Deanimator
Member
He'll be reversed on appeal.
You don't have to like it.
It'll happen whether you like it or not.
POLL: Are the police obligated to protect you by law?
- Thread starter Highland Ranger
- Start date
- Status
You don't have to like it.
It'll happen whether you like it or not.
Deanimator
Member
"Stare decisis"...
Darth AkSarBen
Member
Without sounding like an argument in the special Olympics, a judge might listen to it, and it might be heard, but any defense lawyer worth his salt would quickly figure out that there has already been precedence set by SCOTUS and that argument, by in and of its self, would get the case dismissed.
There would be no reason to continue as the end result even if a conviction would be passed up to the appellate courts and there it would be dismissed.
It is not illegal to be scared, nor is it illegal to not be the "best" cop that there is. These are all matters of interpretation which SCOTUS has already heard and replied.
The crux of this thread is not to determine is someone is a good cop-bad cop, indifferent or lax. It is to show that people must take upon themselves a certain responsibility to protect themselves as they should not count on 100% that old adage "the police are called let them handle it". Circumstances, beyond anyone's imagination, may happen and waiting and relying on someone else who is really not paid as your personal body guard or protector would be unwise, as well as naive. IF you hired a full time staff of body guards and they reported to you and you alone you might have a case of lawsuit showing you had cause. Lawsuit against the general protectors just because you think or have been lead to believe as such just won't cut it. And, it is true, there are more people, in the general populace, those not so much interested in firearms and 2nd Amendment rights, that are blind sided to this information.
There would be no reason to continue as the end result even if a conviction would be passed up to the appellate courts and there it would be dismissed.
It is not illegal to be scared, nor is it illegal to not be the "best" cop that there is. These are all matters of interpretation which SCOTUS has already heard and replied.
The crux of this thread is not to determine is someone is a good cop-bad cop, indifferent or lax. It is to show that people must take upon themselves a certain responsibility to protect themselves as they should not count on 100% that old adage "the police are called let them handle it". Circumstances, beyond anyone's imagination, may happen and waiting and relying on someone else who is really not paid as your personal body guard or protector would be unwise, as well as naive. IF you hired a full time staff of body guards and they reported to you and you alone you might have a case of lawsuit showing you had cause. Lawsuit against the general protectors just because you think or have been lead to believe as such just won't cut it. And, it is true, there are more people, in the general populace, those not so much interested in firearms and 2nd Amendment rights, that are blind sided to this information.
mgkdrgn
Member
don't need a "poll" ... as this is clearly defined in case law .... and the answer is a resounding:
NO!
NO!
Highland Ranger
Member
As the thread initiator . . . .
A number of comments:
- we are still running almost 10% yes ON A PRO-2A board! Amazing.
Some of the postings indicate the real opportunity here - case in point is my recent conversation with a fellow gun owner who is pro-2a but not particularly politically aware.
In response to a question regarding his purchase plans in acknowledgment of Obama's election he replied, I don't need an Uzi, and there are some guns only the police should have.
So once I un-puckered my butt, I got to the root thought which was his perception that it is the police's job to protect us.
SO THE OPPORTUNITY: Have this conversation with everyone - I think there is a significant grassroots opportunity to have an impact just by educating folks about the police role in society.
To the cop bashers - please stop.
To the cop defenders/groupies - try to look the other way on this one or be a little less sensitive.
Let's try to keep the conversation going; more people we make aware the better.
A number of comments:
- we are still running almost 10% yes ON A PRO-2A board! Amazing.
Some of the postings indicate the real opportunity here - case in point is my recent conversation with a fellow gun owner who is pro-2a but not particularly politically aware.
In response to a question regarding his purchase plans in acknowledgment of Obama's election he replied, I don't need an Uzi, and there are some guns only the police should have.
So once I un-puckered my butt, I got to the root thought which was his perception that it is the police's job to protect us.
SO THE OPPORTUNITY: Have this conversation with everyone - I think there is a significant grassroots opportunity to have an impact just by educating folks about the police role in society.
To the cop bashers - please stop.
To the cop defenders/groupies - try to look the other way on this one or be a little less sensitive.
Let's try to keep the conversation going; more people we make aware the better.
Darth AkSarBen
Member
I find this thread very interesting. I even asked a co-worker the same question and his answer was "yes" he believed Police were legally obligated to protect you.
