Boyfriend Kills Baby - Woman Sues Police

chanel

Silver Member
Jun 8, 2009
12,098
3,202
98
People's Republic of NJ
The mother of the 3-month-old infant who was allegedly kidnapped and tossed into the Raritan River by her father has notified East Orange police she intends to file a lawsuit because they turned her away from filing a restraining order against the father a day before the abduction.

Venetta Benjamin, the 23-year-old mother, contends that if the restraining order was filed against her estranged 21-year-old boyfriend, Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem, then their child Zara Malani-Lin Abdur-Raheem would not have come to harm.

On Feb. 15, Benjamin went to East Orange police to file a restraining order against Abdur-Raheem, according to the notice of claim. Benjamin had recently moved out of their Galloway Township home and was living at the East Orange apartment of her mother, Leno Benjamin, at the time.

But because it was President’s Day, a holiday, Venetta Benjamin claims police turned her away and told her to file the next day even though she told them she had previously filed a temporary restraining order in 2008 and her boyfriend had a history of abuse.

The order was issued the next day but was never served, Liebowitz said.

Mother of baby thrown into Raritan River plans to sue East Orange police for turning down restraining order | - NJ.com

Another tragic story but...

For crying out loud - she had a restraining order against him in '08 but still had a baby with him. Who's to blame?

Does she have a case?
 
It was a holiday. Should clerks be available 24/7 in every municipality in the country?

Would the restraining order have saved the kid? He took the baby by force.
 
now all of that....are new questions...that i cant answer....but they police did nothing...zip...are we only entired to police protection on non holidays?
 
spring lake police depart will....if you ask for patrol and give them the reason...they will patrol....i did it this weekend. not for domestic violence but for an empty house.
 
i find the excuse of its a holiday totally invalid....but then i would have to ask ..what did she do to protect herself and child?
 
In light of this horrific crime, NJ had decided to issue Amber alerts for parental abductions. Just this week TV was interrupted every five mins with a PSA that said a child wa missing somewhere in NJ. No other info. Apparently the kid was returned safely to his mom the next morning. 99.99 percent of the time fathers do not throw their kid off a bridge. But because one did...

Do judges sign restraining orders?
 
all i know about ro's..is this...my son spends the entire day filling out the paper work etc..then they ask him....do you know where she lives...well she is stalking his ass...so at that time he didnt...that was it..they told him he had to find her...hello...that is just what she wants....

so i considered doing a "skip and trace" on her...but i still think that is what she wants..him to look for her..any kind of attention....so he could never file the ro.

she moves constantly...and changes her identity and background story...i never understood the urge to kill someone till this woman entered my son's life.
 
i am not sure about alerting for this....parental kidnapping happens daily....last weekend they did a big...alert on a young lady...flashed her pic all over...etc...

it was a miscommunication she was never missing...
 
Does she have a case?
I am in no way a lawyer but I do not think so. It was determined in CA of all places that the police there were not responsible to prevent crimes, just responsible to catch the criminals after the fact. There was a rape during a big heritage parade that got out of hand in plain view of the police and they did nothing to prevent it. This was the ruling of the court when she tried to sue. As things go, a restraining order would not have stopped this individual anyway and to think a paper will prevent murder is a bit crazy. The police should hold no responsibility for this, they do get holidays too. Now, if the 911 operator had said they were on holiday that would be different but a restraining order is little more than procedure.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I hope you are right, but this is NJ where people sue cops, schools, social workers, public works etc on a daily basis. Often they are settled because lawyers are more expensive than settlements. Esp when there's a dead child and they want it to go away. Hell - the taxpayers will pay!

I'll check it out later but I believe this monster is a foreign student whose first class education was most likely paid by the generous people of NJ. Divers searched the river for days even though initially they didn't believe the guy, Courtesy of NJ taxpayers. He will be spending his life in jail - no death penalty here now - courtesy of us. At what point do we have to stop paying for evil doers? My heart goes out to this woman, but she doesn't deserve a dime in my opinion.
 
. . .

NO DUTY TO PROTECT

Elephant in the Room:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
(the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)

(There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection,
see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,
the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.)

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-278P.ZO
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005), 366 F.3d 1093, reversed.

(Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property." Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

Under the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.
See, for example,
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
(no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985);
Cal. Govt. Code SSSS 845
(no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody); _
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982);
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep. 339 (1980);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983);
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App 1981);
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.),
cert. denied_ 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102;
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968);
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.);
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969);
Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, certif. denied, 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978);
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981);
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).

Read this book: Call 911 and Die
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK: Do the police owe a duty to protect you from criminal attack? In most of the United States, the answer is "no." In fact, in most cases the police do not even have to respond to your emergency 911 call.
Don't believe it? Read the true stories from all across America about citizens who depended solely upon their telephone and police response for emergency help against a violent criminal. Not only did those crime victims not get help, the local government and police escaped legal responsibility for failing to help those victims.
This compact paperback reviews the law in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia and Canada, showing how statutes and court decisions consistently hold that the police generally have "no duty" to protect individual citizens. When it comes to personal self-defense, citizens are on their own.
Highlighting the importance of preparing to protect oneself and family, the book also retells 45 stories about people who successfully defended themselves long before any police could help.
Check the law of your state, and of the states where your loved ones live. If you are interested in public policy questions about government liability, gun control or victims' rights, or if protecting yourself and your family is your worry, this book tells you what you need to know about whether you have any "right" to police protection.
Certainly you will never look at your telephone the same way again.

. . .
 
The mother of the 3-month-old infant who was allegedly kidnapped and tossed into the Raritan River by her father has notified East Orange police she intends to file a lawsuit because they turned her away from filing a restraining order against the father a day before the abduction.

Venetta Benjamin, the 23-year-old mother, contends that if the restraining order was filed against her estranged 21-year-old boyfriend, Shamsid-Din Abdur-Raheem, then their child Zara Malani-Lin Abdur-Raheem would not have come to harm.

On Feb. 15, Benjamin went to East Orange police to file a restraining order against Abdur-Raheem, according to the notice of claim. Benjamin had recently moved out of their Galloway Township home and was living at the East Orange apartment of her mother, Leno Benjamin, at the time.

But because it was President’s Day, a holiday, Venetta Benjamin claims police turned her away and told her to file the next day even though she told them she had previously filed a temporary restraining order in 2008 and her boyfriend had a history of abuse.

The order was issued the next day but was never served, Liebowitz said.

Mother of baby thrown into Raritan River plans to sue East Orange police for turning down restraining order | - NJ.com

Another tragic story but...

For crying out loud - she had a restraining order against him in '08 but still had a baby with him. Who's to blame?

Does she have a case?

No she doesn't have acase.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top