POLL: Are the police obligated to protect you by law?

[expvideo]

I'll protect myself, thanks.

 

[glockman19]

It always gives me a good chuckle when I see that "To Protect and Serve" on the side of a Police car.

Last year I attended a Police Commissioners meeting and brought this point up. I passed out a package that included National and state Constitutions, and Legal Cases for review. I specifically pointed out that the "to protect & serve" painted on the cars ammounted to False Advertising and the city could lose millions of dollars if challenged. I referenced Warren v. DC and guess what...Newly painted LAPD cars no longer have that written on the sides, (unless they're older).

 

[sniper7369]

Last year I attended a Police Commissioners meeting and brought this point up. I passed out a package that included National and state Constitutions, and Legal Cases for review. I specifically pointed out that the "to protect & serve" painted on the cars ammounted to False Advertising and the city could lose millions of dollars if challenged. I referenced Warren v. DC and guess what...Newly painted LAPD cars no longer have that written on the sides, (unless they're older).

That's interesting. I always thought it was wrong to give the general public the false impression that the police are there to protect them.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Neither answer is completely correct.

The answer is maybe.


There does exist a duty to protect, but it has been defined to only exist in limited and specific circumstances. Those limited and specific circumstances generally do not extend as a duty to protect specific and individual citizens.

 

[sniper5]

Not just no, but HELL no!

 

[Darth AkSarBen]

It is why the Second Amendment is so important to us, as citizens and as protectors of our lives and those in our presence.

 

[shooter429]

No, they are not.

Not legally. And although many will do so when they can, when the SHTF they may simply not be able to. Just look at the LA riots for example. Can you imagine calling 911 only to see the police being chased out of the area by an armed mob. Not good. Oh, and now and then there are situations where they are not allowed to.

It is really important that we have a means of protection other than a telephone, because phones just don't make very good shields or weapons.

Shooter429

 

[Jim K]

It seems right to think that the police should protect everyone, but consider the ramifications of that idea. It would be impossible from any viewpoint to have public police officers assigned to protect each and every one of us at all times.

That is what courts consider in saying that there is no obligation of the police to protect anyone. A court ruling that the police must protect everyone would impose an impossibility; a ruling that the police must protect some people but not others would raise the question of discrimination in one form or another.

So the courts say that the police are not obligated to protect anyone. That does not mean the police MAY NOT protect those in most need of protection, only that they have no legal obligation to do so.

Jim

 

[Iron Sight]

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...um=1&hl=en&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-49,GGLJ:en&sa=N

 

[Deanimator]

Can you imagine calling 911 only to see the police being chased out of the area by an armed mob.

They weren't "chased" out. Gates PULLED them out, as "punishment" for the community. It wasn't the first time he'd done it either.

 

[Harve Curry]

It use to be on police cars ;
"To Serve and Protect"
Whatever ever happened to that and why was it on there?

 

[expvideo]

There is only one person on this entire planet, badge or no badge, that is responsible for my safety and protection.

 

[Speedo66]

The penal law in NYS says police and peace officers "may" take action, make arrests, and use physical force or deady physical force as required. In other words they have the right to do so.

It does not state they "must".

 

[22lr]

The police were never meant to protect you, they were meant to investigate crimes, and maintain law and order. Kinda surprised at how many people said yes though.

 

[zombienerd]

So, by law, a police officer could just stand there and watch as someone got raped and murdered, and arrest the offender afterwards?

That doesn't seem right.

I'm guessing this law is only meant for responders and not witnesses, but I could be wrong.

 

[mljdeckard]

I voted yes, in that they are certainly obligated to TRY. To say no is to imply that they can observe violence and ignore it.

I try to view it more as a partnership, in which I hold the primary responsibility, and they do what they can.

 

[Deanimator]

I voted yes, in that they are certainly obligated to TRY. To say no is to imply that they can observe violence and ignore it.

No, they AREN'T obligated to TRY, at least not legally. In most places they can WATCH you get injured/killed and not be criminally or civilly liable. Any penalties will be strictly administrative. And you can pretty much count on the local Fraternal Order of Police fighting ANY substantive punishment of ANY sort.

 

[22lr]

"So, by law, a police officer could just stand there and watch as someone got raped and murdered, and arrest the offender afterwards?"


Not at all, if they see something they are automatically legally bound to correct it. Has to do with court cases were people sued because the police "allowed" someone to break into there house. There is no possible way the Police can protect you 24/7, and hence they are only obligated to protect you if they see you in distress. In layman's terms, carry a gun and protect yourself, cus the cops cant.

 

[jackdanson]

The problem is that if this poll was placed on msnbc.com it would have the exact opposite results. People on THR generally know substantially more about this subject than the "average joe"

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Even if they were obligated to protect me....I still say I could do a better job of it than they could. No offense to any LEO's...but I'm quite sure I would fight harder for my life than you would...its human nature.

I'll fight my own fights...that state of mind has never done me wrong so far, just a few scars and memories.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is in fact a basic, and very long standing, principle of the law that one is under no legal obligation to come to the aid of another. One may feel a moral obligation to do so, and that is good and proper. But in general, one will incur no legal liability if he just watches the carnage.

Indeed the common law rule was that if someone did, nonetheless, go to the aid of another, and made a hash of it, the person offering assistance could be held liable for any damage he did. Fortunately, that harsh rule has been mitigated, at least under some circumstances, by Good Samaritan laws adopted in most jurisdictions (And maybe all states have some form of such a law. I don't know for sure.)

 

[TEDDY]

police

so why do we pay them,when we have to do it ourselves.and then get thrown in prison for doing it.
and then some a*ol police chief refuses to give you a permit to be armed so you can defend your self.that should be sue able.there is an answere to that vote the mayor out and put in one that will install abetter chief,if there is one.our sheriff got voted out because he went lax.

 

[TEDDY]

crime

the chief in next county has got feed up with crime and has instigated a crack down.we will see.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Didn't the US Court of Appeals say that they are not obligated to protect you? The basic answer is no, they are not legally obligated to save anyone.

Anyway, I think that most cops will do everything in their power to help us if we are being attacked. Unfortunately, without the aid of a teleport, the attack will likely be over by the time they get to you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...so why do we pay them,when we have to do it ourselves.and then get thrown in prison for doing it.
and then some a*ol police chief refuses to give you a permit to be armed so you can defend your self...

Beats me. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep this in mind whenever there's an election.