PDA

View Full Version : Police not obligated to protect you


Hunt
02-04-2010, 5:37 PM
really I did a search. Can someone inform me of the court cases that determined police are not obligated to protect citizens.

GearHead
02-04-2010, 5:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That's the big one

GearHead
02-04-2010, 5:42 PM
There are others that give police protection from legal ramifications if they fail to execute their duties as well...see Castle Rock vs Gonzalez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Hunt
02-04-2010, 6:01 PM
thanks I am sitting in a coffee shop conversing with a Law Student and she is telling me the cops are mandated to protect citizens.

haveyourmile
02-04-2010, 6:03 PM
This sucks. I'd never heard about Warren v DC. Thats awful

bambam8d1
02-04-2010, 6:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That's the big one

That is such BS!! I seriously cannot believe that crap. What does it say on the side of the car? "to protect and serve?" although I am sure that most LEOs would involve themselves to help. I cant imagine someone screaming running from a house flagging down a police car just to have the officer ignore it and drive on. atleast i hope they wouldnt.

yellowfin
02-04-2010, 6:19 PM
At very least they should be severely punished for impeding in any way our ability to defend ourselves.

Hunt
02-04-2010, 6:21 PM
That is such BS!! I seriously cannot believe that crap. What does it say on the side of the car? "to protect and serve?" ...you bring up a good question, but that is another thread.

RandyD
02-04-2010, 6:28 PM
thanks I am sitting in a coffee shop conversing with a Law Student and she is telling me the cops are mandated to protect citizens.

Your law student does not know this subject matter. 20 years ago when I was in law school, the cases that we studied held that the police have a duty to protect the public but they do not have a duty to protect specific individuals. When you think about this holding, it is one that we want.

NorCal MedTac
02-04-2010, 6:37 PM
When you think about this holding, it is one that we want.

Can you explain more on this? I think I get the idea.

freespool
02-04-2010, 7:22 PM
I think the Davidson vs Westminster case effectively said they can use you for bait, and then if it goes too far - hide behind lack of specific obligation. I can't find the case itself but that's what I recall about it.

Alaric
02-04-2010, 7:26 PM
Can you explain more on this? I think I get the idea.

Does it serve our interest as protectors of the 2nd Amd. if the police were obligated to somehow try and protect the individual? How could they? It would be a farce that would only serve to undermine one of the underpinnings of our cause... the idea that the individual should be empowered to protect themselves, because rightfully, the police can't.

wildhawker
02-04-2010, 7:27 PM
That is such BS!! I seriously cannot believe that crap. What does it say on the side of the car? "to protect and serve?" although I am sure that most LEOs would involve themselves to help. I cant imagine someone screaming running from a house flagging down a police car just to have the officer ignore it and drive on. atleast i hope they wouldnt.

I'm fine with it. I don't want a large enough police force that they could reasonably be expected to "protect and serve".

GaryV
02-04-2010, 7:29 PM
There are dozens of cases on point. They have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you at all - even if you have a TRO (several of the cases involve women who were seriously injured or killed because the police decided not to respond to calls for help when a subject came after them in violation of a restraining order). LEOs could stand across the street drinking coffee and watch while you were beaten to a bloody pulp, and you couldn't get a penny in court even with the best lawyer.

bambam8d1
02-04-2010, 7:32 PM
I'm fine with it. I don't want a large enough police force that they could reasonably be expected to "protect and serve".

very true. I would agree even more if our ability to protect ourselves wasnt so limited

freespool
02-04-2010, 7:37 PM
Surely there's some boundary where negligence can be asserted, that lies short of a police state... They are after all already given extraordinary power, and paid for it. That's not likely to ever go away. Some sort of reasonable standard ought to be discernible.

jamesob
02-04-2010, 8:04 PM
haha, they teach you that in the academy, mine did antways. law enforcement is not obligated it is above and beyond their duty.

