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

Are the police legally obligated to protect you?

  • YES

    Votes: 33 8.9%

  • NO

    Votes: 339 91.1%
  • Total voters
    372
Status
Not open for further replies.
The court decisions said they are not obligated to protect INDIVIDUALS, but rather society as a whole. This doesn't mean they are allowed to stand idly by and watch bad things happen. It means they have to be doing the best they can overall, even if it means ultimately they can't be blamed if they don't have the manpower to solve all of the world's problems at once. Unless there was say, literally one cop for every household and business setting in America, it would be impossible for the police to protect individuals.

I generally support the protections provided to police by their unions and the law. If it weren't there, places with high crime would be absolutely paralyzed, because the police would be afraid to look at anyone sideways. It does however, carry the potential for abuse.

I do mostly LIKE the police. Ever since I got married, I stopped driving so fast, and my contact has been very limited. I LIKE them camped out in the school zones where my kids walk to and from school. I LIKE them congregated on the corners where kids hang out. On the rare occasions that I have had contact with them recently, they saw my carry permit, and pretty much said 'never mind' and let me go. I had a friend at work a few years ago here who decided to call in sick with her husband one morning, and got broken into coitus interruptus. Her husband chased the BG out with his AK, and when the police got there, they asked him why he didn't shoot the guy.

I also understand that I live in the town which houses the John M. Browning museum, and the culture of self-sufficiency is more alive here than most other places. I could see my views changing if I lived somewhere else.
 
The court decisions said they are not obligated to protect INDIVIDUALS, but rather society as a whole. This doesn't mean they are allowed to stand idly by and watch bad things happen.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of a case in which the police knowingly failed to intervene to protect an individual not in a "special relationship" with the police and were held liable?

I'm not.

Indeed, isn't at least one of the landmark cases one in which police drove by the identified scene of an attack, took no action to investigate, and further harm was done?

Again, police who fail to carry out their duties in a conscientous manner may be punished ADMINISTRATIVEY... or not. I wouldn't bet on it in Chicago. Of course given the things which the FOP will go to the mat on, simply not doing anything doesn't even rate. Remember, the Chicago FOP has EXPLICITLY said on national radio that cops should be exempted from laws which disarm those convicted of beating their wives and girlfriends.
 
I still say that police, by professional understanding, by department policy, by whatever made them want to be a cop in the first place, and by if no other statute than avoiding negligence, will act to intervene to prevent violence, WHEN THEY CAN. The case you are referring to reflects incompetence, not indifference. They were too stupid to know where they were supposed to go, and too absorbed in what they were doing to see the woman waving at them for help. They didn't willfully stand by and let her come to harm. It's not the same thing.
 
These are the facts and circumstances that too many of our friends and family simply do not understand. Their ignorance as to this might spell disaster for second amendment proponents and society as a whole. Their education as to this might make all the difference in the world to the advancement and protection of our second amendment rights.
 
I still say that police, by professional understanding, by department policy, by whatever made them want to be a cop in the first place, and by if no other statute than avoiding negligence, will act to intervene to prevent violence, WHEN THEY CAN. The case you are referring to reflects incompetence, not indifference. They were too stupid to know where they were supposed to go, and too absorbed in what they were doing to see the woman waving at them for help. They didn't willfully stand by and let her come to harm. It's not the same thing.
Click to expand...
"Professional understanding" is NOT law.

"Department policy" is NOT law.

"Personal motivation" is NOT law.

In order for there to be ***LEGAL*** LIABILITY, there must be ***LEGAL*** DUTY, either unperformed or performed improperly. Absent a "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" with police by the victim, there is NO duty.

Failure to leave the car, is both incompetence AND indifference. But absent that "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP", there is "NO DUTY". No duty = no liability. You don't have to like it, just as I don't have to like that law that says I can't print and use my own $20 bills as legal tender.

Whether or not police personnel are punished ADMINISTRATIVELY for willfully or negligently failing to provide protection to INDIVIDUALS is purely a function of management, both internal to and external to THAT department, as well as the power and influence which the police union exerts in that jurisdiction. If through incompetence or disinterest by police, someone in Rocky River were harmed, I believe that the police would punish the officer(s) in question. Were the same thing to happen in Chicago, I would be utterly astonished if there were ANY negative consequences. After all, if a cop can get a thirty day suspension there for KILLING somebody (ON VIDEO), then lying about it, and get PROMOTED, simply not doing anything at all, isn't even a blip on anybody's radar screen. Again, you don't have to like it any more than you have to like gravity. Disregard either as you see fit.
 
