32winspl
Member
That determined that the Police had no legal obligation to protect any particular person? What I'm looking for is the name of that case/decision.
Thanks folks.
Thanks folks.
What was the SCOTUS decision that ...
- Thread starter 32winspl
- Start date
- Status
Big45
member
Castle Rock?
AZAndy
Member
Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez.
Here's the decision, if you dare: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
Here's the decision, if you dare: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
El Tejon
Member
45crittergitter
Member
South v. Maryland: Courts have repeatedly held that police have no duty to protect any individual, but only a general duty to protect society, and cannot be held personally liable for failure to protect an individual. - Supreme Court 1855
“...a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...” - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App.181)
“...a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...” - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App.181)
As noted by several here there has been many rulings affirming that.
The primary SCOTUS one being Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez.
The government has no duty to protect any individual, and if they fail to do so they are not liable.
They are required to not infringe on your RKBA which allows you to protect yourself though.
Funny how antis would like everyone to believe the opposite of both.
That the government can and will provide protection (which is comforting to believe, someone else will solve your personal protection needs) and that the RKBA is not a right and can be infringed to any extent.
The most telling example that you cannot possibly misinterpret is Warren v. District of Columbia.
Three women were in a home, 2 upstairs when they heard the third being attacked downstairs. They called the police multiple times, who assured them they were on the way multiple times.
About 30 minutes later they though things were okay because they didn't hear screaming anymore, and the two went downstairs.
Turned out they were still there.
"For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.''
The police never arrived.
Court ruled: "...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".
This is at a time when DC had the handgun ban in place, and firearms had to be stored in an unusable manner. A situation that has been the case from 1976 until Heller in 2008.
The primary SCOTUS one being Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez.
The government has no duty to protect any individual, and if they fail to do so they are not liable.
They are required to not infringe on your RKBA which allows you to protect yourself though.
Funny how antis would like everyone to believe the opposite of both.
That the government can and will provide protection (which is comforting to believe, someone else will solve your personal protection needs) and that the RKBA is not a right and can be infringed to any extent.
The most telling example that you cannot possibly misinterpret is Warren v. District of Columbia.
Three women were in a home, 2 upstairs when they heard the third being attacked downstairs. They called the police multiple times, who assured them they were on the way multiple times.
About 30 minutes later they though things were okay because they didn't hear screaming anymore, and the two went downstairs.
Turned out they were still there.
"For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.''
The police never arrived.
Court ruled: "...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".
This is at a time when DC had the handgun ban in place, and firearms had to be stored in an unusable manner. A situation that has been the case from 1976 until Heller in 2008.
Last edited:
GigaBuist
Member
He's a lawyer, so he's probably right.
And you owe him $60 for answering your question.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
There's a lot of mischaracterization of this decision by the tin-foil hate brigade on gun forums. This decision does not mean police have ZERO obligation to help or protect people, and that they won't do it.
It means they have no legal obligation. The point of the decision is that police can't get sued for failure. That's it. They will still try their hardest, and they still have the obligation from their department and local .gov. The decision is only to protect them from litigation by people angry at them for what they may see as "not trying hard enough."
It means they have no legal obligation. The point of the decision is that police can't get sued for failure. That's it. They will still try their hardest, and they still have the obligation from their department and local .gov. The decision is only to protect them from litigation by people angry at them for what they may see as "not trying hard enough."
xjchief
Member
I'll disagree and point out that the only obligations that can be enforced are legal obligations.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
You're missing the point.
Internet tough guys use that SC decision as an argument to say "The cops won't help you, they don't have to."
And that is totally false. 99.9% of cops WILL help you and DO feel an obligation to try. The SC decision just protects them from being punished for failing.
Internet tough guys use that SC decision as an argument to say "The cops won't help you, they don't have to."
And that is totally false. 99.9% of cops WILL help you and DO feel an obligation to try. The SC decision just protects them from being punished for failing.
45crittergitter
Member
I believe these cases also say the police cannot be held liable for failing to try to help you, not just for failing to help.
- Status