Police and protection
- Thread starter tpaw
- Start date
- Status
tasco 74
Member
the jist of the thing is police are to protect the citizenry as a whole not just one individual person..... that takes the liabilty off in case a goblin breaks in and you call 911 and they don't show up for 20 mins after you are killed..... you family can't as i understand sue over your death or injury.....
There have been several court decisions including one by SCOTUS. Search the forum.
The cases resulted from lawsuits from people who suffered harm at the hands of perps when police officers did not arrive in time. The gist of the findings is that citizens are responsible for their own protection.
Think about it for a moment. A police department receives numerous calls. The dispatcher must ascertain the facts and prioritize the calls before sending anyone to help the caller.
Compare how long you think the phone conversation would take after you have dialed and gotten an answer ("what do you hear, ma'am; can you see anyone; where are they trying to get in; is that the front of the house or the back; where are you; are you alone; where are they now?") with how long it would take someone to break through your door. And then add the time for a dispatched officer to arrive.
So, rulings notwithstanding, isn't rather clear that you are on your own?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
OP, it means the police do not have a legally binding obligation to ensure your safety. It's to prevent them from being sued in case they, being human, do not succeed in protecting you. It doesn't in anyway mean they don't feel personally obligated to save you, or that they won't try to.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
One example, from a federal district court in D.C.:
An intruder broke into a second-floor apartment and raped the resident woman. He then went to the kitchen and she phoned the police from her bedroom, describing her problem.
The rapist returned. Police were sent to the address; they drove down the street and down the alley. Seeing no disturbance and hearing no noise, they left the area and continued their patrol.
She sued; she lost. Vaguely, my memory has it that the court held that the police could not be expected to do more than they did when there was an absence of any visible/audible problem.
One result of that decision has been that some number of police departments began a policy of actually going to the door of the address and checking with the resident. (For some, that had already been standard procedure.)
An intruder broke into a second-floor apartment and raped the resident woman. He then went to the kitchen and she phoned the police from her bedroom, describing her problem.
The rapist returned. Police were sent to the address; they drove down the street and down the alley. Seeing no disturbance and hearing no noise, they left the area and continued their patrol.
She sued; she lost. Vaguely, my memory has it that the court held that the police could not be expected to do more than they did when there was an absence of any visible/audible problem.
One result of that decision has been that some number of police departments began a policy of actually going to the door of the address and checking with the resident. (For some, that had already been standard procedure.)
This link cites specific cases in a convincing way.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
One excerpt:
"Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves."
If you want protection then get arrested. On the other hand the amorous interests of your prison mates might still be a problem.
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
One excerpt:
"Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves."
If you want protection then get arrested. On the other hand the amorous interests of your prison mates might still be a problem.
Deanimator
Member
In addition to the links provided, read the book "Dial 911 and Die". It gives a state by state run-down of police duty to protect and liability.
Travlin pointed it out correctly. The police only have a duty to protect those in custody. After I researched this a while back, the USSC basically said that the police are not your personal body guards, and that they are there for the safety of the community and not individuals.
Makes me want to demand my taxes back, especially since I've never seen a policeman on patrol or even a deputy patrolling the neighborhood in the last 4 years.
Makes me want to demand my taxes back, especially since I've never seen a policeman on patrol or even a deputy patrolling the neighborhood in the last 4 years.
FlaChef
Member
Warren v. District of Columbia
OPD...
Agreed, but i will point out this was in the 70's. The first call was given the wrong prioity by dispatch. The second call they drove down the alley AND another unit knocked on the door!! That is why the woman and her daughter came out of hiding.
That is when the two scumbags found the woman and her daughter as well as the original victim.
The police just left because they could not hear the disturbance.
It was 14hrs before the dirtbags finaly left!
This was the case in which our SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect each individual. It is up to you
OPD...
Agreed, but i will point out this was in the 70's. The first call was given the wrong prioity by dispatch. The second call they drove down the alley AND another unit knocked on the door!! That is why the woman and her daughter came out of hiding.
That is when the two scumbags found the woman and her daughter as well as the original victim.
The police just left because they could not hear the disturbance.
It was 14hrs before the dirtbags finaly left!
This was the case in which our SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect each individual. It is up to you
Not only are the police not obligated to protect you, the government (city, county, state) is not even obligated to provide police services.
Here's a few quick and enlightening reads:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Here's a few quick and enlightening reads:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot.html
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
And if you happen to live in unincorporated territory in a remote county ... the police are just hours away.
expvideo
Member
The police aren't obligated to protect you. Nor should they be. The only person responsible for your protection is you. It's a beautiful thing.
jad0110
Member
It is surprising how many people actually believe the police are legally bound to defend them (as individuals). I'd wager that 9 out of 10 Americans believe they are. I've had relatives respond with vitriol that of course the cops are required to protect them, that's why we don't need guns
. Once I was called a right wing extremist and a card carrying member of the Michigan Militia for suggesting such a thing 
. Other people were so shocked that they thought I made it up. "Google 'Warren v. District of Columbia'" I'd respond.The irony of it all is that the argument is often made that police will protect us, therefore we as citizens don't need guns. But the same people counter their own position when they demand gun ownership be outlawed in the name of crime reduction. If the police will protect us, how could there be any crime? So which is it?
jakemccoy
Member
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: Police have no duty to protect an individual.