You skipped the negligence part.
Click to expand...
Negligence is in this case a nonsequitor. In order for there to be liability, there must be a DUTY negligently carried out or negligently not carried out.

No duty => no negligence => no liability

As I said, you don't have to like it. You don't have to like gravity either. In fact, you have every right to ignore both. Step off of a 10th floor ledge of the Wrigley Building in Chicago and see how that works for you.
 
Are the police obligated to protect you by law?
Click to expand...

The answer is yes. Circumstance - when I have placed you under arrest and you no longer have the ABILITY to protect yourself.

Now I understand that this poll/post was created to enforce the correct answer/thought of why the 2nd amendment is important to everyone so that you HAVE the ability to protect yourself & loved ones and I FULLY agree with that.

What I have taken offense to is the stance of some of "The High Road" members who feel it is ok to bash my dedicated brothers and sisters in Law Enforcement who risk their lives everyday "protecting you and yours". I have personally been to too many funerals where my fellow officers have paid the ultimate price doing their duty "protecting you". I personally have been injured to many times to count while "protecting you". I have been to too many calls where I wasn't sure if I was going home to see my wife and children because I was "protecting you". So go ahead and argue about the legal/ethical obligation/duties of Police Officers, we will be out on patrol tonight protecting you and your ability to do that.
 
Negligence is determined by asking if the person acted (or failed to act) in the way a normal person would under the same circumstances. A cop cannot expect to observe danger he could reasonably be expected to act to prevent, walk away from it, and have absolutely no legal consequences from it.
 
Negligence is determined by asking if the person acted (or failed to act) in the way a normal person would under the same circumstances.
Click to expand...
A "normal person" with some DUTY to act.

Police have NO duty to act to protect individuals with whom they do not have a "special relationship". I'm about as likely to have that relationship with the police as I am to have a "special relationship" with Halle Berry.

Clearly you don't like that. Clearly that makes not the slightest difference in a court of law.
 
Police in my area don't dilly dally

Love my local police department, but INSTANT response cannot happen! Only what's under my pillow, may or may not suffice within an instant. The solice of what's available under my pillow always beats the swiftest response by my dedicated police force. Before I can dial 911, I can fire off a few effective rounds. I can fire a few deadly rounds before any professional human aide comes to my rescue. Is this a wrong approach to my family's safety? cliffy
 
I said yes.... sigh.... sometimes you should read the post before you vote.... that's the problem in this country, uninformed voters....

My "yes" was on the assumption (no one needs to point out what assume represents.. lol) that the police were there and able to protect you.... but even that may be wrong for all I know...

I sure would be pissed if it were legal for the cops to watch someone get beat to death and do nothing....
 
If the police were liable for every individual's safety society would pretty much sue itself out of existence... anyone who died or was injured as a result from the police not showing up instantly would have a case against their city...

That being said, I think the fact that the courts have legally stated that the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens, means that self-defense is the only viable and logical recourse to this state of affairs...
 
I pulled the following directly from their website, the officers in my town are a pretty decent bunch of guys and the multi unit complex I manage is within direct sight of the PD front door.. I still carry. I believe the LEOs here do a great job of traffic patrol, petty crime abatement and follow up / cleanup.
BTW, I voted no.. I don't expect LEOs to be there to protect me like a private bodyguard, they are the nice fellows who come pick up the bodies and take care of the paperwork for me.. ;)

http://www.ci.junction-city.or.us/police/index_files/Pages617.htm

Understanding Community Policing



Community Policing, relies on partnership between the citizens of a jurisdiction and the police that service that population. The cornerstone of the Community Policing philosophy at the Junction City Police Department, is root problem solving. Solving the underlying problem generally reduces or eliminates the problem reoccurring. This frequently takes innovation and patience.

Community Oriented Policing is a philosophy and organizational strategy based on customer service and clear, effective communication, which in turn facilitates a problem solving process that deals with the conditions that create problems.