I am not for bashing cops and I used to be one. But common sense tells one that there can only be so many "protectors" in a certain populace at any given time. They do more in deterring crime and catching criminals in acts they witness and in their daily duties. A simple stop for speeding can reveal a lot of information. People have been arrested for being fleeing felons, current warrants, drug smuggling/dealers, and a whole host of other offenses just off a simple car stop. I do believe they try to be there to prevent crime, and as the GENERAL rules always give it 150% to be there. But, time is not on their side, and many times a crime is committed and the "committer" has left before they even arrive. Time and distance is the criminals gamble and edge, and most of the time it pays off. But, because of this time and distance, I do not think it prudent, right or necessary to sue a police or department for their inability or lack of protection when truly, YOU, are not their only concern in their jobs. Is this not a free country? Then YOU are responsible for the exercise of your own protection.
You eat in a restaurant and your waitress hopes for a good tip. However, this is a perk to them, and to you. If you do not tip the waiter/waitress that is your prerogative and you cannot sue the establishment for poor service and seek relief, neither can your waiter/waitress sue you for lack of a tip.
The Second Amendment is an affirmed "RIGHT" that the Constitution does not give, because it is a God given inalienable right, and merely affirms that every person has and should have the ability to protect themselves at all times from tyranny, oppression and from those that wish to do them harm.
I am not for bashing cops and I used to be one. But common sense tells one that there can only be so many "protectors" in a certain populace at any given time. They do more in deterring crime and catching criminals in acts they witness and in their daily duties. A simple stop for speeding can reveal a lot of information. People have been arrested for being fleeing felons, current warrants, drug smuggling/dealers, and a whole host of other offenses just off a simple car stop. I do believe they try to be there to prevent crime, and as the GENERAL rules always give it 150% to be there. But, time is not on their side, and many times a crime is committed and the "committer" has left before they even arrive. Time and distance is the criminals gamble and edge, and most of the time it pays off. But, because of this time and distance, I do not think it prudent, right or necessary to sue a police or department for their inability or lack of protection when truly, YOU, are not their only concern in their jobs. Is this not a free country? Then YOU are responsible for the exercise of your own protection.
You eat in a restaurant and your waitress hopes for a good tip. However, this is a perk to them, and to you. If you do not tip the waiter/waitress that is your prerogative and you cannot sue the establishment for poor service and seek relief, neither can your waiter/waitress sue you for lack of a tip.
The Second Amendment is an affirmed "RIGHT" that the Constitution does not give, because it is a God given inalienable right, and merely affirms that every person has and should have the ability to protect themselves at all times from tyranny, oppression and from those that wish to do them harm.
But what happens when the government ( as in DC) restrict your ability to protect yourself. Would this not place you in the situation of making the police responsible for your protection? Perhaps you could sue those who took away your means of defense knowing that the police had no obligation to protect you. In short instead of suing the police sue the city council, state legislature or whatever entity made it impossible for you to defend yourself.
ZombieHunter
Member
Hey Art,
Any way you can post that link with the court cases?
Any way you can post that link with the court cases?
There is no duty to protect you. It was always a public service. Which is a courtesy. Not obligation. if some one is free yes can send to help. But you are on your own. All of us have to see to our families first. Then others always has been that way and will be. Only way I could trust someone else is if I worked with them for years and they were like a part of my family to help them out.
Cyborg
Member
I was one of the ones who answered in the affirmative but that was a coupla pages of discussion ago.
Let me see if I get this straight. I am in a state that does not have open carry (I live in Texas and until/unless somebody in the state house of senate sponsors the bill it ain't gonna change any time soon) and I personally do not have a CHL and somebody comes up and hits me over the head and takes my wallet. One of San Antonio's Finest is just a few feet away when the badguy walks up, raises a really nasty club and tells me to give him my wallet and other valuables and the cop does nothing. Are you saying that he has no legal duty to intervene?
I was taught that a LEO has a DUTY to intervene when a crime is being committed while a civilian is ALLOWED to intervene.
So I get mugged with a cop a couple of yards away with his thumb stuck some place smelly and I have no cause for action? Is that what you are telling me? I know that cops aren't bodyguards and that they are here to protect us corporately not individually, but if they see a crime going down do they not have a legal requirement to intervene?
If that is true then what are they there for?
Let me see if I get this straight. I am in a state that does not have open carry (I live in Texas and until/unless somebody in the state house of senate sponsors the bill it ain't gonna change any time soon) and I personally do not have a CHL and somebody comes up and hits me over the head and takes my wallet. One of San Antonio's Finest is just a few feet away when the badguy walks up, raises a really nasty club and tells me to give him my wallet and other valuables and the cop does nothing. Are you saying that he has no legal duty to intervene?
I was taught that a LEO has a DUTY to intervene when a crime is being committed while a civilian is ALLOWED to intervene.
So I get mugged with a cop a couple of yards away with his thumb stuck some place smelly and I have no cause for action? Is that what you are telling me? I know that cops aren't bodyguards and that they are here to protect us corporately not individually, but if they see a crime going down do they not have a legal requirement to intervene?
