, and this time the department didn't even bother to respond. Acting in the misplaced hope that help was nigh upon arrival, the women opened an apartment window and called out for assistance. This alerted the assailants, who abducted the women at knifepoint.

“For the next fourteen hours,” the court recounts in a clinical summary, “the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands” of their captors. 

The victims were not entitled to civil redress, the court insisted, because “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.” 

Brittany Irish, with brother Jaime, displays some of her wounds.
Brittany Irish’s case differs from the one described in that ruling in two significant ways. First, Andrew Lord not only shot, tortured, and sexually assaulted her, he assaulted several other people and murdered two victims after the police had been given detailed, specific advance warning regarding what was about to transpire – and they were in a position to help, but simply could not be bothered to do so.

Secondly, and most importantly, “We contend that the Maine State Police had established a `special relationship’ with Brittany,” attorney Dave Van Dyke told Pro Libertate. “In addition, it is clear that she was seriously harmed as a result of what the case law calls `State-created danger.’”

By contacting Lord and informing him of the sexual assault complaint, and then refusing to provide protection to Brittany, the State Police “acted to increase the threat which existed to Plaintiffs beyond that which otherwise existed,” the lawsuit contends. “Defendants made an implicit and/or express promise to protect Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs relied upon such promise, Defendants failed to fulfill such promise and Plaintiffs were injured thereby, such unfulfilled promise creating a special duty” to protect Brittany and her family. 

It should be pointed out that the conflict that led to Lord’s murder rampage had existed for several years, and Brittany had obtained two restraining orders against him. Following the initial July 14, 2015 sexual assault, Brittany received no assistance whatsoever from the police. She went to a hospital to undergo a rape kit examination; she carefully preserved the clothes she had been wearing as evidence. When she reported the rape on July 15, she was told by the State Police to come in the following morning and file a written complaint.
Attorney Van Dyke.
A few hours after the assault, Brittany had received a text message from Lord asking her to meet him to “talk about what had happened.” This prompted her to suggest to the police that she meet him and elicit a recorded confession from him – if an officer would maintain a discreet distance to ensure her safety. 

“That’s not the way we do it,” an officer explained to her. The preferred approach in such situations, apparently, is to inform a registered violent sex offender with psychotic tendencies that he had been accused of rape, and suggest that he volunteer to talk about it with the police at his leisure. 

After enduring a second rape and witnessing two murders, Brittany delivered the offender to the State Police. The department held a press conference to express perfunctory condolences to the people whom they had failed to protect – and then slammed down the portcullis to prevent critical scrutiny of its actions.
“We made a FOIA request for the official reports and other documents on this case,” Van Dyke told me. “It was denied on the grounds that they are part of an `ongoing investigation.’” Lord’s trial isn’t scheduled until August of 2017, which would give the State Police more than a year to keep those documents from the public. Accordingly, “we decided to file suit and get the documents through discovery,” Van Dyke explained. He is guardedly optimistic that Brittany’s case is strong enough to overcome “the cottage industry in `qualified immunity’” that constantly devises ever more elaborate rationales for failing to hold police officers accountable for their actions – and their derelictions. 

If Brittany Irish had been pulled over by a state trooper who demanded to search her vehicle and person for drugs or cash, she would have been under a state-prescribed duty to submit. This is the kind of “general public service” the police are expected to provide – or, more accurately, to inflict. She cannot opt-out of that “service” without being arrested and possibly killed by those providing it. Those same agents of state-authorized violence, however, opted out of helping Brittany when she and her family needed protection.

Over the past century, the state’s “justice” system has created a lengthy series of judicial precedents intended to discourage “self-help” on the part of people experiencing, or threatened by, criminal violence – whether official or private. Self-help was the only kind available to Brittany and her family, and it proved unavailing when the Maine State Police actively collaborated with a deranged man who tore a bloody swath through two counties.

This week's Freedom Zealot Podcast: 
A citizen being unlawfully deprived of his liberty by a police officer has "the right to regain it, and to use all force necessary for that purpose," ruled the Georgia Court of Appeals. When, and in what context, that ruling was issued might surprise you:

I am deeply grateful for your generous help in keeping Pro Libertate online.

 Dum spiro, pugno!


Stephen T. McCarthy said...

I can scarcely even put into words how much I have come to despise most cops over the last 15 or 20 years. And when a law-abiding citizen like me holds so much mental / emotional negativity toward a group that supposedly exists to uphold the laws, then obviously there is something truly demented about that group.

Keep up the good work of shining a public spotlight on these corrupt, blight-in-blue enemies of our Republic, William!

~ D-FensDogG
'Loyal American Underground'

Anonymous said...

Yeah Stephen, you truly are a tool.

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Gee, you really bruised my feelings. I hope I'm not psychologically scarred for life due to your vicious but intellectual and warranted attack.

And is William Grigg a tool, too? I certainly don't mean to speak for him, but considering the many articles he's written on the topic of police abuse and malfeasance, I can't imagine he feels a great deal differently.

"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law -- just a fight for survival."
~ Billy Jack

~ D-FensDogG
'Loyal American Underground'

Anonymous said...

