A rough draft has been completed. The right to defy criminal demandsThis article was very interesting and so I thought that I would serialize it. As there are still many hours to work on it, I’d be interested in your reactions. You can view previous posts as well as any future ones, here.
[* * *]
[A.]General Duties of Protection
We’ve already discussed whether refusing a criminal request should be considered tortious, criminal or nullify self-defense rights. Sometimes, however, a criminal request can create an obligation to reduce the likelihood of the crime. Let’s take scenario 2 as an example.
- Danielle’s clinic for abortion has been previously firebombed by those who wish it to close down or to be relocated. Visitors who were injured are able to sue the clinic because they negligently failed to take reasonable precautions to stop the attack.
The claimed negligent conduct, unlike in the initial scenario 2, isn’t keeping the clinic open—it’s keeping the clinic open without extra security. While the law won’t direct bombers to follow their demands by ordering them, it would be not imposing liability. However, legal requirements for such security may be considered a victory. They could have raised the operating costs of the clinic, which might lead to the clinic being shut down.
This scenario is similar to one in Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood in v. WagnerThe Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This case was a result of a mass shooting at Planned Parenthood’s clinic in 2015. Plaintiffs who were injured and the families of the victims of the murder victim sued the clinic. The plaintiffs claimed the attack was predictable given the “long record of violent direct attacks and killings against Planned Parenthood facilities” and suggested that they should have increased security.[ed]It should include “replace”[d the clinic’s]A tempered glass entrance door that is bullet resistant and made of steel.
Four Justices from the Majority voted in favor of the appeal.
We cannot rule out the possibility, on the basis of these facts, that a reasonable juror could have found PPRM’s allegedly inadequate security procedures to be a substantial cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Even though Dear made premeditated attempts to inflict massive casualties, without any regard for his safety or capture,
Perhaps, if pressed on it, the Justices might have said that a clinic could indeed say, “millions for defense, not one penny for tribute,” defying the demands of those who would make the clinic close—but then the clinic would indeed have to pay some money, if not millions, for defense. The argument made by the three-Justice dissent was rejected.
[T]This majority approach has a perverse incentive. Knowing that abortion opponents are more likely to be attacked than any other businesses that face the public, and knowing that they may be held liable for failing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings at their clinics, it is possible to increase the severity and frequency of these threats to violence to force clinics for women to strengthen their facilities. This, in turn, makes women’s health clinics both prohibitively expensive to operate and virtually impossible to insure….
Women’s health clinics providing abortion services will also be at risk. Today’s decision means that antisemitic fanatics will be able to impose increased costs on synagogues. White supremacists, on the other hand, can inflict additional cost on Black churches and businesses.
These concerns should not be ignored in these situations. Maybe the right of defiance should be combined with a duty to use reasonable precautions to safeguard visitors or other bystanders from any harms that might result. As long as reasonable expenditures are made, it is acceptable to give up some activities. The practical issues raised by the Planned Parenthood I find dissenters to be important and worthy of mention.
[B.]To Warn Danger
The courts could demand from people who are threatened by criminals that they issue warnings to neighbours, visitors and other parties as a precaution.
- Craig has threatened Danielle with a criminal offense if Danielle does not do something. Danielle continues to see a new partner, sells blasphemous literature, and performs abortions. Craig threatens Danielle with a crime if she does not comply. Craig attacks her, and third parties—lovers, guests, neighbors, employees, coworkers, customers—get injured in his attack. Danielle is sued by them for not warning the hurt parties and giving them the opportunity to escape the danger.
That’s something I tried to address in my own way. Tort Law and Privacy This article is not my intention, but I wanted to bring it up. However, I believe that warnings may be considered inexpensive preventative measures, but mandatory warnings about criminal targets can have disproportionately high costs. Ellen Bublick sums it up well when she praises a court ruling that said a “woman did not have to warn”. [her] date about her extremely jealous ex-boyfriend”—”[a]His violence could control hers if she holds a contrary opinion.” The same could be said for abortion clinics and bookstores as it would for other controversial groups.