Police Responsible for your protection.


PDA






TCB in TN
July 14, 2009, 05:41 PM
Does anyone know of a good video that explains the legal precedents behind the who police are not responsible for your protection, concept?

I have a couple of people who I have tried to explain it to, but either my explanation is not very good, (possible) or they are just being hard to get a long with (very possible). Any help would be appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Responsible for your protection." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
July 14, 2009, 05:47 PM
There's a USSC case that explains it that the police have no responsibility to protect.http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_278
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html

Here's the video that you may be looking for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw58d7xLnus

Here's one from DC - http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2003/05/is-government-responsible-for-your_16.html

There are others. Whenever the victim tries to hold the state responsible for their protection the state is found not to be responsible for an individual's protection by the court.
But you can try simple logic. If the police were responsible for your safety they would be accountable every time a crime of violence occurs. Since the court held they were not accountable they are not responsible for your safety.

Alternately, since their job is to enforce the law, which by it's nature is reactive instead of proactive, they respond to crimes that are committed and are not responsible for preventing them.

runrabbitrun
July 14, 2009, 06:09 PM
Since the court held they were not accountable they are not responsible for your safety.

here here......

Shadow 7D
July 14, 2009, 06:34 PM
I believe that the original came from a due process case that was in the 9th circuit and might have gone to the SCU from cali, a disabled child was continually placed back into the custody of his custodian (foster child I think) and he was eventually injured so severely that he suffered permanent mental impairment. The court stated that the government does not owe any single person protection.

Some classes like prisoner who are wards of the state are owed extra protection but most people are not a "protected" class.

Shadow 7D
July 14, 2009, 06:36 PM
Yes it's thier job to enforce the law, but they don't have to prosecute anybody, period

ar10
July 14, 2009, 06:55 PM
might have gone to the SCU from cali

I'm pretty sure it was the Washington DC case that was upheld by the SCOTUS about 2 years ago. I believe the relatives of a slain woman filed suit. From what I remember reading was she called 911 on a DV and the PD showed up 4 or 5 hrs later, by that time she was dead.
I'll see if I can find it. I know I printed it out but don't know where I put it. (CRS).

TCB in TN
July 14, 2009, 07:36 PM
Thanks guys, as usual you guys point me in the right direction.

Six
July 14, 2009, 08:19 PM
I think an earlier, but equally horrible example would be
Warren v D.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police. The court held that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.

AK103K
July 14, 2009, 08:45 PM
Check out the JPFO, and specifically, "Dial 911 and die", which goes into this in depth.

http://www.jpfo.org/

TOTC
July 14, 2009, 08:47 PM
But isn't it amazing that we as a society decry, "why weren't the police there when we needed them?" In that regard, police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

AK103K
July 14, 2009, 08:52 PM
Thats because society as a whole has been brainwashed that they are there to protect and serve, and your not allowed to take care of yourself.

They failed to tell you that the police, and most civil servants cant be sued, or really held accountable, unless you can prove it was basically a criminal act on their part.

Around here, we dont even have 911, so the "when seconds count, cops are only 30-45 minutes away" is the norm. When they do eventually get here, its usually just paperwork for them.

velojym
July 14, 2009, 09:09 PM
Thats because society as a whole has been brainwashed that they are there to protect and serve, and your not allowed to take care of yourself.

This.

A few days ago, some officers stopped by and asked about a vehicle of a particular description. I hadn't seen it, so I asked why they were looking. Evidently there'd been a rash of burglaries, hot and cold, in the area and they were following a lead. One of the officers advised me not to pursue contact if anyone broke into my house. I informed him that I have a toddler living across the house from me and asked whether the P.D. would accept liability if I did not protect my family.
Not a word after that, just a reminder to call them if I saw anything, and again not to pursue contact.

Sorry, guys. I'll avoid a fight if I can, but if a thug comes between my daughter and me, it's "on".

Working Man
July 14, 2009, 09:15 PM
Plain and simple. No one is responsible for your safety except you. Everyware you go there you are. You know the situation, you know your capability, no one else does. Regardless of what the law may or may not say you are the only one you can count on. This is not an amusement park or an animal retreat. In life it is up to you.

MikkOwl
July 14, 2009, 09:37 PM
Over where I live, no one can have firearms for protection. The whole idea of protecting yourself is just kind of 'look to the police'. The country as a whole is pretty peaceful and rich, so most people don't get subjected to violent crime (thus the attitude and lack of insight).

- It is really a fact that police cannot usually protect you, only punish the criminal after-the-fact before he does it again to someone else (theoretically).

- Guns really ARE the great equalizer. This is something that I was very slow to accept. Imagining a society where no citizens had guns, and had to rely on martial arts training and sheer brute strength/size (possibly some melee weapons), facing adversaries who often were much better equipped than them physically and equipment (firearms). If one has something as simple as a modern handgun, one's body limitations suddenly don't matter so much anymore, and no matter what firearm the criminal is using, you have a fighting chance.

