• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gonzales Vs. Castle Rock Police Department

Originally posted by: CQuinn
Okay, I read the article. If I give you my thoughts, are you gonna take it personally?
Click to expand...

Nope. I just want to hear some opinions 😛

I just hate when people skim articles then start posting stuff w/o knowing all the facts
 
"The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 21. Chief Lane sent 60 Minutes a letter after our interview. And on one key point, he agrees with Gonzales: ?'The tragedy of the Gonzales shootings points out the much larger problem in this country ? with restraining orders. They do not protect society from the Simon Gonzales of the world.'?

no... lazy police officials don't protect society. i could understand if there wasn't a restraining order, but the fact that there is and it explicitly states that the police must do everything possible to arrest the offender, they are liable... plain and simple. he could've been a nobel peace prize winner. they had information on a person in violation of a restaining order which says they MUST act and they didn't. his assumed disposition is besides the point. he coulda took them for ice cream and brought them back with diamond watches.... BFD. he broke the law. unfortunately, the result of the police's blunder cost a woman her children.....all of them.

i love you, livy and chloe.... <kisses from daddy>
 
I just skimmed the artilcle. Does it count if I saw the whole piece on 60 Minutes, last night?

If you did, from what the police said, they totally blew her off when she asked them to enforce the retraining order. I think that's irresponsible enough that they should be held liable for what happened.
 
Tough one. I don't think the police acted properly. But I don't think the department should be liable either. The statement from the police chief is very reasonable. If we can't expect children to be safe with their parents, especially parents with no record of prior violence, then who can we expect them to be safe with?
AND if we really need to point fingers and find blame, she was the one who married the psycho and had kids with him, long before the Castle Rock police "failed" to protect those kids that night.

Hmm... but worse yet is the idea that we should expect police to stop crimes before they happen, and should be able to sue them if they are unable to prevent crime. I see that as entirely unreasonable. IMO police are (and should be) like garbagemen. They clean up the mess and haul away the trash. For our own safety, we should not expect more of them.


edit: Yes, I read the article.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
I just skimmed the artilcle. Does it count if I saw the whole piece on 60 Minutes, last night?

If you did, from what the police said, they totally blew her off when she asked them to enforce the retraining order. I think that's irresponsible enough that they should be held liable for what happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, it counts if you saw it last night😉 The article is basically a transcript of last night's segment
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Tough one. I don't think the police acted properly. But I don't think the department should be liable either. The statement from the police chief is very reasonable. If we can't expect children to be safe with their parents, especially parents with no record of prior violence, then who can we expect them to be safe with?
AND if we really need to point fingers and find blame, she was the one who married the psycho and had kids with him, long before the Castle Rock police "failed" to protect those kids that night.

Hmm... but worse yet is the idea that we should expect police to stop crimes before they happen, and should be able to sue them if they are unable to prevent crime. I see that as entirely unreasonable. IMO police are (and should be) like garbagemen. They clean up the mess and haul away the trash. For our own safety, we should not expect more of them.
Click to expand...

Then you have no concept of community policing. It's all about prevention.

Also blaming the victim is the age old "cop out" (no pun intended) for those looking for the last straw to grasp which they hope will provide salvation in face of mounting evidence against their ideals.

Cops are there to help people. Period.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Tough one. I don't think the police acted properly. But I don't think the department should be liable either. The statement from the police chief is very reasonable. If we can't expect children to be safe with their parents, especially parents with no record of prior violence, then who can we expect them to be safe with?
AND if we really need to point fingers and find blame, she was the one who married the psycho and had kids with him, long before the Castle Rock police "failed" to protect those kids that night.
Click to expand...

