Police don't have to protect citizens - need proof!

J

jffal2

Inactive
While, overall, I appreciate responsibly aministered law enforcement and respect enforcers, my understanding of our daily reality is that police can't be everywhere and are not charged with protecting INDIVIDUALS, only the community as a whole. Law enforcement shouldn't be a replacement for individual responsibility.

Some left leaning folks I am debating online with fixated on the alleged Beltway Sniper, his alleged boy wonder sidekick and the alleged weapon they used.

I am trying to fish out the Firingline threads that cited specific court cases that explicitedly ruled just what the limitations of public law enforcement were. I want to state my case in as black and white shades as possible so there is no question just where we stand as private citizens on the law enforcement food chain.

Jeff
 
A bill introduced in the 105th Congress on JANUARY 7, 1997

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Citizens' Self -Defense Act of 1997".


SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: " Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. . . ."


http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
 
I can't cite the case, but the US Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago that police do not have to protect the individual citizen, only keep the peace in general. Case was a lawsuit brought by crime victim when cops responded to 911 call but just drove by the house without stopping to check it out. Inside was woman who had called being raped and beaten.
 
Don't fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative. Logically it can't be done.

Get the opposition to cite chapter and verse at the state level where LE is required to protect.

Puts the onus on opposition.
 
I don't know how they can get around Chief Moose stating that no one was safe anywhere while the shooters were on the loose. That pretty much summed it up right there.
 
California Government Code 845: "845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
A police department shall not fail to respond to a request for
service via a burglar alarm system or an alarm company referral
service solely on the basis that a permit from the city has not been obtained."


Souza v. City of Antioch the PRK S. Court upheld this law. As one California appellate court wrote, "police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.''
 
Jeff,

Show 'em all of the above and I would hope that they could then acknowledge what we all seem to take as a given..."You're on your own till the police do show up, where you will probably be interviewed, then placed under arrest. Or go to the hospital. Or placed in a body bag. Your choice."

It's just too horrible for some people's thought process to acknowledge, that with their education, social standing, their "they've never done anything wrong so it can't happen to me mentality", sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's called life. Be Prepared.

Let us know the outcome of your bet/debate, please.

Adios
 
You can throw in the argument the fact that in England, not only do the police not have to protect you, you are banned by law from protecting yourself. All the gun grabbers use England as the poster child for gun control, so if they want us to be like England, surely they want us to go all the way and make self defense a criminal act too.
 
Simple logic:

Marxist: "You do not need to protect yourself. That's the job of the police!"

Me: “Is that so? Does that mean I can sue the police if I’m mugged in a dark alley?”

Marxist: “Well, no. I mean, they can’t be at your side 100% of the time.”

Me: “So who/what is to protect me when a cop is not around?”

Marxist: “Well, um, well...”
 
The job of the police and its ALWAYS been this way is as follows:

-To provide a general visible deterrent to criminal behavior.
-To investigate criminal behavior after it has occurred.
-To pursue and and apprehend those who commit crimes.


Protection of individual citizens is NOT part of their "duty". They usually will try (sometimes dying in the process), but its not their responsibility.

"To serve and to protect..." refers to the population as a whole, NOT individual residents.


Its also mathematically impossible for the police to provide protection to individual citizens.

Also, remember for every 8 or so cops, only 1 of these is on the street at any one time. The rest are off duty, in court, on vacation, off sick, doing adminstration, pregnant, medical leave, etc etc.
 
Reanimate this post!

I was driving to work today thinking of ways to strengthen our argument for pro 2A. I do not, for the life of me, understand how the antis can want to disarm us with rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia in place. Granted, I am no lawyer. I don't pretend or even want to be. Still, I know that court is less based on fact than it is emotion and feelings for the day. I have heard it compared to going to Las Vegas, it all depends where the ball stops. Compelling arguments certainly help but not always. At any rate, if someone is in the know, doesn't Warren v. District of Columbia help rather than hinder our cause?? Please, try to explain this without speaking to much "lawyer." I would appreciate any and all input. Thanks,
David
 
Ask and ye shall receive.

Man, you guys are GOOD.

Seriously I haven't been a member long but I am pleased with the knowledge and experience represented here in this forum.
 
If you don't take initiative to defend or protect yourself & family there isn't much the police can do for you. They are, however, pretty good at figuring out what happened & doing the reports after the fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top