If that is true then what are they there for?
wjustinen
Member
"- we are still running almost 10% yes ON A PRO-2A board! Amazing."
Pro-gun doesn't necessarily over-rule wishful thinking.
Pro-gun doesn't necessarily over-rule wishful thinking.
expvideo
Member
Simple. To investigate crimes and uphold the law. Period.
The key phrase here is "legal duty." He may have a moral responsibility to act. The agency that employs him may consider him obliged, as part of his job, to act; and it might take some employment related action (reprimand, a negative comment in a performance evaluation, etc.) if he fails to do something. But the absence of a legal duty means that you won't be able to successfully sue him (or his agency) and collect monetary damages from him (or his agency) if he fails to prevent you from being mugged.Cyborg said:
Adam Carpenter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1
Gun Control
America was built by guns. But some people say that guns are destroying this great country. I find out for myself by shooting a lot of death machines at non-human objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiq8utSlMQ&feature=channel_page
America was built by guns. But some people say that guns are destroying this great country. I find out for myself by shooting a lot of death machines at non-human objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiq8utSlMQ&feature=channel_page
Deanimator
Member
You were taught wrong.
Absent a "special relationship" (confidential informant, in custody, etc.) there is no LEGAL duty to protect individuals. And that is the ONLY duty which is relevant to this discussion.
If a cop fails to protect you, he may be administratively punished by his police department. There's still no legal duty. He doesn't have to be a cop and can quit at any time. If you're dead, crippled or blind, a week off without pay or a pink slip for the cop helps you HOW?
You have no cause of action against the cop. You have no cause of action against the department. They owe you NOTHING. You will recover from them NOTHING.
Police have NO LEGAL DUTY to protect you as an individual without that "special relationship". End of story, like it or lump it.
Defend yourself or in most cases don't get defended at all.
expvideo
Member
That's your problem. Get a CHL or accept that you are just another sheep in the flock. You are the one that chooses to go around unarmed. The cop didn't make that choice for you. The only person that is responsible for you is you. That's it. End of story. If you consider your tax dollars a payment for police protection, you are WAY underpaying your assumed body guards.
Last edited:
jad0110
Member
The exact thing you describe actually happened. In D.C.:
Warren vs District of Columbia (SCOTUS). Google it to learn more. Here is a good link to this case and more: http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
DC 1, Warren zip. In DC, not only are the police are under no affirmative duty to protect you, your rights to do so are severely curtailed (pre Heller anyway). This is why crime in DC is so freakin' bad. You are at the mercy of thugs.
Sadly, most of our fellow American are totally clueless on this issue.
Deanimator
Member
Or they can just add: "society as a whole, as well as those individuals with whom we have a 'special relationship' as defined in applicable court decisions."
Then it'll be perfectly accurate. Of course they'll have to switch to stretched limos so that it all fits on the door...
Darth AkSarBen
Member
Expvideo said:
Bingo! Precisely well put. Police, Deputies, etc cannot be there for each individual as theirs is the duty to the county or city or state they are hired. Would I be chastised if I did not do a lab test for my boss at the winery? Of course. Would I be sued if I did not perform it. No, but I'd be looking for another job.
Police work is kind of like that but they have a more deep rooted desire to be on the side of protecting "citizens" (note plural word), and, when the opportunity (seen) or need (called in) arises they will do their level best to help out and protect. But, you cannot expect someone 15 miles away from your house to be there in 1 minute(or less) when they have distance and time against them, including road conditions, animals (deer, etc), traffic to watch out for and so forth. Even at an average of 60 MPH, that call will take more than 15 minutes of response time. Even if he arrives in a timely fashion and is only a few minutes away, there is no guarantee to you, that he is not quite up to snuff for the task at hand. Because you are dealing with an individual person, hired by the department, and trained for his job, that does not mean he is perfect in it's execution or maybe a bit indifferent or scared for his life. Many things come to play. But, the greatest point of the whole thread is that they are paid individuals, and by and through court decision, we are not to expect personal protection from them, and as such we can not show cause for a lawsuit to recover damages. Rare, though, is the police that are indifferent, but as in all things, it can happen.
Americans, it seems, are not aware of this thought. If they were aware that they need to rely on their "own" devices, of self protection, even if it's a broom handle, a stick or anything you can grab to defend yourself with, it is better than to wait idly by for the LEO to show up. I have seen videos of even armed robbers thwarted in Mom&Pop stores with nothing more than a broom and courage to face them and drive them away. The LAST thing you want to do is lay down and do nothing, because the criminal mind expects that and also they prefer not having witnesses who can later identify them if they do get caught. Don't be sheep! If you ever have a chance to read a book of Skip Coryell's called "Blood in The Street" it will serve you well. Get it for a Christmas present for someone you love. Website - Skip Coryell
Bingo! Precisely well put. Police, Deputies, etc cannot be there for each individual as theirs is the duty to the county or city or state they are hired. Would I be chastised if I did not do a lab test for my boss at the winery? Of course. Would I be sued if I did not perform it. No, but I'd be looking for another job.