But that is the whole POINT of the restraining order. She thought that he was unstable, and she got a restraining order and obviously the courts agreed with her. Hell, even the cops knew he was fvcked up before hand. A simple check would have found that the dude was off his rocker. She called them I think 4 times that night. They couldn't have checked their records at least once?
Chief Lane says the officers that night apparently did not know that Simon had recently been ticketed for road rage, and for trespassing in a private section of their own police department, after police served him with the restraining order.
Click to expand...
He broke the law according to the restraining order in regards to his children and they did nothing about it even though the retraining order says that he should be arrested.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Hmm... but worse yet is the idea that we should expect police to stop crimes before they happen, and should be able to sue them if they are unable to prevent crime. I see that as entirely unreasonable. IMO police are (and should be) like garbagemen. They clean up the mess and haul away the trash. For our own safety, we should not expect more of them.


edit: Yes, I read the article.
Click to expand...

the crime was violation of a restaining order, which in CO is an arrestable offense.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Then you have no concept of community policing. It's all about prevention.

Also blaming the victim is the age old "cop out" (no pun intended) for those looking for the last straw to grasp which they hope will provide salvation in face of mounting evidence against their ideals.

Cops are there to help people. Period.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Prevention of crime is impossible. And were it possible, then it would be unjust (should we imprison people who have not yet committed crimes simply because we think they might? "Minority Report" anyone? Is that the world you want?).
You think I have no concept of community policing, I think you are unbearably naive. Community policing is not about prevention, it is about marketing the police to the people in a more positive manner.

This woman is NOT the victim. The murdered children are the victims. Let's be very clear on that. This is not "cop out", it's about responsibility. She should try taking some in her life. Starting with the fact that she married, lived with, and had children with a murdering psycho. No one else forced her to do that.

As for your last statement, garbagemen are here to help people too.
 
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
the crime was violation of a restaining order, which in CO is an arrestable offense.
Click to expand...
Did I not say that I thought the officers acted improperly? That does not justify the lawsuit.

I do think the officers should be punished (if they haven't already), hopefully even fired, but that is not part of this discussion as near as I can tell.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
the crime was violation of a restaining order, which in CO is an arrestable offense.
Click to expand...
Did I not say that I thought the officers acted improperly? That does not justify the lawsuit.

I do think the officers should be punished (if they haven't already), hopefully even fired, but that is not part of this discussion as near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

The suit is being filed over them not going through with the restraining order...plain and simple.

They failed to do so and they're getting sued. It has nothing to do with her marrying a murderer. It's not like she knew beforehand he was a pyshco. She filed for divorce and got the restraining order AFTER finding out the guy was fvcking nuts. SHE DID THE RIGHT THING! How can you fault her?

Do you think that Lacey Peterson knew that her husband was gonna off her? I guess we should blame her to?

In this case, the cops had a restraining to uphold and they didn't do it.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Aelius
Then you have no concept of community policing. It's all about prevention.

Also blaming the victim is the age old "cop out" (no pun intended) for those looking for the last straw to grasp which they hope will provide salvation in face of mounting evidence against their ideals.

Cops are there to help people. Period.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Prevention of crime is impossible. And were it possible, then it would be unjust (should we imprison people who have not yet committed crimes simply because we think they might? "Minority Report" anyone? Is that the world you want?).
You think I have no concept of community policing, I think you are unbearably naive. Community policing is not about prevention, it is about marketing the police to the people in a more positive manner.

This woman is NOT the victim. The murdered children are the victims. Let's be very clear on that. This is not "cop out", it's about responsibility. She should try taking some in her life. Starting with the fact that she married, lived with, and had children with a murdering psycho. No one else forced her to do that.

As for your last statement, garbagemen are here to help people too.
Click to expand...

You can prevent crime, or hope to, by following through with information you have at the time. It might be an arrest warrant, or it might be a restraining order. You don't know what that person might do next. You do not have a crystal ball, you do not know ahead of time anything. All you know is person X has breached law Y and portion Z of law Y says you gota bring him in even if you gona let him go in 24 hours or whatever.

What you suggest is that police should assume. Assume nothing. Assumption is the mother of all fvckups.

Also do you have any clue as to what it is you are saying? I mean even an ounce of clue? Try rubbing togeather those braincells for two seconds and try to picture someone you know personally who has kids. Those kids are killed. Now do you think that mom is gona be all fine for the rest of her life? Do you have any idea what that mother is going to go through for the rest of her life? By your statements you obviously have no clue what so ever. She is victimized for the rest of her life. Some people are so effected they end up in institutions because they mentally break down where they can no longer function in society.
 