In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.
In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.
Last edited:
One example, from a federal district court in D.C.:
An intruder broke into a second-floor apartment and raped the resident woman. He then went to the kitchen and she phoned the police from her bedroom, describing her problem.
The rapist returned. Police were sent to the address; they drove down the street and down the alley. Seeing no disturbance and hearing no noise, they left the area and continued their patrol.
She sued; she lost. Vaguely, my memory has it that the court held that the police could not be expected to do more than they did when there was an absence of any visible/audible problem.
One result of that decision has been that some number of police departments began a policy of actually going to the door of the address and checking with the resident. (For some, that had already been standard procedure.)
And this in a dangerous city that doesn't allow citizens to arm themselves in their own home, depite Heller which still makes it a PITA to get a handgun and keep it at the ready.
An intruder broke into a second-floor apartment and raped the resident woman. He then went to the kitchen and she phoned the police from her bedroom, describing her problem.
The rapist returned. Police were sent to the address; they drove down the street and down the alley. Seeing no disturbance and hearing no noise, they left the area and continued their patrol.
She sued; she lost. Vaguely, my memory has it that the court held that the police could not be expected to do more than they did when there was an absence of any visible/audible problem.
One result of that decision has been that some number of police departments began a policy of actually going to the door of the address and checking with the resident. (For some, that had already been standard procedure.)
And this in a dangerous city that doesn't allow citizens to arm themselves in their own home, depite Heller which still makes it a PITA to get a handgun and keep it at the ready.
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
Here, if you call 911, they will knock on your door and talk to you before leaving. Driving by is negligent, I think.
That is the taxpayer's dilemma. The people who pay NO taxes get ALL the attention, and the people who pay virtually ALL the taxes get no police protection.
Cyborg
Member
To answer the OP's original question. A cop could be standing 2 yards away from where your mother was being savagely raped and beaten and would have no LEGAL duty to intervene. He/she MIGHT suffer some sort of disciplinary action (however I doubt it) but neither you or your mother would have any legal recourse.
Before I became a "Dumb Old Rent-a-Cop" I used to maintain coputers. I was working on a system at a nearby municipality that will remain unnamed (COUGH! COUGH! Balcones Heights COUGH! COUGH!) and overheard the Mayor, the CHIEF and one of the leutenants talking about one of their officers who had "misbehaved". The concensus was that they couldn't do anything to him because that would violate what most of us would describe as the "good old boys network". I THINK he got a couple of days' suspension. If I'da done what the cop did I would be getting out about now.
And they wonder why people want to carry.
Cy
Before I became a "Dumb Old Rent-a-Cop" I used to maintain coputers. I was working on a system at a nearby municipality that will remain unnamed (COUGH! COUGH! Balcones Heights COUGH! COUGH!) and overheard the Mayor, the CHIEF and one of the leutenants talking about one of their officers who had "misbehaved". The concensus was that they couldn't do anything to him because that would violate what most of us would describe as the "good old boys network". I THINK he got a couple of days' suspension. If I'da done what the cop did I would be getting out about now.
And they wonder why people want to carry.
Cy
It's only a beautiful thing if the citizens are capable of using the most effective means of self-protection. If, as in many states, such as mine, it is impossible to carry concealed if you are not politically connected, then it is an intolerable catch-22 that puts law-abiding citizens in the untenable position of either obeying the law and taking their chances, or breaking the law and protecting themselves with the same tools the police and the political elite can legally use.
Deus Machina
Member
As far as I'm concerned, places should be allowed two choices.
One: Decide police protection is not an individual right, but allow and encourage concealed carry, for the people's own safety.
Two: Deny carry for self-defense, but hold their police accountable for the personal safety of each and every citizen.
Option one would be cheaper, easier to implement, and would absolve the city of legal responsibility. Thus, the logical option.
Police should have, if not legally, a deeply moral obligation toward the safety of every law-abiding citizen in their area, especially if these people have called for help. Anything less, and they have failed the very basis of their occupation.
One: Decide police protection is not an individual right, but allow and encourage concealed carry, for the people's own safety.
Two: Deny carry for self-defense, but hold their police accountable for the personal safety of each and every citizen.
Option one would be cheaper, easier to implement, and would absolve the city of legal responsibility. Thus, the logical option.
Police should have, if not legally, a deeply moral obligation toward the safety of every law-abiding citizen in their area, especially if these people have called for help. Anything less, and they have failed the very basis of their occupation.
I believe most police officers want to protect all citizens. I know that this is physically impossible. I also believe police budgets will be some of the first cuts given the current economic "difficulties". Its only going to get worse before it gets better.
jakemccoy
Member
I also believe most officers want to protect all citizens. However, the fact is that they have no legal duty to protect you. So, if one day a cop happens to want to do something else besides protect you, you have no legal recourse and you may die because of the lack of protection.
The law here is so obviously a good reason for states to allow CCW that it's irritating me to talk about it.
The law here is so obviously a good reason for states to allow CCW that it's irritating me to talk about it.
- Status