The Junction City Police Department has adopted Community Oriented Policing as its operational philosophy. The concept of Community Oriented Policing is frequently utilized by some police agencies as a program, rather than a department wide philosophy. That is not the case in Junction City, where every officer is required to actively engage in the application of Community Oriented Policing principles. However, to truly work, Community Oriented Policing is dependant upon the citizens of a community recognizing and accepting their role in successfully achieving the potential of this working philosophy.

The role of the police has undergone a number of changes over the last 100 years. Originally, American law enforcement was modeled after the modern Metropolitan London Police. The role of the police in this model was to do full time that which was every citizen's responsibility, which is to provide for the security, peace and welfare of their community. This charge was never intended to be the sole responsibility of the police. When you think about it, it really doesn't make much sense anyway. Making a fraction of one percent of a community's citizens one hundred percent responsible for its welfare is obviously doomed to failure.

Toward the end of the 1920s and early in the 1930s, American law enforcement evolved into a model that we now call the Crime Fighting Model. This model was largely an influence of one person, J. Edgar Hoover, whose vision for the FBI was that of professional crime fighter. This vision had many redeeming qualities. It demanded rigorous training, education, scientific investigation and standards of conduct. The flaw in this model was that it began to eliminate the community from the equation.

Initially, the community still had a role in the Crime Fighting Model. Conceptually, the community brought its law enforcement concerns to the police and the police utilized the benefits of their new professionalism to address the problem. Perhaps inevitably, this Crime Fighting Model evolved into a system whereby citizens effectively abdicated their welfare to the police. Both police and citizens agreed that crime fighting was the job of the police and citizens did not have a role except to pay for the service. The police stopped being peace officers and became law enforcement officers. You may even recall hearing someone actually say "That's not my responsibility. That's what I pay the police for."

During the years that American law enforcement subscribed to the precepts of the Crime Fighting Model, per capita crime in America increased over 1,000%. Certainly large increases in crime are influenced by population growth and population concentrations, but over 1,000%? The truth is that the Crime Fighting Model was a dismal failure, as it was destined to be. It was largely a reactive function, lacked root problem solution goals, and made a fraction of one percent responsible for their communities' security, peace and welfare. Yet, some of the brightest minds in the country endorsed this model.

Community Oriented Policing is a recognition that the citizens of a community have a role and a responsibility in making the community safe and peaceful and protecting its welfare. Both police and citizens have had to admit that the police are not the complete answer. Shear numbers alone should have told us otherwise.

This does not mean that every citizen should arm themselves and begin making arrests. Police are trained and equipped to perform most duties in a manner that protects the safety of all concerned, but citizens can and should play a vital role in enhancing the security of their community by getting involved. This would include reporting crimes and suspicious activities, even when not directly involved; being proactive in securing homes and property; not tolerating circumstances that breed criminal conduct; reporting such conduct and being a constructive part of their resolution; actively assisting police, when appropriate, in finding lasting solutions to root problems that contribute to crime. In other words, helping the police treat the disease, not just its symptoms.

Community Oriented Policing utilizes the best of the Crime Fighting Model and combines it with the best of law enforcement's original mission. Working as partners, the Junction City Police and our citizens can build a better, safer environment for all of our residents.
 
i just have one question, HOW IS IT THE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY (U.S.A.) IS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY ARE "PROTECTED" AND HOW DO WE INFORM THEM THEY ARE NOT! ok, so really, it is two questions. i am going to start an e-mail and send this around, maybe some others should do the same. if enough people actually know this, maybe, just maybe, the pressure FOR gun control will ease up a little.
 
I was a Deputy for some 8 years. You can only be one place at one time. The duty is to society as a whole, to be a "presence" and to deter crime by being mobile, and at the same time to apprehend those that break the law. One definition is "Officer of the Court" meaning you carry out what has been signed by a judge in either a warrant, or a judgment (civil). Police protect society as a whole, but to expect a single person to receive individual protections is and was never possible. There are only so many LEO per capita in any given area. Most of the time they are there as fact gatherers after the fact of some criminal act.

Therefore, it is prudent, wise and actually a God given right for an individual to protect themselves and their loved one even though the law has been summoned. To assume otherwise is foolish.
 
Morality, perceived duty, negligence, incompetence: These are all irrelevant to the legal issue.

The legal obligation has been set by court decisions, from state level to SCOTUS.
 