The government has forced us to live with freaks, robbers, muggers, rapists and murderers by creating public places that are breeding grounds for criminals and denying communities the right to exile unwanted individuals. Furthermore, it has forced us to pursue criminals through horrible monopolistic & bureaucratic, government run entities. This incident is merely the result of the situation the government has created.
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
the crime was violation of a restaining order, which in CO is an arrestable offense.
Click to expand...
Did I not say that I thought the officers acted improperly? That does not justify the lawsuit.

I do think the officers should be punished (if they haven't already), hopefully even fired, but that is not part of this discussion as near as I can tell.
Click to expand...
The suit is being filed over them not going through with the restraining order...plain and simple.

They failed to do so and they're getting sued. It has nothing to do with her marrying a murderer. It's not like she knew beforehand he was a pyshco. She filed for divorce and got the restraing order AFTER finding out the guy was fvcking nuts. SHE DID THE RIGHT THING! How can you fault her?

Do you think that Lacey Peterson knew that her husband was gonna off her? I guess we should blame her to?

In this case, the cops had a warrant to uphold and they didn't do it.
Click to expand...
Those 2 cases are not even remotely similar. With all due respect, NFS4, do you understand how the law works? Scott Peterson is not going to the chair because Lacey Peterson is a "victim" (whether or not she should or should not be blamed is entirely irrelevant) but because he committed a heinous crime against the people. That's why the bailiff would announce the case as "The People of the State of California vs. Scott Peterson". Does that make sense?

In this case, we have a woman who is not the victim filing a civil lawsuit. Entirely different. If you can't see the difference (and hey, you brought up the Peterson case), then I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
The government has forced us to live with freaks, robbers, muggers, rapists and murderers by creating public places that are breeding grounds for criminals and denying communities the right to exile unwanted individuals. Furthermore, it has forced us to pursue criminals through horrible monopolistic & bureaucratic, government run entities. This incident is merely the result of the situation the government has created.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one that wants almost no government? You think if the government went away there wouldn't be freaks, robbers, muggers, etc? Sounds like you think your economic anarchism would lead to a utopia.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Aelius
Then you have no concept of community policing. It's all about prevention.

Also blaming the victim is the age old "cop out" (no pun intended) for those looking for the last straw to grasp which they hope will provide salvation in face of mounting evidence against their ideals.

Cops are there to help people. Period.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Prevention of crime is impossible. And were it possible, then it would be unjust (should we imprison people who have not yet committed crimes simply because we think they might? "Minority Report" anyone? Is that the world you want?).
You think I have no concept of community policing, I think you are unbearably naive. Community policing is not about prevention, it is about marketing the police to the people in a more positive manner.

This woman is NOT the victim. The murdered children are the victims. Let's be very clear on that. This is not "cop out", it's about responsibility. She should try taking some in her life. Starting with the fact that she married, lived with, and had children with a murdering psycho. No one else forced her to do that.

As for your last statement, garbagemen are here to help people too.
Click to expand...
You can prevent crime, or hope to, by following through with information you have at the time. It might be an arrest warrant, or it might be a restraining order. You don't know what that person might do next. You do not have a crystal ball, you do not know ahead of time anything. All you know is person X has breached law Y and portion Z of law Y says you gota bring him in even if you gona let him go in 24 hours or whatever.

What you suggest is that police should assume. Assume nothing. Assumption is the mother of all fvckups.

Also do you have any clue as to what it is you are saying? I mean even an ounce of clue? Try rubbing togeather those braincells for two seconds and try to picture someone you know personally who has kids. Those kids are killed. Now do you think that mom is gona be all fine for the rest of her life? Do you have any idea what that mother is going go through for the rest of her life? By your statements you obviously have no clue what so ever. She is victimized for the rest of her life. Some people are so effected they end up in institutions because they mentally break down where they can no longer function in society.
Click to expand...
Your argument is so entirely lacking in logic it's not even funny.

I'm not suggesting the police to assume, you are. I expect the police to operate solely on facts and nothing but. Not what might happen. Not what we might be able to prevent.

