Off duty LEOs-In Tn. not responsible to enforce laws

S

Sport

New member
On November 22nd, the Tennessee State
Supreme Court ruled that off duty
LEOs do not have a responsibility to
enforce the laws.

The ruling came out of a case involving
an off duty LEO acting as private security for
A drug store. In its finding, the court wrote"
"...We can find no corresponding statute or rule of
law in this state that places a mandatory duty upon
police officers to keep the peace when off duty.
To the contrary, when officers are off duty, our statutes
generally treat the officer as an ordinary private
citizen and not as an agent or employee of the miunicipal
police depatment under a general duty to keep the peace."

I wonder if anyone has told the officers about this?
Those I know seem to believe they do have a responsibility
24/7..at least insofar as "serious" crime is concerned.
 
Why are you surprised?

The courts--up to and including the Supreme Court--have repeatedly ruled that LEOs have no legal obligation to protect individuals while _on_ duty. That the courts would find that an off-duty LEO has no responsibility to do so should come as no surprise.

As for the cops you know who think of themselves as "on duty" 24/7--that's to their credit, certainly. That doesn't mean they're operating under the same _legal_ rules they do when they're on duty.
 
I'm surprised, in part because some
departments allow their officers to drive their
cruisers home after their shift, require them to
be armed off duty,etc.
My impression is this issue kind of fell through
the cracks. It is department regulation (some departments) that officers are officers all the time. It seems no one ever tested it in court before this. What's the situation in other states?
 
I think a department that insists their officers be armed 24 hours a day and take enforcement action whether on or off duty has just bought into covering their officers 24 hours a day with workman's compensation insurance.
 
Well lets if I have all this straight in my mind.LEO's are not responsible to protect citizens either on or off duty.Is this right?If this is right why are they being paid?Can anybody enlighten me on this or am I asking a NO NO question.Like asking Klinton the definition of SEX.
 
I think we may be discussing two seperate points here:
  • Duty to Enforce Laws (the subject of the TN Supreme Court ruling)
  • Duty to Protect Individuals.

The Duty to Protect Individuals has been the focus of several Supreme Court decisions, which have pretty much decided that LEO's do not have a Duty to Protect Individual persons, but to protect society as a whole.

This new decision from the TN Supreme Court is a whole different ball of wax, apparently ruling that an off-duty LEO has no duty to enforce State laws.

LawDog
 
To protect and serve

beemerb, as unbelievable as you may think it sounds, LawDog has it on the $$$$$.
If MORE American citizens understood, that LEO's, are NOT required to protect them nor their property.

Imagine the number of firearm sales, and ccp's that would be issued.

The bottom line is nearly ALL American citizens THINK that the local police are there to guard and protect them, never realizing that they only usually ( except in rare instances), show up AFTER a crime has been committed.

They do not understand what most of us do, YOU and I are the only ones responsible for our safety, and that of our families.

Just like firemen, they don't come to prevent a fire, they come to put them OUT..........fwiw
 
society 1-a body of individuals living as members of a community.
Thats what my dictonary says.It sure looks clear to me.
I guess the supreme court doesn't believe in dictonarys.No surprise they don't believe in the constitution either.
PS I have known about the supreme court cases and state cases for a long time.The problem is I think they are totaly wrong and allways have.My opinion is that it is a method to get out of lawsuits for not going to 911 calls and such.That is where most of these cases started.
Yes I agree that everyone is responsible for there own safety.Tell that to someone who is blind or has artheritis so bad they can hardly hold a spoon much less a gun.Not everyone is capable of defending themselves so what do they do?Allso the way things are now people like myself can't afford a lawer to defend themselves from the DA's that want to start their political careers and covictions are the way to go.
 
"The problem is I think they are totaly wrong and allways have.My opinion is that it is a method to get out of lawsuits for not going to 911 calls and such.That is where most of these cases started."

Well, of course that's the point. If the government could be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to stop every possible crime, they'd be bankrupted immediately. It's an impossible task. Much as I begrudge the government its authority, I can't argue with that.

What I _do_ argue with is pretending otherwise, and trying to convince people that they should depend on the police for protection when such protection is a chimera. Or worse, actively _preventing_ people from taking steps to defend themselves when the government simultaneously disclaims any responsibility for pulling your fat out of the fire if things go badly for you.
 
I think the intent of the ruling by the courts that LEOs are not "obligated" to protect citizens and/or property was meant to stop LEOs from being sued when a crime happens becasue they were "obligated" to protect me. Its tricky wording and one has to understand or see what the courts are trying to say. For example someone breaks into someone elses house and assaults them. Person #2 (the victim) grabs a lawyer and sues the local PD because the police were "obligated" to protect them even though the PD didn't get the call until after the fact. Think of it as hiring a body guard to protect you...he doesn't...you sue him for failing to do what he was hired to do. Don't mistake "not obligated to protect" with "I can just stand by and watch something happen".
 
Steve....I think the triggers for the court rulings regarding obligation of law enforcement to protect citizens were suits against enforcement agencies due to failure to respond to 911 calls in a timely manner.

The times are long gone when Peace Officers were actually expected to act as a prophylaxis in preventing crime. In these modern times the cop is all too often a gatherer of information after the act.

We are indeed responsible for our own safety while we are also expected to abide by laws that preclude our own defence.
 
I don't think that LEO's should be held to be LEO's 24/7. Before you flame me.. would you like to be held to do your job 24/7 or do you enjoy being "free" after your 9 to 5? So, this brings up the question, who is responsible for your being? The answer is simple.. you as an individual. The only snag to this is the fact that many States, counties, or local laws forbide a person to do this with effective means. Some laws even forbide self preservation by other means, i.e. baseball bats, knives, etc..

The people who fight to disarm others, and state that it's the job of the LEO to protect each individual probably have never been an LEO. LEO's know they can't be there ahead of time to stop a crime. Also, as noted in LA during the riots, if the LEO's are trying to handle one crime wave, other crimes cannot be gotten too in a reasonable amount of time. Also, the time it takes to get from one area to another, due to traffic or distance, cannot be helped. Thus, during this time frame, it is up to the individual not to become a victem or recieve fatal wounds.

Their solution (the above people) think that more LEO's would solve this situation. Not so, not unless we had an LEO stationed in every household, which would then turn the country into a police state. Some would welcome this solution, until they realized that the little things that they "get away" with, breaking some law, would force these officers to arrest them, or fine them heavily. This would no doubt cause them to change their minds.

So, the only true solution would be for people to take responsibility for themselves. But since 50% of Americans can't tear themselves away from the governments teat, the battle will continue until criminals run America and we are just slaves to do their bidding.

USP45usp
 
Long-held

"I think the intent of the ruling by the courts that LEOs are not "obligated" to protect citizens and/or property was meant to stop LEOs from being sued"

The earliest case stating such is South v Maryland (1856). My history tells me that before 1840 there were no "municipal police" in America. We took the lead of England which started them a few years before.

So much for sheriffs, they must have thought.

Rick
 
Off duty LEO's are in some cases required to be armed to protect themselves. Steming from court cases and the like where perps get off in court due to whatever technicality.

They get to protect themselves and their families. We don't. Although they go through some of the same legalities and hassles we all go through, somewhat less though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top