PDA

View Full Version : No Requirement for Police to Protect Individuals: Looking for Cite


The Brit
04-24-2008, 3:11 PM
I seem to recall hearing that California has a statute on the books that mirrors a Supreme Court decision that individuals have no affirmative right to police protection.

Can anyone point me to the specific Code section where that is stated?

(I've searched the Government and Penal codes on the ca.gov web site, but can't get a hit. I just want to be able to quote a definitive source, rather than rely on obscure, second-hand information.)

Thanks.

Ironchef
04-24-2008, 3:13 PM
I think it's more along the lines of "police aren't liable for protecting (or lack there of) victims of crimes." So it would seem the "protect & serve" logo of LAPD should just be "serve." lol

Harrison_Bergeron
04-24-2008, 3:18 PM
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-278&friend=nytimes

InvictusManeo
04-24-2008, 3:19 PM
This site lists 8 cases (I believe all were SCOTUS). I don't know of any CA-specific ones.

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

And the police are exist "to protect and serve" the society, which is an abstract idea, and not the individual people.

ETA: most that I have met chose to go above and beyond, and look after people the best they can in spite of their legal responsibility, for which I commend them.

Librarian
04-24-2008, 3:21 PM
Government Code 845 845. 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.
The concept is "sovereign immunity". See link (http://www.feinet.org/fei_immunity.shtml).

(Thanks to tombinghamthegreat - I had both PC and GC open at the same time, and originally wrote 845 was part of Penal Code.)

AngelDecoys
04-24-2008, 3:34 PM
In others words, 'To Promote the General Welfare,' does not mean individuals but society at large. Just because you dial 911 does not mean anyone MUST show up. Nor can LE be held liable if something more pressing come up (like a shooting over a burglary).

If I recall correctly, this same issue was brought up after Columbine in a civil suit since the police didn't go into the school right away.

M. Sage
04-24-2008, 5:17 PM
This site lists 8 cases (I believe all were SCOTUS). I don't know of any CA-specific ones.

Lots of cites here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

In my (for now) hometown!

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department.

hoffmang
04-24-2008, 6:02 PM
This one is kind of the classic case: Warren v. District of Columbia (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html).

-Gene

hawk1
04-24-2008, 6:20 PM
The last riots in Los Angeles. LAPD cited that as to why they couldn't help those that were being shot at, looted, and burned down...

tombinghamthegreat
04-24-2008, 9:42 PM
Warren vs. DC, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Maryland vs. Wilson, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Riss v. City of New York, CA Gov't Code s. 821, 845, 846, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, Bowers v. Devito, Souza v. City of Antioch, CA

These US Court cases ruled it is not the police department's job to protect you and the government is not required to provide services
these are just a few of them

duenor
04-24-2008, 10:30 PM
The famous one was recently in the NRA magazine american rifleman. It's about these three women who lived in a house. the two upstairs heard guys break in and start beating their friend downstairs. they hid and could hear her being beaten, then gang raped. they called the cops and no one came. they called again and no one came. then they thought the guys had left so they gave away their positions and then they too got beaten and gang raped for hours on end.

they sued the cops and basically the courts said they had no case because the cops are not there to come charging to your rescue, they are there to maintain the order of the city.

edit: it is warren vs district of columbia, and the link is above. truly horrifying story, and damnned if any girl of mine is ever going to be without a gun in her house.

leelaw
04-24-2008, 11:05 PM
This one is kind of the classic case: Warren v. District of Columbia (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html).

-Gene

Ah dang it, beat me to it.

I believe Warren was the biggest one on this issue.

Californio
04-25-2008, 8:52 AM
Clearly the government absolves itself of the liability of protection of the people, so it is up to each individual to protect themselves by what ever means possible, including firearms, which governments like the District of Columbia want to continue banning. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

Since the government is not responsible for my safety, then who is, of course I am and that should be all the Good Cause needed for a CCW and Heller to prevail.

The Brit
04-25-2008, 9:06 AM
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.

That's the one I'm after.

Many thanks.

DrjonesUSA
04-26-2008, 9:43 AM
I seem to recall hearing that California has a statute on the books that mirrors a Supreme Court decision that individuals have no affirmative right to police protection.

Can anyone point me to the specific Code section where that is stated?

(I've searched the Government and Penal codes on the ca.gov web site, but can't get a hit. I just want to be able to quote a definitive source, rather than rely on obscure, second-hand information.)

Thanks.


I've never heard of a specific statute on the books stating that fact, but I do know that there have been multiple court cases in the past several years affirming that fact.

I'm sure others have posted lots of useful links already.

DrjonesUSA
04-26-2008, 9:45 AM
Government Code 845 The concept is "sovereign immunity". See link (http://www.feinet.org/fei_immunity.shtml).

(Thanks to tombinghamthegreat - I had both PC and GC open at the same time, and originally wrote 845 was part of Penal Code.)


So it appears I was mistaken in my prior post.

Can you please help us understand? Is this a Federal code, state, or what?

What govt entities does this code apply to?

Librarian
04-26-2008, 10:00 AM
So it appears I was mistaken in my prior post.

Can you please help us understand? Is this a Federal code, state, or what?

What govt entities does this code apply to?
California - see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

811.2. "Public entity" includes the State, the Regents of the
University of California, a county, city, district, public authority,
public agency, and any other political subdivision or public
corporation in the State.


811.4. "Public employee" means an employee of a public entity.

ldivinag
04-26-2008, 5:02 PM
The last riots in Los Angeles. LAPD cited that as to why they couldn't help those that were being shot at, looted, and burned down...

exactly...

no need for references.

i recently watched a NAT GEO show on the la riots where they interviewed the head dude of LAPD at the normandie intersection and his decision to pull everyone out.

his reasons were that his officers were not prepared with tools to handle the situation...

of course they also interviewed chief gates on his view on the outcome...

they both disagreed with each other.