Need Supreme Court link for ruling

P

paratrooper

New member
I seem to remember that it has been posted that the SP ruled that cops are not obligated to protect a person or some such thing . Could someone help me out with the straight story . I mentioned it to my dad and he says that is impossible . If I have the ruling I could print it out and send it to him . Thanks .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paratrooper:
I seem to remember that it has been posted that the SP ruled that cops are not obligated to protect a person or some such thing . Could someone help me out with the straight story . I mentioned it to my dad and he says that is impossible . If I have the ruling I could print it out and send it to him . Thanks .

[/quote]

I don't have a ruling by the Supremes, but in Rep. Bartlett's (R-MD) HR 347 (Citizens' Self-defense Act of 1999), he quotes a DC Circuit court, I think, in Warren v. DC Metro Police Department (1981), "Courts have without exception ruled that when a municipality or other government entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes only a duty to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

I've heard other cases along the same lines, but this is the only one I can point to immediately. Hope it helps.

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 
Don't have the case handy but will try to look it up. You might find a new book interesting it is titled, "CALL 911 AND DIE" available from Barnes and Noble. It is about the myth that people continue to believe in, i.e., the police can protect you.
 
The case you might want to read is: DeShaney v. Winnegbago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 So.Ct. 998, 1002 decided by the US Sup. Ct. in 1989.

Basically the Court said that "the Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty upon the state to protect its citizens. Rather it serves as a limitation on the state's power to act."

As a general rule, "A state's failure to protect against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause."
 
paratrooper,
If you take this information supplied by roybean:

The case you might want to read is: DeShaney v. Winnegbago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 So.Ct. 998, 1002 decided by the US Sup. Ct. in 1989.

Try looking it up under Supreme Court on this site listed under federal links:
www.romingerlegal.com/

ordo
 
Thank you all . I found it . It was a 15 page printout but well worth it . The case was about Social Services failing to protect a child from an abusive father who finally beat him into brain damage . The Court ruled that there was no special guarantee of protection to any person from another person or persons .
I guess that if they ruled the other way anyone could sue if they called for help and it did not arrive on time . Unless , of course deriliction could be proven . I could call and say a person was in my house . When the police arrive I say the person took $5,000 in cash I had taken from the bank to buy a car the next day . I would then sue for $5,000 . Still an interesting case . I could send it to anyone that is interested .
Thanks again .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top