I don't know why it did so, but yesterday's Seattle Times has two stories semi-smushed together -- I guess that's because they're both robed-nazgul related. The main headline is 2 reporters facing jail after appeal is refused, and while that's a worthwhile developing story in its own right, the second one caught my attention. Scroll down to Police backed in lawsuit over restraining order for more of the same "let-us-protect-you-but-not-really-protect-you" doublespeak:

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three daughters. ....

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt them.

Well, why not? They're certainly morally bankrupt. What else can you call the empty promises police protection has held out for years, backed by court rulings that reinforce the idea that they can't be held responsible for failing to "serve and protect"?

I love the closing quote from the woman's attorney: "The restraining orders are not worth anything unless police officers are willing to enforce them. They are just paper."

Yep. Getting a restraining order may give a besieged individual peace of mind, but it's an illusion. If you want real peace of mind, get something a wee bit stronger than paper. .38's the minimum I recommend.