What I find interesting is that, as of this post, two people indeed voted in the affirmative. I'd be very curious to know why they did so and on what basis.
Click to expand...
I do know that in Texas Peace Officers are sworn to protect the public. I also know that there are parts of the law which make it a $500 fine for NOT arresting an individual. I was taught that while as a Security Officer (and thus having the authority that any other private citizen has) I have the right to arrest without warrant for felonies and certain misdemeanors committed in my view, LEOs in Texas have a sworn duty to arrest for what they see. In cases of domestic violence the LEO who makes the call (using "make" in the sense of the LEO who actually goes to the scene) is the complainant and can be fined for failure to arrest if they have probable cause. I got a cop suspended not terribly long ago. My sister's former boyfriend hit her and the Deputy Sheriff who made the call failed to arrest the perp despite having "information that would cause a reasonable person to beleive that a crime had been committed". I got her to file a complaint and the Deputy got 3 days w/o pay for it.

In the sense that they have to be careful about discharging their weapon, they have a legal requirement to protect individuals because if they fail to do so they CAN be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken in the line of duty and while ON duty. If you like, I can post the relevant parts of the Texas Penal Code to back that up.

All that being said, I still hope that Open Carry passes in Texas so I can have the wherewithall to protect and defend myself. What's the saying?
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
 
Other than violation of a specific duty to protect someone with a "special relationship" (informant, in custody, etc.), I can't think of any plausible instance where there would be liability by the department or individual officers for a simple failure to protect, even with complete knowledge of the act from which protection was required.

On the other hand, I can easily see liability where failure to act is in furtherance of an explicitly criminal or tortious act.

Example 1 - Police intentionally fail to act to prevent or stop a racially motivated attack, and are part of a criminal conspiracy to commit that attack in which their failure to act is an explicit or implicit element of the conspiracy. Actual communications, either directly or through intermediaries with the principles would almost certainly have to be proved.

Example 2 - Police affirmatively fail to act to prevent a jewelry story robbery, in which their intentional failure to respond is an element of the conspiracy to commit the underlying offense.

Even if not a knowing participant of such conspiracies, the department itself would probably be liable for:

Failure to Supervise - If the department was negligent in taking no action or inadequate action to reasonably supervise its personnel, it could be liable to any victims. Examples would be failure to reasonabley address known misconduct or failure to investigate conduct which would to a reasonable person indicate misconduct or unsuitability for the position.

Negligent Hiring - If the department knew or reasonably should have known that the personnel involved in the tortious or criminal acts were unsuitable (violent racists, had criminal records, had been previously terminated elsewhere for misconduct, etc.), they could be liable for the harm that failure to properly screen applicants caused.

But again, this is something wholely different from mere failure to protect, even intentional failure to protect. Being a conspirator or an accessory would be actionable. Merely being an idiot or a coward would not.
 
The posted question has a direct and legal answer, as per SCOTUS : NO. The further question by another poster; why does the public seem to feel otherwise? The standard saying by any given police department seems to be "To Serve and Protect" - nothing wrong about that, except the inference to those not aware of the law, is that they, personally, are to be protected by the police. A very understandable mistake, in the legal sense. Education always helps, and the "gun shy" portion of the public needs to be more aware.
sailortoo
 
What I like or don't like is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is that of the jury.
Click to expand...
You still don't understand.

It isn't going to GET to a jury.

"Dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted."

You can no more sue the police for failing to protect you as an individual with whom they have no "special relationship" than I can sue you for not praying for me. It's not ACTIONABLE.
 
All it takes is a judge that's willing to listen. He can rule that it is allowed to go to trial. Again, If I were a cop, (and this is one of many reasons I'm not,) there is no way I would walk away from my duty and not expect legal consequences as a result of it.

BTW, I'm done. Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Response from Senator Cornyn (TX)
Replies
8
Views
2K
lonestarag
L
J
  • Locked
The duty of the police to protect individuals
Replies
16
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
J
  • Locked
Heller / Individual Rights / ACLU Policy #47
Replies
20
Views
1K
Ratzinger_p38
R
J
  • Locked
9th Circuit stirkes down California Law protecting Police Officers
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
carebear
C
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
ACLU Second Amendment
Replies
4
Views
519
TexasRifleman
T
Back
Top