As for the rest of your tripe argument and whining, shut the fsck up. This psycho could just have easily gunned her down along with the kids before she could have even picked up the phone to call the cops. Would should we have sued in that case? :roll:
Rest assured that the last paragraph of your argument will NOT be used by the counsel for the plaintiff before the Supremes...
 
Originally posted by: Vic
In this case, we have a woman who is not the victim filing a civil lawsuit. Entirely different. If you can't see the difference (and hey, you brought up the Peterson case), then I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
Click to expand...

The point I made has nothing to with legal matters with the Peterson case...(I should have put it in a seperate paragraph or post).

The point I was making is that you seem to think that it's Gonzales' fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer.

I was merely stating that if that's the case, then it's Lacey's fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer according to you.
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Vic
In this case, we have a woman who is not the victim filing a civil lawsuit. Entirely different. If you can't see the difference (and hey, you brought up the Peterson case), then I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
Click to expand...
The point I made has nothing to with legal matters with the Peterson case...(I should have put it in a seperate paragraph or post).

The point I was making is that you seem to think that it's Gonzales' fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer.

I was merely stating that if that's the case, then it's Lacey's fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer according to you.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about suing the Modesto Police Department for $30 million dollars for not preventing Lacey Peterson's murder, now are we?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Vic
In this case, we have a woman who is not the victim filing a civil lawsuit. Entirely different. If you can't see the difference (and hey, you brought up the Peterson case), then I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
Click to expand...
The point I made has nothing to with legal matters with the Peterson case...(I should have put it in a seperate paragraph or post).

The point I was making is that you seem to think that it's Gonzales' fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer.

I was merely stating that if that's the case, then it's Lacey's fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer according to you.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about suing the Modesto Police Department for $30 million dollars for not preventing Lacey Peterson's murder, now are we?
Click to expand...

If Lacey knew that Scott was fvcked up and had a restraining order placed against him, and called the police 4 times in one night telling them that he was stalking her and they did nothing, then I'm quite sure that her parents quite possibly would have sued when she wound up dead.

But the point I was making was soley in relation to your post that it was "her fault for marrying a murder"

The contention being, that she (to our knowledge) had no idea that the bastard was a murdering little prick before hand. They had a few kids and the fvcker starts going whacko. She divorces him, she gets a restraining order. How could her divorcing him and getting a restraining order maker her at fault if she was trying to get herself and her children AWAY from the problem?
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Aelius
Then you have no concept of community policing. It's all about prevention.

Also blaming the victim is the age old "cop out" (no pun intended) for those looking for the last straw to grasp which they hope will provide salvation in face of mounting evidence against their ideals.

Cops are there to help people. Period.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Prevention of crime is impossible. And were it possible, then it would be unjust (should we imprison people who have not yet committed crimes simply because we think they might? "Minority Report" anyone? Is that the world you want?).
You think I have no concept of community policing, I think you are unbearably naive. Community policing is not about prevention, it is about marketing the police to the people in a more positive manner.

This woman is NOT the victim. The murdered children are the victims. Let's be very clear on that. This is not "cop out", it's about responsibility. She should try taking some in her life. Starting with the fact that she married, lived with, and had children with a murdering psycho. No one else forced her to do that.

As for your last statement, garbagemen are here to help people too.
Click to expand...
You can prevent crime, or hope to, by following through with information you have at the time. It might be an arrest warrant, or it might be a restraining order. You don't know what that person might do next. You do not have a crystal ball, you do not know ahead of time anything. All you know is person X has breached law Y and portion Z of law Y says you gota bring him in even if you gona let him go in 24 hours or whatever.

What you suggest is that police should assume. Assume nothing. Assumption is the mother of all fvckups.

Also do you have any clue as to what it is you are saying? I mean even an ounce of clue? Try rubbing togeather those braincells for two seconds and try to picture someone you know personally who has kids. Those kids are killed. Now do you think that mom is gona be all fine for the rest of her life? Do you have any idea what that mother is going go through for the rest of her life? By your statements you obviously have no clue what so ever. She is victimized for the rest of her life. Some people are so effected they end up in institutions because they mentally break down where they can no longer function in society.
Click to expand...
Your argument is so entirely lacking in logic it's not even funny.

