Police not obligated to protect you

[Hunt]

really I did a search. Can someone inform me of the court cases that determined police are not obligated to protect citizens.

[GearHead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That's the big one

[GearHead]

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]

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]

This sucks. I'd never heard about Warren v DC. Thats awful

[bambam8d1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_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]

At very least they should be severely punished for impeding in any way our ability to defend ourselves.

[Hunt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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