Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:00 PM
WolfmanJak WolfmanJak is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hayward
Posts: 49
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Duty to act?

I am aware of Warren v. DC stating LEO does not have an obligation to protect. But are there local department policies that require a duty to act?
__________________
Originally Posted by CitaDeL
You either support the right to own and carry a legally configured rifle or you do not-

If rights were predicated upon the use of flawless judgement, we would either not exercise them in the abundance of caution or abandon those with whom we disagree. That is where we as gunowners are being used against each other. Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:50 AM
KWalkerM's Avatar
KWalkerM KWalkerM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Plumas County
Posts: 2,033
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

wow...5 posts...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-14-2013, 7:32 AM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 540 / 100%
Default

There is a post delete feature under edit.

To answer your question(s);

Every department is different,

Every department is different,

Every department is different,

Every department is different,

Every department is different.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-14-2013, 7:54 AM
WolfmanJak WolfmanJak is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hayward
Posts: 49
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Fair enough. My internet/computer was screwing up last night and i couldn't see the post i submitted and everytime i tried to submit it, it would freeze. I gues in the end it did work.

So it is a possibility that there are departments that do not have a duty to act policy?
__________________
Originally Posted by CitaDeL
You either support the right to own and carry a legally configured rifle or you do not-

If rights were predicated upon the use of flawless judgement, we would either not exercise them in the abundance of caution or abandon those with whom we disagree. That is where we as gunowners are being used against each other. Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-14-2013, 8:12 AM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,892
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It is kind of a broad question. It would more or less depend upon the circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-14-2013, 9:23 AM
Armed24-7's Avatar
Armed24-7 Armed24-7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

In Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), the case revolved around the negligence of the local police, not the failure to act. The police did act, but the action might have been negligent. The court found that "the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals".

What the court meant was that if you become the victim of a crime, law enforcement cannot be held responsible. The ruling is not saying that the police have no obligation to act. Many 2nd amendment activists misinterpret that ruling and use it to push their agenda. The police cannot be omnipresent. Although law enforcement (in most places) diligently seek out criminals to get them off the streets, most of our job is reactionary. Was the court correct in it's ruling? I don't know. We all know how screwed up our court system can be. This is why case law is challenged all the time in the courts. Case law is always open to interpretation.

Most of our time is spent responding to crimes that have already been committed and also to other types of disturbances. We are burdened with not only responding to major incidents, but also the pettiest of calls for service. These petty calls for service take up a lot of our time. Report writing also takes up a lot of our time.

Law enforcement does have an obligation to act. In fact, the police in Warren v. District of Columbia did act. Whether or not they acted negligently, I do not know. There are many questions I would have before making that judgement call. We were thee for the hearings and we were not privy to any 911 recordings (if any). We do not know what the 911 operator/dispatcher was told by the informants/victims on the phone. We don't know what information the officers in the field were given when the call was dispatched. Officers have to prioritize calls for service based on the information given. The 911 operator has to determine the level of urgency based on the information they collect from the caller. If the responding officers have several calls for service pending that they need to respond to, they also have to prioritize their responses based on the information they are given, which is now technically 3rd hand information. So, who could have been negligent? The 911 operator? The dispatcher? The field officers? The person who called 911?

All that being said, I think it would be deplorable if law enforcement failed to respond and act with due diligence to calls for service. In fact, the county sheriff and/or the FBI have the authority take control of law enforcement responsibilities, should a police department fail to provide adequate services.

On my department, negligence, cowardice, malfeasance and/or failing to act could get you disciplined, removed from the field, or fired.

It is important to be careful where you get your information. Be sure to know who is interpreting that information and that it is coming from a reputable source.
__________________

"If you expect logic associated with California law, it will only make your head hurt.." - Ron-Solo, 2013

Last edited by Armed24-7; 01-14-2013 at 9:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:07 PM
tyrist tyrist is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,554
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfmanJak View Post
Fair enough. My internet/computer was screwing up last night and i couldn't see the post i submitted and everytime i tried to submit it, it would freeze. I gues in the end it did work.

So it is a possibility that there are departments that do not have a duty to act policy?
We have policy and procedures that must be followed under certain circumstances. If you fail to follow those policies and procedures you can be punished up to termination for neglect of duty. The level of neglect determines the level of punishment. The court decision that keeps getting stated is so widely misinterpreted by 2nd amendment activist it's just absurd and makes them look ignorant. I think it's pretty much common sense there is no way the police can protect the safety of everyone in the United States every minute of everyday. Nobody needs a court decision to reach that conclusion and the court was not even addressing that fact.

The court was essentially leaving policy, procedure, and decision making up to individual departments because it's not competent or able to make field decisions from the comfort of the bench in hind sight.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.