Alaric
02-04-2010, 8:11 PM
Surely there's some boundary where negligence can be asserted, that lies short of a police state... They are after all already given extraordinary power, and paid for it. That's not likely to ever go away. Some sort of reasonable standard ought to be discernible.

That's where society tries to balance the power of the police against the rights of the citizenry with constructs like citizen's police commissions, limited budgets, limitations on armament and tactics, distribution of enforcement powers amongst agencies, internal affairs departments, etc. Ultimately though, the balance is drawn between the ineffectiveness of the police vs. the oppression of the people and the question becomes, which do you abhor less?

BobB35
02-04-2010, 8:24 PM
Heck in CA you don't need case law. Government code 845 itself exempts LEOs from protecting any individual. And before anyone says that is just a law that is never used, think again. Hundreds of lawsuits were dismissed after the LA riots citing this code, and PD and sherriffs use it every day to fend off lawsuits.

So next time you hear about laying life on the line and other claims, just smile and walk away quickly...

CaptMike
02-04-2010, 8:32 PM
Leo's do not have a legal obligation to respond to calls for service. The antis always say that regular people don't need guns because the police will protect you. That is a farce and they are ignorant fools if they believe law enforcement has to respond. The reality is that leo's do not have the resources to be on every corner of the city. One of the cases that we discuss in the academy is about a young lady that had a restraining order and her husband called her and told her he was coming over to kill her. She called 911 and asked for help but was told to call back if the husband shows up. He did show up and killed her. The family sued for failling to send help when requested. The judges decision said "to protect the Integrity of law enforcement, I cannot find for the plaintiff". Essentially the judge reaffirmed the existing case law because if he found for the plaintiff then that would have created new case law that leo's had to respond in all cases. Within a day after that case every Leo agency would be sued out of existance because we cannot protect everyone. That is the reallity. So as a Leo I tell everyone I know that they need to own a firearm and need to know how to use it safely. Leo's don't have to protect and even if we did we just don't have the manpower to do it. Good luck everyone

Purple K
02-04-2010, 8:58 PM
What a world we live in!!!

kcbrown
02-04-2010, 8:59 PM
Leo's do not have a legal obligation to respond to calls for service. The antis always say that regular people don't need guns because the police will protect you. That is a farce and they are ignorant fools if they believe law enforcement has to respond. The reality is that leo's do not have the resources to be on every corner of the city. One of the cases that we discuss in the academy is about a young lady that had a restraining order and her husband called her and told her he was coming over to kill her. She called 911 and asked for help but was told to call back if the husband shows up. He did show up and killed her. The family sued for failling to send help when requested. The judges decision said "to protect the Integrity of law enforcement, I cannot find for the plaintiff". Essentially the judge reaffirmed the existing case law because if he found for the plaintiff then that would have created new case law that leo's had to respond in all cases. Within a day after that case every Leo agency would be sued out of existance because we cannot protect everyone. That is the reallity. So as a Leo I tell everyone I know that they need to own a firearm and need to know how to use it safely. Leo's don't have to protect and even if we did we just don't have the manpower to do it. Good luck everyone

Can you give details about the case you mention above? Names, etc.? Something that can be used to search for the details?

Might the above example be highly relevant at the upcoming Oakland city council meeting? After all, since the police aren't obligated to protect you, the ordinances that the Oakland city council is intent on passing are the equivalent of the city attempting to eliminate your right to effective self defense, no?

Are there any police officers who would be willing to go to the podium at that meeting and state the above? It would be most interesting to see the reactions of the people there when presented with this. :43:

(Note that I have less than zero expertise at political strategy and tactics, so for all I know, the above might not be a good idea. But if it is, then it should probably be done if possible)

RandyD
02-04-2010, 9:00 PM
Can you explain more on this? I think I get the idea.

