SCOTUS and LEO's

[jrpbullrider]

1st I did do a SEARCH and got 1990 But they only showed me 150. The rest of them would not come up.

What I am looking for is where dose it say about the SCOTUS and Leo's how they do not have to protect us or what ever the words say.

I was talking to a non gun owner who dose not hate them, just don't really think we need them (handguns). I told him about the scotus case that said we are on are own. he did not think it to be true, I showed him some from their wed site but not one that said for all of the Leo's just a few from diff states he told me that they are for those state not ours. I live in Texas
Any help would be great
John

 

[Jimmie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County#Ruling

 

[woerm]

I think you are looking for warren v dc

It's mention if I recall in DC v Heller.

there are several good write ups
one here:
www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444
in effect DC was evading responsibility for it's cops walking up to a rape/murder and looking around and driving off.

the court said something to the effect that police don't have a duty to protect specific individuals.

even if the individuals report specific threats and have protective orders.
although that specific one came later. I don't recall the case exactly.


r

 

[Wheeler44]

Try also Castlerock vs. Gonzales

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

From the DeShaney v. Winnebago County ruling:

it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause

Anybody else raise an eyebrow when they read that?

 

[ronaldbeal]

Also :
City of Castle Rock, CO V Gonzales
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

even a restraining order doesn't require police to respond

 

[RPCVYemen]

If the police were in fact had a "duty" to protect an individual, what would that look like?

Would that mean that anytime someone was a victim of a crime, they could sue the state, and force all of the other taxpayers to pay up?

If all of the available officers are busy, does that change the cirmcumstances? Is the state compelled to maintain enough officers to meet any possible circumstance?


Anybody else raise an eyebrow when they read that?

Anybody else raise an eyebrow when they read that?

Not sure what you are getting at here. Doesn't that mean the anytime the state takes away your liberty, the Due Process clause is triggered.

Do you not like that?

Do you object because you think that the Due Process clause should be triggered in other cases, or because you think that there are times the state has the right to take away your liberty without triggering the Due Process clause?

Mike

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

What I was saying is that the sentence makes it sound like if the State restricts your freedom to defend yourself and home (Like DC, New York, Chicago, or any other gun-oppressive regime) they could he held responsible for your safety (or lack thereof).

Good luck getting anywhere in a lawsuit with that, though.

 

[RPCVYemen]

They could he held responsible for your safety (or lack thereof).

I don't see how the due process clause is related to "being held responsible for safety". I think that the quote just says that if the state is going to deprive you of life, liberty or property, they have to follow due process - that the state cannot deprive you of any of those without due process of law.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

How do you read that to imply any responsibility on the part of the state with regard to your safety?

Mike

 

[Bobarino]

isn't it just the epitome of irony that DC fought in court to prove they have no duty to protect and fought all the way to the Supreme Court to not let you protect yourself?

Bobby

 

[jrpbullrider]

Thanks for all of the info. It will help when I see him next time I will be ready for him. I don't know if he will open up about guns and we have the right to keep them but all of this will help. I am going to bring him here to read this, and read the web pages you said.
Thanks
John

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

The affirmative duty [of the State] to protect arises...from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf...it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf through...restraint of personal liberty which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause

Seems clear. Limitation by the State on an individual's freedom to act on his own behalf gives rise to an affirmative duty to protect.

But I'm not a SCOTUS justice, and I'm not saying that the above opinion is certainly the way that it is. Just made me raise a curious eyebrow. That's all.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Limitation by the State on an individual's freedom to act on his own behalf gives rise to an affirmative duty to protect.

You can make that argument. But it is clear to you that your argument is completely unrelated to circumstances which do or do not trigger the Due Process clause, right?

For example, the state could deprive you of an automobile - for example's sake, as a part of a drug possession - without any obligation to provide a way for you to get to work. However, if state decides to deprive you of your automobile due to that circumstance, they must follow Due Process of law.

The section of the brief you quoted specifies only that a particular process (or set of processes) must be followed before depriving you of a liberty. It says nothing about responsibility.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Limitation by the State on an individual's freedom to act on his own behalf gives rise to an affirmative duty to protect.

I didn't realize that had expanded the quote from the previouos posting. Did you add the "gives rise to affirmative duty", or was that part of the original quote.

Is that the reasoning that the court was rejecting?

Mike

 

[armoredman]

Sergeant Sabre, that is absolutel correct. While out on thestreet, LE has no duty by law to protect an individual. But when one is under the care and custody of the Department of Corrections, we DO have a Custodial Responsability to incarcerated inmates. Either that, or give them all knives, and toss food over the walls twice a day...

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

I didn't realize that had expanded the quote from the previouos posting...

It was higher-up in the written opinion, but the justices did write it. They were concluding that the "trigger" for an affirmative duty to protect is action by the State that limits one's freedom to act for themselves. In the case quoted, the State did not make a limiting action and therefore did not have a duty to protect.

So, what if they take away your right to bear arms, like DC. Shouldn't that give rise to an affirmative duty to protect?

 

[Erik]

The limitations they are talking about manifest during arrest, incarceration, and perhaps a few other narrowly defined circumstances, so no.

 

[woerm]

armoured man

quote
Sergeant Sabre, that is absolutel correct. While out on thestreet, LE has no duty by law to protect an individual. But when one is under the care and custody of the Department of Corrections, we DO have a Custodial Responsability to incarcerated inmates. Either that, or give them all knives, and toss food over the walls twice a day...

that and your sig just made my day.

 

[Titan6]

Take it a step fruther. Suppose the EPA allowed a factory to operate that they knew was releasing known toxins in the air that caused widespread health problems in the affected area. Happens every day so long as the factory pays off the government.

The government is under no obligation to protect you from anything. You have to make them represent your interests or they will not.