Police - protect and serve??

K

kymasabe

New member
I have a question that I've heard answers to but I'm still not clear on.

When I was growing up, our town police cars said "to protect and serve" on the side. But now I hear/read that the police have no legal obligation to protect?

for instance, if I were under attack, the police have no obligation ot protect me from my attacker, only to apprehend the criminal after the crime has been committed. Am I understanding that correctly? Is that true? One of the magazines I subscribe to had written that and basically called 911 dial-a-prayer, all in support of CCW rights and giving reasons why Americans should carry. But...wanted a clear answer, maybe from a cop too would be helpful.
 
Several court cases ruled that LE Agencies have no obligation for individual protection. Makes sense in a way. Sorta.

To Protect and Serve is a catchy slogan. Good PR. Non reality.

You're on your own. If you are attacked they're under no obligation.
 
It is absolutely true that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to protect anyone...protection is not a service one can expect to call up and "order" from a law enforcement agency.

That said, most of the law enforcement officers I know personally strike me as the kind of people who would willingly suffer injury or worse to protect others, if they were there.

Criminals are usually smart enough not to commit mayhem right in front of a law enforcement officer...the corollary is that the officer likely won't be there when you need him (with apologies to Jeffrey Snyder).
 
and they don't 'serve' much either. Most local police departments are now nothing more than a revenue producing branch of government. Gotta write those traffic tickets, ya know.
 
I think the court ruleling was more of a liability issue

where someone calls for help and the police don't get there in time. This I can see, a lot can happen in 1 or 2 minutes even.

I have to agree, most police I know would do what ever they could to protect the average citizen from harm. They have a job I sure wouldn't do, and for this I will show them them the respect they deserve.
 
kymasabe, I think you have confused a motto or goal with a legality. To Protect and to Serve is a motto, a nice PR motto.

While the courts may have ruled that the police don't have to protect, at least not in the manners we perceive (direct saving of life), they do provide protection via arresting bad guys, ticketing speeders, etc. etc. etc. So they are providing protection for society and are serving society.

where someone calls for help and the police don't get there in time. This I can see, a lot can happen in 1 or 2 minutes even.
Click to expand...

Most could not even if they wanted to get there in time because few places have enough officers to be able to have them geographically spaced out such that they can refer to calls in tiny seconds instead of being in long minutes. If we had enough officers for nearly instant response times, then we would all be paranoid of our "police state." Additionally, nobody wants to pay for all that protection. They just want it to happen...so long as they are not inconvenienced by things like cops doing their jobs and writing tickets to speeders or having the pay the additional taxes to fund the police they want to have Johnny-on-the-spot ready. In short, the police are in a sort of no-win situation when it comes to the public's evaluation of them.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.
...
...
Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Later court decisions have concurred.
 
"Fools rush in where wise men fear to go"! That old slogan definitely has meaning!

I spent 31 years in law enforcement, and went into almost countless situations where most "wise men" wouldn't even THINK of getting into! Fortunately, this "fool" always came back out after solving the problems!

While the lawmakers and courts make laws and rules, they're not always "realistic". The majority of police officers that I have known over the years would go over, under, around or through almost insurmountable barricades to "protect and serve". It's just that the police can't be everywhere all of the time, but usually feel very good if, just once in awhile, they're able to be "at the "right spot at the right time"!

I've lost many good friends who died while "protecting and serving".
 
I am not (as many of you may have guessed) and never have been a LEO nor even a government employee.

But I have to say that my experience with the police has always been that they care about what they do, and that suggests to me that if they feel an internal obligation to protect and serve in general. Like every job, I'm sure there are exceptions.

As a practical matter, though, they cannot possibly protect you every time, and no government entity would survive financially if they were held responsible for damages each time the police failed to do so.

It's just one of life's little problems that we have to get around the best we can and that's that.

That's what my .45 and home security system are for.
 
It's true that there are court rulings in place that police have a general duty to protect but not a duty to each individual. To keep in context, this means that if you are walking down the street and are mugged, the police agency is not liable. On the other hand if the police are standing there and take no action then they are liable. One key case arose from a western city (no I don't have a case cite or link) in which police received a call for assistance to a residence. They arrived, checked the exterior of the residence, got no response from inside when they attempted contact and heard and saw nothing amiss. Meanwhile two women inside were being held by their captors and were subsequently raped. The police were held to be not liable. Before any of the cop bashers jump in, would you REALLY want the police to kick in every door on every call they go to without establishing a reasonable belief that a crime was being commited inside and lives were in danger?
With that being said I've worked with two officers that I regard as cowards who would sacrifice the safety of a citizen or another officer to save their own miserable hides. The rest of them? To a man (and woman), they all have placed themselves in jeopardy many times over to protect people they don't know and have never met.

Or, if you think like Mannlicher all those officers who get killed or injured are just out writing tickets? :barf:
 
I got no argument with officers writing tickets. The driving public in southeast Florida is damn lucky *I* don't have the power to write tickets. Then again, my fingers would have been worn completely off years ago.
 