It took me years to realize these simple facts. I blame the local brainwashing ;) It is, for me, the strongest case for gun ownership rights.

EDIT: A disclaimer - having a gun being a great equalizer and mostly dismissing physical prowess, but it does not dismiss the need to train yourself about it's usage and marksmanship. Granted, probably don't need anywhere near as much as you would need with martial arts.

Officers'Wife
July 14, 2009, 09:48 PM
Sorry, guys. I'll avoid a fight if I can, but if a thug comes between my daughter and me, it's "on".

And mine as well, also the thug as no reason to expect a fair fight. A 'redneck philosopher' told me once that you can only hate something as much as you love what is threatened. The moment my son or daughter is threatened, that threat makes Saddam look like Santa.

As for police protection- in the part of Indiana I came from the attitude is that you saddle your own horse, shine your own boots and when necessary kill your own snakes. The sheriff is there to call the coroner.

dullh
July 14, 2009, 10:01 PM
Police Responsible for your protection.

Anybody who thinks the police can protect them from anything is a fool. The job of the police is reactive not proactive. If the cops were proactive we would live in a police state, i.e., warrantless searches, no need for "just cause" to detain someone, etc.

The courts have ruled over and over again the police are not here to protect individuals, as a couple replies above have already pointed to excerpts from court decisions.

velojym
July 14, 2009, 10:41 PM
Officers'Wife, I'm not real fond of Santa either... he kept bringing me socks and underwear when I really wanted an Atari.

They don't warn against messing with bear cubs for no reason. Get between one of 'em and Mom and find out. Were I a burglar and I had cased houses fairly well, I'd do my best to choose the ones that didn't contain armed parents. Or even unarmed ones, really. I'll bet Mrs. V is Hell on Wheels with her baseball bat, without even considering that she's a good shot with her .357.

TCB in TN
July 14, 2009, 11:12 PM
And mine as well, also the thug as no reason to expect a fair fight. A 'redneck philosopher' told me once that you can only hate something as much as you love what is threatened. The moment my son or daughter is threatened, that threat makes Saddam look like Santa.

As for police protection- in the part of Indiana I came from the attitude is that you saddle your own horse, shine your own boots and when necessary kill your own snakes. The sheriff is there to call the coroner.

I agree completely!

TCB in TN
July 14, 2009, 11:14 PM
But isn't it amazing that we as a society decry, "why weren't the police there when we needed them?" In that regard, police are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Only thing is, to many police, and police organizations warn against defense by civilians! They unfortunately foster the impression that they WILL be there to stop the BG, rather than just picking up the pcs.

oneounceload
July 14, 2009, 11:19 PM
And mine as well, also the thug as no reason to expect a fair fight

What's that old adage? "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck"

chuckusaret
July 14, 2009, 11:23 PM
I carry because as many people say ".............the cops are minutes away" Where I live it is more like 6 to 10 minutes minimum and in some cases they never show up. Very sad because we have 4 patrols 24/7 and the town is only 2.3 sq miles.

Deanimator
July 14, 2009, 11:26 PM
Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

A LOT of things have to work correctly between you PERCEIVING a need to dial 911 and a cop "protecting" you. And even if everything works PERFECTLY, until somebody can figure out a way for a Crown Vic to travel at the speed of light, there's a LOT of time for somebody to maim or murder you before the cops get there, even if they're driving past your house when (and if) they are assigned the call by 911.

"To Serve and Protect" on the door of a police car carries no more weight than a cop telling you to "Have a nice day." Can you sue him if you don't? A "duty" unenforceable in law isn't a duty at all.

Protect yourself or don't get protected at all.

jaysouth
July 14, 2009, 11:27 PM
I think that was Katz v. U.S.

TOTC
July 14, 2009, 11:44 PM
Only thing is, to many police, and police organizations warn against defense by civilians! They unfortunately foster the impression that they WILL be there to stop the BG, rather than just picking up the pcs.

Certainly, we're infringing on their job security. If I'm able to come out on top of a criminal act or potential criminal act against me or mine, I've just provided evidence that an officer wasn't needed until after the fact. In effect, I've made the case that 'police presence' wasn't effective. If it's not effective, why do we need as many as there seem to be? I know not every LEO or police force is against or even hostile to someone defending themselves, but when they are, I question their motives.

WTBguns10kOK
July 15, 2009, 12:09 AM
The police ARE responsible for my protection. The officer under my bed holds 5 shots of #6 and the other one in my closet holds 6 shots of 180 gr. Buffalo Bore. Obviously I would sue Officer B if he's ever discharged as I would lose some vision and hearing.

hso
July 15, 2009, 01:07 AM
Since the OP has been answered and before we have any more drift and nasty exchanges this one is closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police Responsible for your protection." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!