scotus has ruled,when will this get out ?.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by scaatylobo, Mar 10, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scaatylobo

    scaatylobo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    Western NYS
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

    The scotus has ruled that we,the American people are NOT entitled to protection from the police.

    I am not saying that as a retired LEO,I and all I worked with did not risk life and limb to get to any call.

    I am saying that if you have a plan to only call 911 to save your bacon ---- and they do not get there in time,your on your own.

    NO RIGHT TO SUE, and no "right" to police protection.

    My real point is WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY = why does not the N.R.A., & C.C.F.T.R.T.K.&.B.A, & 2nd Amendment foundation, & all the rest of the "pro gun" movement make this a single point that is yelled from the rooftops ?.

    I just have to believe that all citizens would be really spot on with the RIGHT to bear arms if they actually knew this LEGAL FACT.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  2. Volleybill

    Volleybill Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2018
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY
    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Not a slam on the police, the reality of the situation. You're on your own for the first few, critical minutes. Look at the Florida school case, where the armed police sat outside for what, something like 11 minutes? I realize that they want to be safe, but didn't they take an oath to protect and serve? But that is the reality, when danger is knocking on your door, help will take minutes or more to show up.
     
  3. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,393
    SCOTUS not POTUS.

    Yeah, firefighters will sometimes let buildings burn vs going in. Police do the same thing, like the recent FL shooting.

    To answer your question, I have no idea but also can’t see that ALL citizens would “see the light” many have their heads in places that are too dark for that and wouldn’t allow something like facts to alter their opinions.
     
  4. scaatylobo

    scaatylobo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    Western NYS
    Sorry ,but I was so P'O'ed that I hit wrong keys -------- again.
     
  5. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,320
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    IIRC, there have been a few cases over the past few decades that have ruled this way. It is normally meant to protect municipalities from civil harm in cases where the police were simply physically unable to arrive at the scene of a crime in time to prevent harm to victims, despite their best efforts.
    It can be overcome .... but IIRC, one almost has to show extreme dereliction or even almost malicious indifference to do it.
    Whether this will work in the Parkland Florida situation .... or any other similar incident, I do not know ~~~~I'll let others comment on that should they feel expert enough.
     
  6. ontarget

    ontarget Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,730
    Location:
    Michigan (Gods country)
    I can tell you that where I live I would be lucky to get police on scene in 20 minutes. A volunteer fireman maybe 15-20 minutes. I accept that as the reality of living in a rural area, and plan accordingly. Even in urban areas the police can't be everywhere all of the time, and anyone that expects different is just plain stupid. Our first responders do the best they can, and the rest is up to us.
     
    Bfh_auto, scaatylobo and CoalTrain49 like this.
  7. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    This is VERY, VERY OLD news.

    The article is dated June 28, 2005.

    We have a perfect example of this ruling in action on February 13th of this year.

    Maybe this will help you and others understand why the NRA is correct when it says "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
     
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    62,969
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    https://o4anews.com/supreme-court-police-no-duty-protect-public/

     
    papaairbear and scaatylobo like this.
  9. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    72,307
    Location:
    Alabama
    Old news. Sue them and see. :)
     
    mljdeckard likes this.
  10. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    72,307
    Location:
    Alabama
    Oops, I see hso covered it.
     
  11. scaatylobo

    scaatylobo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2,561
    Location:
    Western NYS
    I fully grasp the real implications of the law.and ruling.

    My only point was WHY THE HELL has the NRA et al not put this out DAILY and on any and EVERY news interview they do.

    I have not heard this since it was a ruling,so I want it OUTED,in such a loud manner and so often that at least one politician has to answer the question " why would a citizen NOT be armed ".

    26 years as a cop,and seldom got to a call in time to stop a crime.

    Taking a report does NOTHING to assuage the victims ----- especially when that victim is dead.
     
  12. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    16,092
    Location:
    Georgia
    I really mean no offense. But I think most people fully understand this and it doesn't really need to be repeated. It is already common knowledge among most people.
     
    Walkalong likes this.
  13. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,497
    Location:
    WNY
    Antigun message:

    Since the police do not have the responsibility to protect you, it is imperative that firearms be removed from circulation. The best way to do this is by:

    List gun laws that should be passed.

    --- Why do you think antigun folks will all of a sudden say - Dang, I'd better buy an atomic cannon. Many have an antipathy to self-defense or if they see the need for a gun are in the mode of Double Barrel Biden. They don't see the need of weapons of mass destruction, that the gun fanatics want to own.

