Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Washington man kills five kids: More death by government?

Yesterday, James Harrison, after learning that his wife was leaving him for another man, decided to wreak vengeance on their five children by murdering them before killing himself with a “self-inflicted gunshot wound.” These are the facts of the story, but as usual, the media leaves out other facts when rushing to publish another biased story about a gun-related mass murder.

Buried in the middle of the story is this tidbit:

State child welfare officials put Harrison on a parenting plan in 2007 after a "minor assault" on one of the children, Troyer said, adding that the father agreed to the plan and the case was closed.

Federal law already bans firearms possession by anybody:

·      “who is subject to a court order that…includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child” or

·      “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

At this point, it is not known if Harrison was subject to a court order, or if he just agreed with the welfare agency to receive counseling in order to avoid legal entanglements. However, considering the situation, it seems reasonable to assume that this person was a danger to the children, in which case government experts failed to respond appropriately, thereby fostering a continuing threat of danger to the children. This brings up a very important point.

A U.S. Supreme Court case, Deshaney v. Winnebago, is interesting because it shows that all government agencies enjoy blanket immunity from prosecution for failing to provide the services for which they are created. In Deshaney, social service employees failed to protect a child after multiple notices that the boy was beaten by his father:

Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father's custody. Petitioner’s father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage and was rendered profoundly retarded. Petitioner and his mother sued respondents under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that respondents had deprived petitioner of his liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father’s violence. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court concluded that despite prior knowledge that the child was in danger:

(a) A State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

(b) 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.

The plain truth here: Government agencies are not obligated to respond effectively in order to save children from an abusive parent. But when their inaction results in tragedy, these same agencies can support more gun control, which in turn requires creating another government agency.