Government has NO OBLIGATION to Protect Individuals

[Col Hogan]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that "the police" have no duty to protect individual citizens...despite that cute "To Serve And Protect" lots of departments paint on their vehicles...

The Virginia Attorney General has once again brought this point to light in asking a state court to dismiss a $10M lawsuit filed by a University of Mary Washington student who was raped on campus in 2008...

The female student claimed in her suit that the state is responsible for her rape because they did not do enough to protect her on campus...because other crimes had been committed in or around the university...

The lawsuit references three other criminal incidents prior to the student's rape:

A woman was assaulted while jogging along Hanover Street near the school's athletic fields on July 1, 2008.

Two days later, a food delivery person was stabbed and abducted on Charles Street in the city.

On Aug. 12, 2008, a young woman was raped in her home in southern Stafford County. The home is near "large concentrations" of student housing and student activities, the lawsuit states.

The Attorney General's Office said those crimes occurred "far away, at different times of day, and under completely different circumstances" than the student's rape.

"It is not plausible, nor possible to allege with a straight face, that the three previous alleged crimes provided specific notice that the plaintiff was in imminent danger of harm on the early morning when she was attacked," according to the Attorney General's Office.

The plaintiff has not alleged "sufficient facts or any facts" that UMW knew a criminal act was occurring or about to happen, according to the state.

The Attorney General's Office did not respond to many of the lawsuit's allegations, including that UMW had poor security. The suit states the attacker entered the parking deck without being stopped, videotaped or photographed by security cameras.

The lawsuit also says UMW had a duty to protect the student because of its "special relationship" with her. That's a legal term that would make UMW liable for the rape.

The Attorney General's Office disagrees, noting that the Virginia Supreme Court does not consider it a special relationship when adults agree to care for another's child.

"It is difficult to imagine that an adult entrusted with the care of a minor child has an inferior duty than a university has to an adult student," the Attorney General's Office wrote.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/ ... r_friendly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A hearing is scheduled for March 28th in Fredericksburg Circuit Court.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think it's the only way they can realistically rule. Otherwise, every crime anyone suffers could be grounds for a lawsuit.

I mean, it sucks that girl got raped... but, unless she can show gross negligence (and from reading that article it doesn't seem like she can) or something I don't think she should be able to sue.

[SuperHornet]

I think it's the only way they can realistically rule. Otherwise, every crime anyone suffers could be grounds for a lawsuit.

I mean, it sucks that girl got raped... but, unless she can show gross negligence (and from reading that article it doesn't seem like she can) or something I don't think she should be able to sue.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think I wanna go that far. She should be ABLE to sue, but the standard of evidence required to get a favorable judgment should be high. I'm sure you don't believe that NOBODY should be able to sue the cops, because then there would be no protection for the Rodney Kings and Oscar Grants of the world...

But, again, the burden of proof should be high. As in, there should be proof that they singled her out for non-protection (or something like that). If she was hit while the whole department was on a huge SWAT detail on the other side of town, well, that's not enough.