    Hey - isn't 5 enough?
     
  14. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Because the NRA doesn't want to disrespect the police as they do a lot of training for police departments.
     
    readyeddy and jisco43 like this.
  15. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    14,120
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    This is old, and long-settled law.
    Law enforcement exists to serve and protect society at large, not at the specific.

    "We" are in a difficult place attempting to "beat this drum" as it were. Partially because it is a cherished and sure-fast belief of the anti crowd as is "fewer guns = less crime." They have been taught (some might say brow-beat) to believe that the PD will arrive to protect a person if they are threatened. They trust to this as they accept East is the direction the Sun rises from.

    So, rhetorically, even fully steeped in logos and ethos, it's pointless, even specious, for us to even try this argument.

    Other than, this is an excellent springboard for explaining how the rich-enough are allowed to hire armed protection, who do exist for the sole purpose of protecting their clients.

    I, personally, dislike arguing from classist, or "wealthist" positions. But, sadly, we have stratified into a society which defines its aristocracy by wealth and its trappings. Our opponents, for better or worse, cleave to concepts like the"best' leaders are those in the "center" in command of things (as opposed to being distributed among, and being the people themselves. They often have a presumption that such belief makes them part of that protected class. If they are amenable to reason and facts, one can then get them to consider if they can afford armed guards for themselves as their leaders presume de facto. (If not ameanable to facts or reason, then, such attempts are in vain.)

    However, as @AlexanderA has noted, one of our best bets for supporting our cause is to reach out to the urban people. The people who already understand that the police protect no individuals; and that the 2% and 3% have gates and guards for their protection.

    I do not know how to make this argument; I am a simple-spoken person with too many roots in the rural (despite my present lodging).
     
  16. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,235
    Alas, for at least the past five decades leftists have been remolding the urban populations to create a herd of hopeless, frightened, and weak-minded people. People with no moral center and a tenuous grasp on the truth. Ultimately, they intend to create a large swath of docile, disarmed and defenseless people who will do and believe anything someone in authority tells them—and a cursory look at media, our schools and the level of public discourse indicates that they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.
     
  17. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,828
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    SCOTUS ruled that police have no special duty to protect individuals. Two previous federals appeals courts have also ruled on this matter.

    In 1981 a federal appeals court ruled in Warren vs District Of Columbia that police do not have a special duty to protect individuals.

    "To summarize, there are two prerequisites to a finding of a special duty. First, there must be direct contact or some other form of privity between the victim and the police department so that the victim becomes a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. Second, there must be specific assurances of police services that create justifiable reliance by the victim. Without both of these elements, the duty to provide police services remains a general, nonactionable duty to the public at large."

    https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html
     
  18. Moparnut

    Moparnut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    419
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I bring this up everytime I have a "duscussion" with people who do not believe in the rkba. Had one guy tell me that I was full off poopoo. The next day he came back to apologize and said he had no idea. This argument needs to be made everyday by us.
     
  19. fjblair

    fjblair Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2015
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    NC Mountains
    Clickbait nonsense.
     
  20. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,842
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    For the same reason nothing gets done in Congress, there’s money to be made and people with too much invested in the conflict.
     
    jisco43 likes this.
  21. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,320
    Location:
    Arkansas
    It is true that no particular citizen has a right to legal protection from the police, absent a special relationship to the police (such as after having been arrested). However, be careful with the "no right to sue claim." I'm not sure that's as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
     
  22. GBExpat

    GBExpat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,996
    Location:
    Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia,
    Yes ... I remember at the time finding it interesting that the US Supreme Court had declared that police officers have no specific duty to protect individuals.

    Considering how ab-surd-ly litigious the US society has become, I think that this probably makes sense ... and also supports the idea that we are fundamentally responsible for, at a minimum, our own immediate safety.
     
  23. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    I thought that this was common knowledge, at least in the circles in which I travel.

    Have some folks been living under a rock? Or perhaps in "I wish it was so" land?
     
    huntsman likes this.
  24. amprecon

    amprecon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,541
    Location:
    TN
    Maybe this tragedy will awaken those who have always been averted to private gun ownership, believing that only the military and police should have guns. As the whole world witnessed the police, with guns, refusing to assist as children were being slaughtered.
     
  25. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,842
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    The reality that has been created in this country is so conflicted maybe under a rock is the safest place, armed of couse.;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice