Talk:Warren v. District of Columbia

Source of Opinion?

is this even true. All I can ever find is this same little blurb everywhere. Can anyone post a link or tell me where to find the actual judgment?

I have a subscription to Factiva which is a newspaper database and I found a couple of articles bascially confirming the article. The law is not my strong suit, perhaps try asking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all the references I find are in blogs and news sites' "reply" sections — of which 99% are have the reliability equivalent of chain mail with comments at the top. Two sources that might marginally be considered reliable:

• Eric S. Raymond refers to this case in http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html and,ased on his general reputation, I am assuming he has done his homework.
• The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (lobbying arm) provides the usual quote from Warren at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=216&issue=010 — but, of course, they're lobbyists, and there's no legal requirement in the US for lobbyists to be accurate in any way at all.

That being said: I'm pretty sure this case does exist and says basically what the article claims; it just needs better references. --Closeapple (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true: http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.250.150 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

<- This was already mentioned in a previous paragraph. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this via Lexis-Nexis. If you don't have a subscription (or know anyone who does), go to your local city/county law library and jump on a computer. The "full" case name (as appears in Lexis-Nexis) is:

CAROLYN WARREN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., APPELLEES; WILFRED NICHOL, APPELLANT, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., APPELLEES

You can easily duplicate my search by going to the "Legal" portion of Lexis-Nexis, clicking on "Federal & State Cases," and entering the following search parameters:

• Case name = "warren"
• v. = "district of columbia"
• Specify date = Date is... = "1981"

If you scroll down, you can read all the details under the heading "Appeal No. 79-6," as well as the extensive legal rationale for DC(Appeals) ruling as they did.

This may also be of assistance:

• 444 A.2d 1; 1981 D.C. App. LEXIS 412
• April 13, 1981, Argued
• December 21, 1981, Decided

The fact that the Supreme Court then/eventually denied cert on this case (rather than hearing it and making a determination of their own) makes information on it a bit harder to find, as it [thus] does not show up on any of the sites that aggregate Supreme Court opinions (oyez.org, Cornell's LII, etc).

Shooter tx (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the actual link to Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1,4 (D.C. 1981), but it's old enough that one probably needs to look in actual law books. But these sites look legit and cite it: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-tables.pdf http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/820/820.F2d.409.86-5201.86-5200.html

This article quotes the case: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200001/ai_n8891864/print?tag=artBody;col1

this DC case cites it: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2004cv0048-67

this law review article cites it on two pages http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/pdf_files/vol11-iss1/6.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMc (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar has Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A. 2d 1 - DC: Court of Appeals 1981. DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sodomize?

Is this an error? "where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him" So is this saying Kent, had Douglas (a female), put a strap-on and then proceed to have intercourse in the rapist (kents) rear? Guess it could happen, but seems sort of weird.97.113.183.68 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Legally, sodomy also includes oral sex; I suspect that's what they meant, that he forced her to perform oral sex on him. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh...seriously?

No, really...no criticism? 124.169.123.76 (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Old things generally have harder to reach sources. I'm sure there's lots of criticism... In microfiche. 99.104.126.16 (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A copy of the brief can be found here:http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&q=warren+v.+district+of+columbia&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 Simply stated, police have no legal "duty of care" to individuals unless a "special case" exists. Adelie42 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1 link is broken

This site gunrightsalert.com does not appear to have any content. Adelie42 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Impact, reasoning etc.

I am missing the NRA etc. reactions and the impact on similar future court cases.

Also, it seems an unusual ruling, so a detailed court's reasoning is welcome here. Zezen (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing political and social background: proposal

See my initial note above. This is what is needed to be mentioned in this article:

Copyright notice first, just in case: "Author, Don B. Kates, Jr., PUBLISHED BY THE PACIFIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION, 177 POST ST., San Francisco, CA 94108, available in printed form for $10.00 under the title GUNS, MURDERS AND THE CONSITUTTION." Quote:

The fundamental principle that the police have no duty to protect individuals derives equally from practical necessity and from legal history. Historically there were no police, even in large American or English cities, before almost the mid-19th Century. Citizens were not only expected to protect themselves (and each other), but legally required in response to the hue and cry to chase down and apprehend criminals. The very idea of a police was anathema, American and English liberalism viewing any such force as a form of the dreaded "standing army."{73} This view yielded only grudgingly to the fact that citizens were unwilling to spend their leisure hours patrolling miles of city streets and incapable even of chasing fleeing criminals down on crowded city streets -- much less tracing and apprehending them or detecting surreptitious crimes. Eventually police forces were established to augment citizen self-protection by systematic patrol to deter crime and to detect and apprehend criminals if a crime occurs....

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html

-> Let us mention this background here. Zezen (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)