Some of the subsequent posts already dealt with my reasoning. You do not want a police force responsible for your personal safety. The number of police officers would have to be exponentially increased to meet the demand. The financial cost would require higher taxes. But most importantly, if the police were responsible for our individual safety, then we would be relinquishing that right to the state.

five.five-six
02-04-2010, 9:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That's the big one

well then, call me mayor, I thought this was the big one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

JDoe
02-04-2010, 9:08 PM
thanks I am sitting in a coffee shop conversing with a Law Student and she is telling me the cops are mandated to protect citizens.

You owe me a new monitor! :p

cbn620
02-04-2010, 10:08 PM
Does it serve our interest as protectors of the 2nd Amd. if the police were obligated to somehow try and protect the individual? How could they? It would be a farce that would only serve to undermine one of the underpinnings of our cause... the idea that the individual should be empowered to protect themselves, because rightfully, the police can't.

Sure, but the point to bringing up the police have no duty to protect individual people is to defend self defense when discussing the issue with those who believe the police do. Many people, I'd surmise the majority of people, honestly believe the police do. They think if something bad happens, you can just call the cops and everything will be okay, and you never have to take responsibility for your own safety, and thus the 2nd amendment is outmoded and we're all stupid for supporting self defense.

Thus, what you're saying is one of the main reasons for bringing up this case when discussing the law and politics.

Alaric
02-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Sure, but the point to bringing up the police have no duty to protect individual people is to defend self defense when discussing the issue with those who believe the police do. Many people, I'd surmise the majority of people, honestly believe the police do. They think if something bad happens, you can just call the cops and everything will be okay, and you never have to take responsibility for your own safety, and thus the 2nd amendment is outmoded and we're all stupid for supporting self defense.

Thus, what you're saying is one of the main reasons for bringing up this case when discussing the law and politics.

I agree. I was just explaining to furryrabbit in response to his question why this is a good thing for us ultimately.

Your point is well taken. Everytime I've told someone outside of the RKBA community that the police have no obligation to protect them they've been incredulous at first. Then I explain the case history and they take it as some kind of reason to strengthen the police. Or they start explaining how tough "chi-chi" their miniature poodle is or how their wife can be really fierce when she's upset. Some people will go to great lengths to avoid admitting that guns are necessary. /sigh/

odysseus
02-04-2010, 10:27 PM
I'm fine with it. I don't want a large enough police force that they could reasonably be expected to "protect and serve".

I am with you on that. In fact in history it has been shown that places that had an illusion of such a police force to do this were quite uncomfortable in the use of any liberties by the citizenry.

Nevermore
02-04-2010, 10:50 PM
The big case I remember is DeShaney v. Winnebago County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County). It's a case where a woman sued the county for failing to protect her son after repeatedly reporting it to the government, and the government saying, 'We can't do anything. Now give the child to his father.' (They were divorced.) He eventually beat his 4 year old son so badly, that the boy's permanently institutionalized as "profoundly retarded".

The Supreme Court held that the county was not responsible because the 14A Due Process only protects against government action, not inaction. And, in this case, it was the father that beat the boy, not the government. Pretty much the only time the government is obliged to affirmatively protect you, as an individual, is if you're in their custody against your will, or there's some kind of special custody where that protection is obligated. (Say, Governor Schwarzenegger in Sacramento.) Most citizens don't have that arrangement with their police.

sreiter
02-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Thurman Law

That all changed after June 10, 1983, when Charles Thurman stabbed his wife, Tracey, in the chest, neck and throat several times at Mrs. Thurman’s home in Torrington. Ten minutes earlier, Mrs. Thurman had called police, fearing for her life. A police officer arrived 25 minutes later, and watched as Mr. Thurman kicked his injured wife in the head.
Mrs. Thurman filed a lawsuit against the Torrington department and won about $2 million. The suit changed how officers responded to domestic violence, forcing police officers throughout the country to make an arrest if there has been an assault. It also put the police in the middle of often
violent and emotional domestic disputes, a place they preferred not to be

steelrain82
02-04-2010, 11:14 PM
i think it would definetly would be helpful if there was one specific code or case that stated this so it can be pointed out to people as a fact. such as with penal codes

sreiter
02-04-2010, 11:25 PM
California Government Code Section 845

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.
A police department shall not fail to respond to a request for
service via a burglar alarm system or an alarm company referral
service solely on the basis that a permit from the city has not been
obtained.