Police work is kind of like that but they have a more deep rooted desire to be on the side of protecting "citizens" (note plural word), and, when the opportunity (seen) or need (called in) arises they will do their level best to help out and protect. But, you cannot expect someone 15 miles away from your house to be there in 1 minute(or less) when they have distance and time against them, including road conditions, animals (deer, etc), traffic to watch out for and so forth. Even at an average of 60 MPH, that call will take more than 15 minutes of response time. Even if he arrives in a timely fashion and is only a few minutes away, there is no guarantee to you, that he is not quite up to snuff for the task at hand. Because you are dealing with an individual person, hired by the department, and trained for his job, that does not mean he is perfect in it's execution or maybe a bit indifferent or scared for his life. Many things come to play. But, the greatest point of the whole thread is that they are paid individuals, and by and through court decision, we are not to expect personal protection from them, and as such we can not show cause for a lawsuit to recover damages. Rare, though, is the police that are indifferent, but as in all things, it can happen.
Americans, it seems, are not aware of this thought. If they were aware that they need to rely on their "own" devices, of self protection, even if it's a broom handle, a stick or anything you can grab to defend yourself with, it is better than to wait idly by for the LEO to show up. I have seen videos of even armed robbers thwarted in Mom&Pop stores with nothing more than a broom and courage to face them and drive them away. The LAST thing you want to do is lay down and do nothing, because the criminal mind expects that and also they prefer not having witnesses who can later identify them if they do get caught. Don't be sheep! If you ever have a chance to read a book of Skip Coryell's called "Blood in The Street" it will serve you well. Get it for a Christmas present for someone you love. Website - Skip Coryell
Last edited:
sailortoo
Member
subknave has raised a valid point for this thread: If the police force is not legally bound to protect you (the SCOTUS has affirmed this), yet the same police force is obligated to prevent you from having a means of defending yourself (city council ruling, state statue, whatever), then are you not in an impossible situation? D.C. vs Heller has been an obvious, yet restrictive answer to this question, yet how about NYC, or California, or any other part of the U.S.A. that will not allow a citizen, or some citizens, not otherwise disallowed firearms ownership and right to bear, that fundamental means of self defense. I realize the reality and the confusion within the courts, but it does seem that a citizen should be able to either sue the force or the legal body that is keeping them from a legal means of defense. If the police are just "doing as ordered", and have no obligation for protection, then the governing body that has taken that "inalienable right" away, should be liable for any harm to a citizen. Any clarity out there?
sailortoo
sailortoo
wjustinen
Member
"If the police are just "doing as ordered", and have no obligation for protection, then the governing body that has taken that "inalienable right" away, should be liable for any harm to a citizen. Any clarity out there? "
We are each responsible to defend not just our persons, but also our rights.
As long as we continue to accept laws that restrict those we see as "bad guys" from exercising rights that "shall not be infringed" we give tacit approval to being restricted ourselves.
We either accept the downside of rights being for everyone, or we lose them ourselves.
We are each responsible to defend not just our persons, but also our rights.
As long as we continue to accept laws that restrict those we see as "bad guys" from exercising rights that "shall not be infringed" we give tacit approval to being restricted ourselves.
We either accept the downside of rights being for everyone, or we lose them ourselves.
expvideo
Member
The police don't force you to live in a restricive state. It is a risk that you choose to take. The restrictive laws are the ones to blame, not the police. Of course it is an impossible situation, but you choose to live under those circumstances. It's not the fault of the police, nor is it their duty to protect you because of your choice to live defenselessly.
sailortoo
Member
I believe that I have been misunderstood by both wjustinen and expvideo - I do not choose to live in a restrictive state - far from it. If the laws of the state, city, country say that I cannot arm myself for self protection, that is not my choice - but I would have to break the law in order to be able to defend myself. This is not a police protection argument, as the police, de facto, do not have the obligation nor legal demand that they protect me - I am the sole protector of me and mine - no question about that. My problem is, if the city or state takes away my ability to defend myself, just as in the legal sense of law enforcement arrest, where they are then responsible for my safety, why is there no recourse to go after the governing body that took away my "inalienable right", assuming that I am harmed because of their actions? Again, not a police question, but a loss of the ability to defend myself, by law. If I do not "choose" to live under a restrictive law, how am I to change that? I am but one vote! I would appreciate how wjustinen would "disapprove" of a restrictive law! Any pointers, like disobeying a law?
sailortoo
sailortoo
- Status
