whose job to protect you?

T

trespass

New member
read an interesting essay on the "smallest minority" blog concerning the question.."is it the governments job to protect you?...
the law is that the police have no duty to be responsible for any individuals protection...hmmm. Just thought I'd throw out this blog article for your read and consideration and comments.
 
...thought I'd throw out this blog article for your read and consideration and comments.
Click to expand...
Well go ahead and throw it out to us. Post a link.

It is the government's job to provide for the common defense. They have no responsibility to defend anyone individually; that responsibility falls to each of us. This is the reason why governments that outlaw CCW are so reprehesible. They deny you the right to self defense with the most useful tool; reducing us to the level of kept animals.
 
It was clearly stated in the SCOTUS ruling to De Shaney v. Winnibago Co. et al .The police do NOT have an obligation to protect an individual .
 
The legal aspect is something to keep in mind should you ever find yourself before a court and an antagonistic prosecutor or attorney attempts to use the mistaken popular notion against you in one fashion or another.
 
Lak,

Good point. I'd never thought about that.
An especially good point to remember should one ever be on a Grand Jury and asked to indict someone because the prosecutor claims they could have called 9-1-1 instead of shooting!.

I can see this kind of thing now...
DA: Officer, did the defendant call 911 before the shooting took place?
COP: No. According to 911 records, no call was placed until after the defendant shot the victim.
DA: So the defendant did not avail himself of emergency services in order to protect his life?
COP: No sir.
:
Defense: Officer, are members of your department legally obligated to protect Mr. Defendant in his home?
COP: Uh, no.
Defense: Officer, is your department legally obligated to respond swiftly to Mr. Defendant's call for assistance?
COP: Umm... no.
Defense: Well, in a timely manner perhaps?
COP: Ah, no.
Defense: Are you legally obligated to even respond at all to his calls for help?
COP: no
Defense: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Would you repeat your answer?
COP: No.
Defense: Do you know why your department isn't legally obligated?
COP: Uh, not exactly.
Defense: Isn't it because in the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County the Justices essentially said police agencies have no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen?
COP: Uhhh,
Defense: And in findings were the same in Riss v. New York; And in Warren v. District of Columbia; And in Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department; and in Hartzler v. City of San Jose, and in... does that refresh your memory officer?
COP: Uh-huh. I mean, yes.
Defense: So why then, if your department can ignore his pleas for help, should Mr. Defendant have first called 911 instead of preparing to defend himself?
COP: :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm certain THAT exchange would open the eyes of a few jurors!
 
It's common sense language designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Such as;

"I got robbed, the Police weren't there, they didn't protect me, I'm suing".
 
Realistically, it would require a lot of LEOs to protect all individuals. The default is that the government protects Society. In order for the police to act, Society requires individuals to be sacrificed. For instance, it is impossible to anticipate a serial killer, however once individuals have been sacrificed we can now apply the tag "criminal" and move to prevent further injury to Society as a whole. :rolleyes:
 
IIRC De Shaney was based on the police being told that the child was in danger . They handed it off to Child Welfare and the rest is history ..... just like the kid .
 
A far more egregious example

of police indifference - and the court's accommodation of that incompetence - is Warren, Douglas and Tagliaferro v. District of Columbia. The cite is 444 A. 2nd 1. The case immediately following is more of same; just not as bad. :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Warren v. District of Columbia
One of the leading cases of this type.

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there.

As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, ... [by their] ...attackers.''

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''
Cite: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
 
State Trooper in Connecticut

I'm having this discussion with my paramour over the State Trooper in Conn. that took the 911 call about the motorcycle rider.

Don't know if any of you read that one, can't find the link at the moment.

She can't grasp why, if the police, fire and ambulance services are "required" to come to your aid, do we pay taxes to support them?

Because it's a tax to care for the "general" good...Hard concept to accept that we've been conned all these years...but there it is.
 
Number 6 wrote

A far more egregious example of police indifference - and the court's accommodation of that incompetence - is Warren, Douglas and Tagliaferro v. District of Columbia. The cite is 444 A. 2nd 1. The case immediately following is more of same; just not as bad.

I concur. That's why Part I of the essay is the Warren decision quoted verbatim. It's pretty much the most egregious example I've ever seen. In Part II I used the second-most egregious - Riss v. New York.

Shock value is important.

Compare and contrast, though with a later post, 1975 in Washington, D.C. vs. 2004 in Canton, Ohio. Another Carolyn Warren. Another home invader. A different outcome.
 
She can't grasp why, if the police, fire and ambulance services are "required" to come to your aid, do we pay taxes to support them?
Click to expand...
The units in the hive that is Puget Sound have done a really good job of BSing people into believing that when they talk about their do-gooder crap that said crap is meant to help the individual.

How people aren't able to see through that kind of Marxist garbage is totally beyond me. The last thing collectivists want is the existence - much less the well being - of an individual.

Liberals are almost always blood-sucking souless ghouls. You can bet your last dollar on it.

Or as my buddy Randy's bumper sticker says: "Aids, Abortion, Euthanasia... Don't Liberals Just Kill Ya?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top