Manllicher said:
and they don't 'serve' much either. Most local police departments are now nothing more than a revenue producing branch of government. Gotta write those traffic tickets, ya know.
Click to expand...

:barf: Another ignorant cop bashing chest thumping post. What a waste of bandwidth. Hate to see how many pages your driving record and criminal history are! :eek: But of course it was never your fault. :rolleyes:

I've worked with many officers and every single one of them were the type who would risk their life everyday for a citizen.

I've been injured in the line of duty enough times to know it happens. And not once has it ever entered my mind to not jump in and help.
 
I think , either Law Enforcement should be properly paid to PROTECT and SERVE .... or all people should be afforded the right through proper training to carry the tools necessary to protect themselves in such an emergency without fear of prosecution.

As such ... law enforcement should not only be one of the most honorable professions , but also one of the highest paying.
 
Optical Serenity

opines
Another ignorant cop bashing chest thumping post. What a waste of bandwidth. Hate to see how many pages your driving record and criminal history are! But of course it was never your fault.
Click to expand...

friend, you don't know anything about me, or why I might feel that way about cops. Therefore, I give your response a zero for it's importance. I guess you are just one of the many self righteous pontificators that frequent this board.
 
and they don't 'serve' much either. Most local police departments are now nothing more than a revenue producing branch of government. Gotta write those traffic tickets, ya know.
Click to expand...

Let's see, over the past few days, in my local news I have read about police officers: making numerous big arrests of criminals, shooting to deatha guy who was assaulting another person with a gun, investigating several crimes, and being shot at themselves. Of course those were only the stories deemd newsworthy which I saw.

The next time a cop gives one of your family members mouth to mouth, or soemthing of that nature, why not remind him/her how little they serve.
 
friend, you don't know anything about me, or why I might feel that way about cops.

Yes, I'm sure some injustice was perpetrated against you that you just can't get past. {heavy sigh}.

Therefore, I give your response a zero for it's importance. I guess you are just one of the many self righteous pontificators that frequent this board

Does that include you?, or you above all that type stereotyping someone because of what they do for a living.

12-34hom
 
The opening post was legitimate, as most people aren't aware of the realities behind the responsibilities of the police. Too bad agendas from both sides got in the way.

for instance, if I were under attack, the police have no obligation ot protect me from my attacker, only to apprehend the criminal after the crime has been committed. Am I understanding that correctly? Is that true? One of the magazines I subscribe to had written that and basically called 911 dial-a-prayer, all in support of CCW rights and giving reasons why Americans should carry. But...wanted a clear answer, maybe from a cop too would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Your supposition is correct. The police are not under a general legal obligation to rush in or intervene to protect a particular person (although some agencies/jurisdictions require such action). There are cases of assaults occurring and the police were outside, waiting for backup. Columbine is the most notorious example, but there have been others. For what it's worth, I suspect that many officers were like the one in Columbine, almost begging to go in after the shooters but being ordered to wait.

This is quite unlike the Knoxville PD officer who years ago watched a burglary occur and didn't intervene because it was shift change and he didn't want to stay on shift and do the paperwork. I don't think he lasted long after that. Similarly, the NYPD officer who ran from a gunfight and abandoned his partner isn't on the force. Waiting for backup is a tactical decision that is often understandable; cowardice and dereliction of duty isn't.
 
Mannlicher said:
friend, you don't know anything about me, or why I might feel that way about cops. Therefore, I give your response a zero for it's importance. I guess you are just one of the many self righteous pontificators that frequent this board.
Click to expand...

It isn't about being self righteous, it is about believing in what I do, and who I am. The only people I've ever come across who are so ignorant that they would say what you said, are people who have had numerous run ins with the law. And of course, they did nothing wrong.

Regardless of that, it is your opinion and that is fine. :)

In reference to this thread, we do go out and protect and serve...Unfortunately, we are not enough. I mean, we need more officers, more cars, more equipment, more citizens armed, more citizens who have went to a citizen's police academy...

I've seen it work well, and I'm glad to see many departments adopting citizen's academies. Society can really benefit from LEOs and citizens who are on the same page on how to respond to threats. Coordination is a very important factor.

Also, many citizen's academies teach people about combat shooting / force on force / use of force continuum, etc.
 
It's true that there are court rulings in place that police have a general duty to protect but not a duty to each individual.
Click to expand...

THIS is the crux of the argument that so many of you have jumped on without doing proper research. The police DO exist to "protect and serve" - but the courts have determined that police are not bound to "protect" any one individual. Rather, their charter is to uphold the general protection of society at large, theoretically.

Does this mean that a cop will sit idly by and watch someone get stabbed? Perhaps it does, though only as much as it means any other socially conscious citizen would do so.

In a way, this is necessary lest the police become nothing more than an underpaid personal security detail. And that is not their role in society. Sounds crappy - maybe it is... but that's life in the big city.
 
Someone should sue for false advertising.

But if you think that is crap, look at the places where you have a legal responsibility to help a cop in danger.:barf:

Not saying that helping a cop is bad, just that it is bull that they have no obligation to help you(even though I thought that is why I pay their salary throught taxation) but you are legaly bound to help them even though it is not your job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top