This is yet another case in point where people don't understand and need to understand, that government employees, which is also what cops are. Are not there to serve the public that pays for their employment. They are there to grow government and or enforce different levels of government's taxing and fee scams. People need to look at this story closely because any person could have something like this happen to them. A perfect example is the rancher who was gunned down outside the front gate of his own property in Idaho. He was shot 11 times and when dead or quickly dying a 12th round hit the ground next to his head. There were witnesses that say the 2 people who gunned the rancher down, preformed a slaughter. Yet, no one in government has stepped up to shine any light on justice in any way whatsoever with this rancher's death. People better wake up because government employees do not serve the taxpayers whatsoever. And in fact, they have no intentions of doing so.

Marshall said...

Arm yourselves. Fight for gun rights.

1 said...

Cops exist for one purpose: to protect and propagate the will of the state by violence and the threat of violence.
The state exists so the evil few can live off the ignorant and gullible many. It is based on violence since that is the only way it can continue. If there were no violence it would quickly collapse since the only thing it does well is rob and control its victims. Everything else that it does could be done better, by people of their own free will by forming organizations, groups and businesses. But the state allows no competition. It is the biggest monopoly on the planet and the most violent and brutal gang.
Cops deserve no respect and are to be shunned and rejected.

Anonymous said...

I am 71 and been around the block. 50 years ago cops covered up for themselves. They were the classic 'good old boy system'. Now FedGov has militarized them and has a constant supply of oath-breaking military to recruit from. I do NOT trust cops today. They are above the law. I will NOT call 9-1-1.

Anonymous said...

A case of interest for Idaho. A rancher was gunned down by his driveway shot 11 times with a 12th bullet hitting the ground by his head. The public demanded justice and transparency. The Idaho state AG ordered the state police (ISP) to do an investigation. The state police handed in the results of that investigation to the states's AG on March 11th or about. Note: county attorneys, state AG's and federal attorneys do not bring charges on complaints by private citizens. They have the police do an investigation and go from that police report. There are options at that point, not bring charges, grand juries, file charges. The point is, they do not do the investigation themselves in such cases of maybe cold blooded murder, they have the police do that. The Idaho AG had the state police do an investigation, they did and the AG has the report. But the AG has done a total blackout of the report and refuses to engage whatsoever on the shooting of the rancher. Some people that understand how such matters are done believe the AG is waiting for the FBI report in hopes it clears the shooters because the ISP report is likely damning to the shooters. This is not justice that is a representation of the needs, wants or taxes (hard earned money of citizens) that the citizens of Idaho deserve or lawfully are entitled to. But this is a system that has no intentions of serving the citizen as is pretty much the case with all levels of government in this day and age. The media is completely in compliance with unlawful actions of the people of government. It's not Islam that hates you for your freedom, as the media parrots, it's the criminals in your own government. Folks read your bible governments conspiracy were against the Profits in the OT and also against Jesus and his Apostles. There are warnings in the NT of governments operating in black evil in secret. Human nature is the same now as then, regardless if they didn't have the technology then as now. Anyone reading Will's stories of criminal injustice against the innocent need to understand that such injustice can happen to anyone at anytime.

Anonymous said...

Samuel Colt made us all equal. If any of the Irishes would have armed themselves instead of whining, Lord would would have been sent to hell and a couple of innocent men would be alive.

William N. Grigg said...

Exactly: If you have a Peacemaker, you most likely won't be let down, or worse, by a "peace officer."

Leavon said...

If they are protecting this assault victim how can they be out there writing tickets and generating revenue for the state? Sorry little tax payer but you'll just have to call 911 like the rest of the peasants.

Anonymous said...

and the Irishes, would be on death row or prison with live without parole...... damned if you do and damned if ya don't.

Anonymous said...

Not taking any position at all with this but:
Do you realize how impossible it is to post an officer to protect everyone who has been seriously threatened? Even if you added in US military personnel, there wouldn't be enough people to do it.

Can you imagine the TAXES it would take to have a police force this large?
Does Anyone WANT a police force this large? I don't.

What we need is a court system that handles the problem properly. Be that of the scum or pinning medals on those who delete the scum. Turn your wrath on the courts where it belongs.

William N. Grigg said...

Precisely the last thing I want is a larger police force. Police are, at best, useless and peripheral with respect to the protection of the innocent, as this case illustrates beyond dispute. They could have been helpful here if they had simply done nothing, rather than enhancing the danger to Miss Irish -- and then withdrawing the officers who were already on the scene when she learned of Lord's death threats.

Armed citizens are the true first responders. There have been several recent cases in which an armed citizen has turned away armed assailants, burglars, and kidnappers, and the police showed up to take the suspects into custody. If we are to have government-employed police officers, this strikes me as a sound division of labor.

As I've pointed out elsewhere (see -- http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-states-justice-system-cultivates.html) our "criminal justice" system is innately incapable of protecting the innocent or providing restitution to victims: It identifies the fictive, malignant entity called "the state" as the primary victim in criminal prosecutions, and defines success in the conviction rate and the size of the inmate population. Lord will probably be sentenced to a long subsidized existence in a government-operated cage, which means that Miss Irish and the families of the people Lord killed will be taxed to provide for his upkeep.

Of all the ways to deal with violent crime, the approach outlined above is among the worst.