RobG
02-05-2010, 11:16 AM
The issue for myself is; I do not want the police hovering over me to protect me. They will not and are not obligated to do so anyway.

But, I am also not allowed to protect myself, eg. a CCW, because of the same police force that is not obligated to protect me.

In most cases it truly is, "Rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6."

KING_PALM
02-05-2010, 11:31 AM
The big case I remember is DeShaney v. Winnebago County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County). It's a case where a woman sued the county for failing to protect her son after repeatedly reporting it to the government, and the government saying, 'We can't do anything. Now give the child to his father.' (They were divorced.) He eventually beat his 4 year old son so badly, that the boy's permanently institutionalized as "profoundly retarded".

The Supreme Court held that the county was not responsible because the 14A Due Process only protects against government action, not inaction. And, in this case, it was the father that beat the boy, not the government. Pretty much the only time the government is obliged to affirmatively protect you, as an individual, is if you're in their custody against your will, or there's some kind of special custody where that protection is obligated. (Say, Governor Schwarzenegger in Sacramento.) Most citizens don't have that arrangement with their police.

so i guess i have to get arrested to be protected? thats real rad,

Hozr
02-05-2010, 12:26 PM
What does it say on the side of the car? "to protect and serve?"

Actually, most departments have changed the slogan. I know ours now says "Service with Concern". What the F*** does THAT mean?!?!?

Anyways, the Police were never mandated to protect anything. The initial role of the police was investigation of crimes and collection of evidence for turn over to the DA for prosecution. The police were never meant to "protect" the citizenry. That is supposed to be our job/right before the lawmakers took it away.

GuyW
02-05-2010, 12:42 PM
Sure, but the point to bringing up the police have no duty to protect individual people is to defend self defense when discussing the issue with those who believe the police do. Many people, I'd surmise the majority of people, honestly believe the police do. They think if something bad happens, you can just call the cops and everything will be okay, and you never have to take responsibility for your own safety, and thus the 2nd amendment is outmoded and we're all stupid for supporting self defense.

Thus, what you're saying is one of the main reasons for bringing up this case when discussing the law and politics.

It could also be the subject of 1 to 3 Letters to the Editor, as a way to educate some/many sheeple, perhaps without even mentioning the 2nd Am or self-defense......I mean, if the reader can't reach such simple conclusions on their own, they are hopeless, and some of our target audience might be immediately turned off by seeing the phrases "2nd Am, self-defense, RKBA" etc...
.

cadurand
02-05-2010, 12:48 PM
If the police were actually responsible for protecting individuals they would be called body guards. There would be 1 cop for every 1 person.

CaptMike
02-06-2010, 7:06 AM
here is some interesting information regarding 911 calls that may be helpfull to those attending.
http://hematite.com/dragon/die911.html

CaptMike
02-06-2010, 7:37 AM
here is a good article that discusses the case I mentioned. I dont have access to lexis nexis so I cant find the actual case name. Im sure someone in here can find the actual case. good luck

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUK/is_2002_Summer/ai_90305261/

Can you give details about the case you mention above? Names, etc.? Something that can be used to search for the details?

Might the above example be highly relevant at the upcoming Oakland city council meeting? After all, since the police aren't obligated to protect you, the ordinances that the Oakland city council is intent on passing are the equivalent of the city attempting to eliminate your right to effective self defense, no?

Are there any police officers who would be willing to go to the podium at that meeting and state the above? It would be most interesting to see the reactions of the people there when presented with this. :43:

(Note that I have less than zero expertise at political strategy and tactics, so for all I know, the above might not be a good idea. But if it is, then it should probably be done if possible)