Poz...
I like that attitude. RE Police protecting you: Note the case law
http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>State and city governments -- rather than the Federal authorities -- are
responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have
Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in
1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had
no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to
enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433
(856)]. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you
no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, held that:.. there is no Constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or
madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents
against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of
the Constitution. The
Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the
people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state
to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law
and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit,
686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp.
1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].
There are a few, very narrow exceptions. In 1983, the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that: "In a civilized society,
every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection
from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require
the police to act on behalf of a particular individual. ... Liability is
established, therefore, if police have specifically undertaken to
protect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied
upon the undertaking.... Absent a special relationship, therefore, the
police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular
individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special
relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law
enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual
requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan
v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983)]. As a result, the
government -- specifically, police forces -- has no legal duty to help
any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril. The only
exceptions are a person who:
has helped the police force (e.g., as an informant or as a
witness)
can prove that he/she has specifically been promised protection
and has, as a result, done things that he/she otherwise would
not have done.
RELY ON THE POLICE: AND PAY HEAVILY
New York: Steady Threats from a Known Source Mean Nothing
Even someone repeatedly threatened by another has no entitlement
to police protection until they have been physically harmed.
In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend,
who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly
threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and
when I get through with you, no one else will want you." She
repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail.
Nothing was done to help her. When he threatened her with
immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City
Police Department for help: "Completely distraught, she called the
police, begging for help, but was refused." The next day, she was
attacked: a "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium
hydroxide) in her face, She was blinded in one eye and her face was
permanently scarred. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that
Linda Riss had no right to protection. The Court refused to create
such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden
on the government. Only the legislature could create a right to
protection:
"The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the
resources of the community and by a considered legislative
executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For
the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection ... even to
those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on
specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the
limited police resources of the community should be allocated and
without predictable limits."
Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was
victimized not only because she had relied upon the police to protect
her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbid her to own a
weapon. Judge Keating wrote: "What makes the city's position
particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates
of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by
a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City
of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City
of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].
California: An Imminent Death Threat Means Nothing
Even a person whose life is imminently in peril is not entitled to help.
On 4 September 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California)
police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack
Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming to her
house to kill her. In the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made
at least 20 calls and responses to Mrs. Bunnell's home ...allegedly
related to complaints of violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on
Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters." Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told
to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later,
Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor
called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California
Court of Appeal held that any claim against the police department: "is
barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly
section 845, which states: Neither a public entity nor a public
employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or
otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection
service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection.'"
[Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].
Washington, D.C.: Rape Is No Cause For Concern
If direct peril to life does not entitle one to police protection, clearly
imminent peril of rape merits no concern. Carolyn Warren, of
Washington, D.C., called the police on 16 March 1975: two intruders
had smashed the back door to her house and had attacked a female
house mate. After calling the police, Warren and another house mate
took refuge on a lower back roof of the building. The police went to
the front door and knocked. Warren, afraid to go downstairs, could
not answer. The police officers left without checking the back door.
Warren again called the police and was told they would respond.
Assuming they had returned, Warren called out to the house mate,
thus revealing her own location. The two intruders then rounded up
all three women. "For the next fourteen hours the women were held
captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual; acts upon
each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of (the
intruders-ed.)." The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held
that: "the fundamental principle (is-ed.) that a government and its
agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as
police protection, to any particular individual citizen.' ...The duty to
provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a
special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific
legal duty exists." In an accompanying memorandum, the Court
explained that the term "special relationship" did not mean an oral
promise to respond to a call for help. Rather, it involved the provision
of help to the police force. [Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C.App.,
444 A.2d 1 (1981)].
Illinois: School Teachers Get No Help Either
On 20 April 1961, Josephine M. Keane, a teacher in the Chicago City
Public Schools was assaulted and killed on school premises by a
student enrolled in the school. Keane's family sued the City of
Chicago, claiming that, "the City was negligent in failing to assign
police protection to the school, although it knew or should have
known that failure to provide this protection would result in harm to
persons lawfully on the premises (because) it knew or should have
known of the dangerous condition then existing at the school." The
Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook
County. Presiding Judge Burke of the Appeals Court held that,
"Failure on the part of a municipality to exercise a government
function does not, without more, expose the municipality to liability."
Justice Burke went on to say that: "To hold that under the
circumstances alleged in the complaint the City owed a special duty'
to Mrs. Keane for the safety and well being of her person would
impose an all but impossible burden upon the City, considering the
numerous police, fire, housing and other laws, ordinances and
regulations in force." [Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App2d 460
(1968)].
North Carolina: Helpless Children Don't Count
Even defenseless children merit no special care. On 3 June 1985
police tried to arrest a man and his "girlfriend," both of whom were
wanted on multiple murder charges, and who were known to be
heavily armed. The alleged murderers -- along with the "girlfriend's
two sons, aged nine and ten years -- tried to flee in a car. As the police
closed in after a running shoot out, the children were poisoned with
cyanide and then shot in the head either by the mother or her "boy
friend," one of whom then blew up the vehicle, killing both. The boy's
father -- who had filed for divorce - sued the law enforcement
agencies and officers for "wrongful death" of his sons. The North
Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement
agencies and officers did not owe them (the children -- ed.) any legal
duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death ...Our
law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists
when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a
particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no
duty to protect the individuals from the criminal acts of others;
instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for
the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special
relationship of the type stated did not exist ...Plaintiff's argument that
the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until
the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law
has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of
the public their first concern; for permitting dangerous criminals to
go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured or killed
would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a
policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." [Lynch v.
