Gun Control & RKBA

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

31. Talk to Ruth Bunnell -- oh wait, she's dead.

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 08:22 PM

Dec 2011

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Another "just give them what they want" situation... [View all] mvccd1000 Dec 2011 OP

I don't see how this story in anyway illustrates your commentary. ellisonz Dec 2011 #1

It's true, she should have called the police ... Kennah Dec 2011 #2

What you do is get a police officer to follow you home... ellisonz Dec 2011 #3

Yeah, sure, good luck with that Kennah Dec 2011 #4

"They protect and serve the general peace." ellisonz Dec 2011 #5

Not unless she was under arrest, and therefore had a "special relationship" with the police... S_B_Jackson Dec 2011 #6

Cynical view of the police... ellisonz Dec 2011 #16

Cynical, Satirical, Farcical, Hypocritical.. what the fuck does that have to do with reality? X_Digger Dec 2011 #26

Keep Digging. ellisonz Dec 2011 #27

Nice dodge. Do you concede that the police have no obligation to come and protect you when you call? X_Digger Dec 2011 #29

*facepalm* ellisonz Dec 2011 #32

What they may try to do is different than what they are legally obligated to do.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #34

palmface SteveW Dec 2011 #68

How did you make the leap ... Kennah Dec 2011 #49

I would suspect that reflects an urban rural divide... ellisonz Dec 2011 #53

You'll have to explain a police investigation into enabling Kennah Dec 2011 #56

Friend who is a police sgt is sitting right next to me and he says rl6214 Dec 2011 #57

Better than nothing... ellisonz Dec 2011 #62

Not cynical, simply a realistic acceptance of their duty and their role. S_B_Jackson Dec 2011 #44

So logically it holds then... ellisonz Dec 2011 #54

No, it means that they *might* S_B_Jackson Dec 2011 #65

The police are not charged with thwarting crime or protecting you... SteveW Dec 2011 #67

This could be a reason for your position DissedByBush Dec 2011 #9

Cynical view of the police... ellisonz Dec 2011 #17

Constitutional view of the police DissedByBush Dec 2011 #23

You mean the same police MicaelS Dec 2011 #47

I take issue with those depictions as being totally accurate... ellisonz Dec 2011 #48

No, she isn't.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #10

Cynical view of the police... ellisonz Dec 2011 #18

It's reality. You might wish it different, or think it should be changed.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #21

Then I expect you to never call the police... ellisonz Dec 2011 #22

Oh, I'll call them to come clean up. I don't expect them to save me. X_Digger Dec 2011 #24

"they can't be held accountable." ellisonz Dec 2011 #25

Here, let me quote *actual text* from the court cases.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #28

*facepalm* ellisonz Dec 2011 #30

Talk to Ruth Bunnell -- oh wait, she's dead. X_Digger Dec 2011 #31

I'm neither denying her right to self-defense nor the beneficies of police departments. ellisonz Dec 2011 #33

And if the police failed to enforce the restraining order? Too bad.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #37

You can stop projecting now... ellisonz Dec 2011 #38

That's a hell of a different statement than you made in post #5. X_Digger Dec 2011 #39

I think they would have... ellisonz Dec 2011 #40

Which was "And as part of the "general" she is entitled to such services..." friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #42

When presented with facts, criticism of attitude follows. X_Digger Dec 2011 #43

Standard operating procedure for someone... SteveW Dec 2011 #69

So she should not have called the police? ellisonz Dec 2011 #45

I must be a heretic then, as I don't own a gun and haven't for 30+ years. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #51

Naah, Tony S. has been wrong on more than one occasion... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #52

Hmmm. More anti-gun cartoons than Brady Center employees? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #70

Undoubtedly. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #73

Maybe you will answer because no one ever will rl6214 Dec 2011 #58

Sure. ellisonz Dec 2011 #61

I've known a lot of gun owners, none at all like the subset you describe. PavePusher Dec 2011 #66

NOW you're sounding like some gun-controllers here... SteveW Dec 2011 #71

Made up term to make someone sound bad and scary rl6214 Dec 2011 #74

But police have guns, they must be evil. Remmah2 Dec 2011 #15

I've said no such thing. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #35

Why do you continue to post this clear and obvious lie? You have been told many times Fair Witness Dec 2011 #41

Police have NO duty to protect and serve so say the Justices rl6214 Dec 2011 #55

So, what would you have had her do? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #46

So, what would you have had her do? Kennah Dec 2011 #50

No, I wouldn't. It's not easy to advise the deceased victim of such a horrendous crime. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #63

How out of touch with reality are you? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #11

I've never denied the right to self-defense. ellisonz Dec 2011 #36

Then who would protect the donut shops? Remmah2 Dec 2011 #14

Cynical view of the police... ellisonz Dec 2011 #19

Broken record rl6214 Dec 2011 #59

...and how many gun-congroller/prohibitionists end up that way? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #72

It shows her level of confidence in law enforcement Remmah2 Dec 2011 #13

Not when you fumble and it gets used against you... ellisonz Dec 2011 #20

Of course you can cite all the times this has happened rl6214 Dec 2011 #60

In a perfect world, the police respond in a timely manner Deejai Dec 2011 #7

Which is why many of us choose to carry the tools required to protect ourselves. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #12

self-defense is mean....why deny someone the little things in life. ileus Dec 2011 #8

It's rude is what it is. LAGC Dec 2011 #64