I'm not suggesting the police to assume, you are. I expect the police to operate solely on facts and nothing but. Not what might happen. Not what we might be able to prevent.

How is it that I'm saying police should assume? I pointed out that they should follow the law, which may prevent something from happening. You have no leg to stand on. You are taking my logical argument in this and reversing it and using my own argument against me. You can't do that. Now that I exposed it as flawed you jump on my argument and reverse it. Are you playing mind games or are you just that ego centric that you refuse to admit your argument is false and have to steal the others argument and claim that they are arguing the point you falsely claimed as logical not 1 post above.

Seek help.

As for the rest of your tripe argument and whining, shut the fsck up. This psycho could just have easily gunned her down along with the kids before she could have even picked up the phone to call the cops. Would should we have sued in that case? :roll:
Rest assured that the last paragraph of your argument will NOT be used by the counsel for the plaintiff before the Supremes...

I think someone needs a little time away from the keyboard and reflect.
Click to expand...

my text in bold for readability.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Cops are there to help people. Period.
Click to expand...
Except in this case.

The cops are there to be the good guys, and most of them do the job, but this wasn't an "accident" or an "oversight," and it wasn't a case of not knowing. They were notified long before the husband shot the girls. They were told he was violating the restraining order, and they sent her way... SEVERAL TIMES!

If a plumber, an electrician, a car repair guy, or any other service provider so blatantly blew their job that they caused damages, they'd be held liable. In this case, the cops blew it, big time, and I believe they should be held responsible. It's not a criminal offense. It's civil, but this woman is right.

 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Vic
In this case, we have a woman who is not the victim filing a civil lawsuit. Entirely different. If you can't see the difference (and hey, you brought up the Peterson case), then I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion with you.
Click to expand...
The point I made has nothing to with legal matters with the Peterson case...(I should have put it in a seperate paragraph or post).

The point I was making is that you seem to think that it's Gonzales' fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer.

I was merely stating that if that's the case, then it's Lacey's fault that she married a pyscho asshole murderer according to you.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about suing the Modesto Police Department for $30 million dollars for not preventing Lacey Peterson's murder, now are we?
Click to expand...
If Lacey knew that Scott was fvcked up and had a restraining order placed against him, and called the police 4 times in one night telling them that he was stalking her and they did nothing, then I'm quite sure that her parents quite possibly would have sued when she wound up dead.

But the point I was making was soley in relation to your post that it was "her fault for marrying a murder"

The contention being, that she (to our knowledge) had no idea that the bastard was a murdering little prick before hand. They had a few kids and the fvcker starts going whacko. She divorces him, she gets a restraining order. How could her divorcing him and getting a restraining order maker her at fault?
Click to expand...
I think you're allowing emotion to cloud your vision. If the Peterson case were similar (as you describe), and her parents sued, then Lacey's choice of spouses would almost certainly come up in that hypothetical civil court case. As this woman's likely will in this case.

But that is not to say that she is at fault. I am not saying that (nor do I think it's fair for you to assume that). What I am saying is that only ONE person is at fault in this Gonzales case, and that is the husband who murdered his own children, Simon Gonzales. No one else is at fault. Not Jessica Gonzales and not the Castle Rock Police Department. And there are only 3 victims, the 3 little innocent girls. That's it.

If it's any consolation, Simon Gonzales was killed by police in a gunfight not long after he killed the girls (the girls' bodies were found in the truck), so IMO justice has been served.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
How is it that I'm saying police should assume? I pointed out that they should follow the law, which may prevent something from happening. You have no leg to stand on. You are taking my logical argument in this and reversing it and using my own argument against me. You can't do that. Now that I exposed it as flawed you jump on my argument and reverse it. Are you playing mind games or are you just that ego centric that you refuse to admit your argument is false and have to steal the others argument and claim that they are arguing the point you falsely claimed as logical not 1 post above.

Seek help.

I think someone needs a little time away from the keyboard and reflect.

my text in bold for readability.
Click to expand...
Your argument was not logical. It was full of bullsh!t and insults, both veiled and direct. I found it annoying and have told you off rightfully. Get a clue. Try sticking to the facts, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top