supreme court ruling: police do not have to intercede


PDA






Dr_2_B
December 23, 2008, 12:24 AM
Can someone point me to the supreme court ruling we've heard of that says police officers are not required to intercede in certain situations to protect a citizen? I know my question is wanting, but I have a feeling someone will know what I'm talking about. It's an argument we use to support the rights of individuals to protect themselves in lieu of relying on LEOs.

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "supreme court ruling: police do not have to intercede" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ccsniper
December 23, 2008, 12:33 AM
i found this.

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

Librarian
December 23, 2008, 12:53 AM
As noted in the link, Riss (http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~zuckerpr/cases/riss.htm) and Warren are the notable cases - just not US Supreme Court. I don't believe that issue has ever risen to the level of a constitutional problem.

A similar link (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html) to the first one posted.

The usual phrasing of the question is "Do police have a duty to protect individuals?"

Dashman010
December 23, 2008, 01:47 AM
The case on point most recently is Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). It involved a restraining order that commanded police to enforce if there had been a violation. The police didn't, and the court held that there was no 14th amendment property interest in police protection. A quote is appropriate and sums it up nicely:

"We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989)

Kleanbore
December 23, 2008, 10:29 AM
On the Supreme Court ruling on the Gonzales case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html

A quote is appropriate and sums it up nicely:

"We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989)

It sure does.

If you enjoyed reading about "supreme court ruling: police do not have to intercede" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!