N.C.Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E.2nd 247 (N.C.App. 1989)].
Virginia: Wrongful Release = Wrongful Death? Wrong!
Marvin Mundy murdered Jack Marshall in Virginia. Mundy -- convicted
for carrying a concealed pistol -- was sent to jail by a judge who
expressed concern that Mundy, "might kill himself of a member of the
public." Mundy was mistakenly released from jail 8 days later. Nine
days later he was re-arrested on an unrelated charge. Five hours
later, the same jailer and sheriff released him, apparently without
checking to see if that was proper. Three weeks later Mundy robbed
and murdered Marshall. Marshall's widow sued, alleging negligence
on the part of the sheriff and jailer, and asserting a violation of Jack
Marshall's right to due process. The Court rejected the claim: " ... a
distinction must be drawn between a public duty owed by the official
to the citizenry at large and a special duty owned to a specific
identifiable person or class of persons. ... Only a violation of the latter
duty will give rise to civil liability of the official. ... to hold a public
official civilly liable for violating a duty owed to the public at large
would subject the official to potential liability for every action he
undertook and would not be in society's best interest." ... no special
relationship existed that would create a common law duty on the
defendants to protect the decedent (Marshall -- ed.) from Mundy's
criminal acts. Similarly, without a special relationship between the
defendants and the decedent, no constitutional duty can arise under
the Due Process Clause as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
Therefore, plaintiff's (Mrs. Marshall -- ed) due process claim also must
fall." [Marshall v. Winstonm, 389 S.E.2nd 902 (Va. 1990)].
THE BOTTOM LINE: YOUR LIFE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS
These cases -- and there are many others -- show clearly that under
U.S. law:
no individual has a right to police protection, even when life is in
clear and immediate peril.
there is no right to police protection simply because there are
not enough police resources available to enable every person
who feels threatened to be protected;
to make police officers answerable to individual citizens for a
failure to provide protection would make police officers afraid to
do anything for fear that an action -- or inaction -- would expose
them to civil liability.
This is unavoidable:
Life is risky
the police cannot be everywhere at once
it is impossible to hire enough police officers to protect every
person who needs it or thinks he/she needs it
No one can or should rely on the local police force to defend him- or
her-self, even against a specific threat coming from a known source.
Each of us is responsible for ensuring his or her personal safety.
Anyone who says, "You don't need a gun, the police will protect
you," at best is mis-informed and at worst is simply lying. To offer
such advice suggests that police have a duty to provide protection
and usually will provide it. The police have no such duty. And, while
the police may try hard to provide protection -- and a failure to do so
can be catastrophic - there is no legal recourse for person harmed by
that failure.
WHAT WE NEED LEAST: GUN BANS AND WAITING PERIODS
"Gun control" is founded on a total misunderstanding of the role of
the police in our society. "Gun control" advocates presuppose the
police have a duty to protect every individual. But, as proved above,
the police have never had this duty, and indeed, cannot have it so
long as the Constitution remains in force. Therefore, bans on gun
ownership - or imposition of a waiting period before a gun may be
purchased -- simply give an attacker a legally protected window of
opportunity to do you harm. Moreover, "gun control" makes the law
abiding person less able and willing to take responsibility for his/her
own defense. We will never eliminate criminals. But we must do far
more to curb them. That is what the Constitution requires. Many
police forces are under strength. But it is quite clear that to enable the
police to defend each and every one of us, would require us to set up
here a police state that makes Joe Stalin's Russia look like a "love
boat" cruise ship. That is not the lesser of two evils -- i.e., better than
letting criminals run free -- it is the greater.
WHAT WE NEED MOST: NATION-WIDE CONCEALED CARRY
A law abiding person's security -- as a matter of Law and a matter of
Fact -- is in his or her own hands. Even if we had effective criminal
control -- and we are far from that happy state of affairs -- each law
abiding person would still be responsible for his/her own safety. Any
law abiding person should be able legally to carry firearms,
concealed, as this is the best way to enable such persons to protect
themselves. It is a potent deterrent: the criminal would not know who
was, and who was not, armed. It would enable a person who had
been threatened -- and was not entitled to police protection -- to have
at hand the means to protect him- her-self.
THE FUTURE: NO MORE KILLEEN MASSACRES
Concealed carry is not a panacea. A criminal would always have the
advantage of the first shot. But if the intended victim(s) were lawfully
entitled to carry a concealed firearm, the criminal's first shot could be
his/her last. If concealed carry of firearms were Federal Law,
massacres such as occurred in Killeen Texas would almost certainly
become a thing of the past. The criminal would be killed, quickly, by
one of the intended victims. Licensing is not needed, simply because
criminals now carry concealed weapons at will. Licensing would only
affect the 99+ percent of Americans who own firearms, and who do
not abuse them. What purpose is served by the costly building of
huge files on law abiding people? Moreover, is not the presumption
in U.S Law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty? It
is better that we enact and strictly enforce harsh penalties for
concealed carry by those legally debarred from firearms ownership -
persons with criminal records of violence -- the more so if
commission of a crime were involved.
LIFE OR DEATH: IT'S UP TO YOU
Wise-up those who back "gun control" -- Federal, State, and local
law-makers, law enforcement chiefs, prosecutors, and media
personalities -- that the police have no duty to protect you. Let them
know that their support for "gun control" puts your life at risk. Send
them a copy of this Special Report. Urge them to ditch "gun control"
and to lobby urgently for nation-wide concealed carry. Your life
depends on it.
[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
