Case law for police NOT having to protect a citizen.

[sully007]

I was tune into Ron Owens the other day. He had on the police chief of SF. A caller asked about CCw's for people because he said police are not required to protect people. The chief's response was that they are sworn to protect the public and their response time is three minutes for every gun call.

My question is what is the case law for the SCOTUS ruling that states different?

I would have called in, but did not know the case law to site.


Just Saying!
From my Brain cells to your's

[DolphinFan]

Warren v. District of Columbia

[xrayoneone]

Police protect "society" not individuals. That's why PD's can't be sued when you are raped, murdered or assaulted.

[retiredAFcop]

Wish a caller had asked the chief if they could hold him to that promise.

He's an idiot and/or a liar to make such a statement. An average response time of 3 minutes is not a 3 minute response - if at least one response took longer than 3 minutes, he's lying.

When cops lie, faith in the system dies, and it makes every cop's job that much harder.

[Tarn_Helm]

Where to begin?

I was tune into Ron Owens the other day. He had on the police chief of SF. A caller asked about CCw's for people because he said police are not required to protect people. The chief's response was that they are sworn to protect the public and their response time is three minutes for every gun call.

My question is what is the case law for the SCOTUS ruling that states different?

I would have called in, but did not know the case law to site.


Just Saying!
From my Brain cells to your's

Start here . . .

Warren v. District of Columbia [1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted [2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

. . . and . . .

Castle Rock v. GonzalesDial 911 and Die [Paperback]
Richard W. Stevens (Author, Illustrator, & Editor), Garn Turner (Author), Aaron S. Zelman (Editor)

The list goes on and on.

Look here too for answers to dozens of other related questions.

[hr20099mm]

But aren't we part of society?

[roushstage2]

But aren't we part of society?

Yes. A part of, not the, society. It is society as a whole vs. the individuals that make up society.

[explorerdude]

In college I did a presentations about why we needed guns in society. Then a few girls started saying blah blah blah, we dont need guns, blah blah blah. Luckily my next power point slide was Warren V. District of Columbia.
Shut them up quickly

[ElDub1950]

Being "sworn to protect the public" having a legal obligation to do so are two very different things. Case after case has been ruled that police are not legally required to protect you.

Google "are police obligated to protect you" and you will find tons of references and cases about it.

[RickD427]

Sometimes it's helpful to go back to the basics. The first modern "Police" force was established in London almost 200 years ago. The founder of that force defined nine key principles of how a police force should operate. I'm really amazed just how relevant the nine principles remain to this day, and how a lot of the problems we seem to see with large police agencies can be traced to a deviation from the nine principles.

There's also some very meaningful content in here for those in government who advocate the idea that ordinary citizens are removed from law enforcement responsibility since that is the responsibility of the police. (I really like points #7 and #9).

Here are the nine principles as laid out by Sir Robert Peel:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

[JoshuaS]

In fairness with the court cases, etc, the courts have to deal with the very basic problem of limited ability. Even if we had 10 times the number of cops, they cannot be everywhere at once, and can only do so much, can only investigate so many crimes.

At some point it is triage. The same way a handful of doctors with very many injured people must prioritize their help, even if it means that a certain number that could have been saved individually are not.

Say there are 1 more call than there are officers...and say one of them was about a prowler who ended up breaking in and raping and killing after the call was made, while others were about intruders already in the house...do we really want to hold the police who responded to what, according to the knowledge they have, were more urgent cases legally liable because they weren't able to respond to both calls, or because they lacked psychic power to know what actual outcomes would be?

Not that I like the reasoning in these decisions. But were there ruled an absolute duty to protect every individual, it would also be an impossible mandate.

[Nick Justice]

Ask the chief how many of my family members can be killed in those three minutes before a sworn officer arrives to take pictures of us.

[Nick Justice]

Assuming the attacker lets me use the phone.

[sigstroker]

911 didn't help Bill Cosby's son very much.

[DisgruntledReaper]

Whats the line?- 'Dont Dial 911, Dial 1911!' ....In my case it is time to get the 'Glockenspiel' and see if the perp wants to

'I tell ya one thing, if these douche bags in POS Sac push the recent crap thru, I WILL be having my Battleaxe, Flanged Gothic Mace, War-hammer or Short Sword in reach.....time for medieval.......