Police Have No Duty to Protect

[rambone]

I frequently have seen this mentioned, but I have never found a thread that specifically covers this topic. Maybe its out there but I have failed to find it.

The Supreme Court has ruled, police have no duty to protect you. Even if its a guy with a restraining order coming after you -- your self-defense is your own responsibility.

Every gun owner should be familiar with this.


Gonzales Vs. Castle Rock

The Right to Self-Defense

 

[LPMan59]

dont forget this one

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mrjarrell]

Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection?

Lots of cases here.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I wouldnt rely on the cops alone, if it was the last option on earth.

 

[melensdad]

Every gun owner should be familiar with this.

Not just gun owners. In fact I suspect more gun owners are aware of this fact than non-gun owners. People mistakenly believe the police are here to protect them, but the police are here to protect the common good. There is a huge difference between being a personal protector and generally keeping public order and peace.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Not to start crap, but the cops on here wonder why we have such a sour taste in our mouth when we deal with them.

 

[jedi]

Not just gun owners. In fact I suspect more gun owners are aware of this fact than non-gun owners. People mistakenly believe the police are here to protect them, but the police are here to protect the common good. There is a huge difference between being a personal protector and generally keeping public order and peace.

u r clearly wrong! All those TV shows always show "to protect & serve" logos on the cars, the cops (on TV) are always saying it as well. So you see clearly you gut nut domestic terrorist tea party loving groupie is wrong! WRONG! WRONG!!!

 

[E5RANGER375]

Not just gun owners. In fact I suspect more gun owners are aware of this fact than non-gun owners. People mistakenly believe the police are here to protect them, but the police are here to protect the common good. There is a huge difference between being a personal protector and generally keeping public order and peace.

then why do they tell us they are doing things to protect us from ourselves, etc?

I know some good cops. one of my buddies who is a central indiana cop walked up to me at the 1500 and said "look at this" as he handed me an OATH KEEPERS card. I am already a member, and I actualy felt bad that I hadnt already reffered him, but I was VERY much reassured that I knew a great cop and a better friend, b his own willingness to seek out the oath keepers. There are still some good cops out there. CONSTITUTION FIRST!

 

[Reaper]

Regardless of the debate or your opinions, you have the ultimate duty to protect and serve yourself! Whether that means carrying a firearm under the proper licensing or just keeping a level head about yourself, you are responsible for yourself and should never give that authority to others!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I'm a card-carrying member of the Oathkeepers.

I only wish they'd been around back in the day when I was on the street so I could have bragged about it. It would have driven the thugs in my police administration crazy.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Ive listed several cases in which departments were sued for failure to protect. Obviously that did not work. Lets try a simpler approached. 14th amendment I'm sure you guys have all read it so there is no reason for me to explain how you are denying someones due process by not doing your job as a peace officer.. It SOUNDS like your specifically speaking of duty to protect from 3rd party harm. In which case you are right. Someone is breaking to your house, you call 911 police are 11 minutes away. Everyone is dead when they get there. How could they have liability? Throw a negligent act into the mix, stopping for coffee on the way to the call and there is a failure to protect lawsuit. I wont even mention derelict of duty.

 

[machete]

been my experience that they dont even want to... they seem to think of their job these days as only writing you tickets and arresting you for made up crimes...

 

[E5RANGER375]

I dont want or need the police to protect me. but I still believe in police

 

[machete]

I dont want or need the police to protect me. but I still believe in police

i only want police to go after muggers---murderers and other people who do bad to someone...fire the rest

 

[Keyser Soze]

been my experience that they dont even want to... they seem to think of their job these days as only writing you tickets and arresting you for made up crimes...

Machete I cant deny that there are some really ____ I wish I could but I live in the real world. Most are good guys. A few are not. Fortunatly my boss does not care if I ever write a ticket. Or make an arrest. For the most part outside of the 7 exceptions to the misdemeanor rule if the crime was not committed in your presence your documenting and pushing paper to the prosecutor. I doubt I am living in a bubble. I think the frequency of police misuse of power is less than many people on there think.

 

[PaulJF]

I think the frequency of police misuse of power is less than many people on there think.

By your definition or mine?

 

[Duncan]

The earliest one I have seen is : 1856

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 396, 402 (1856).

After the federal Circuit Court for the District of Maryland found for the plaintiff Pottle in a civil suit for damages against the sheriff, South appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in reversing the lower court, found no cause of action under Maryland common law.(26) The Court held that a sheriff, as a public officer, was liable personally only for misfeasance or nonfeasance of ministerial acts, where the sheriff is bound to an individual for a fee or salary, but not for a breach of his public duty.(27) For failure to perform a public duty, where the plaintiff does not allege a special individual right or privilege which "has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act," a public officer is punishable only by indictment.(28) In brining the claim, the Court noted that Pottle apparently postulated that every breach or neglect of a public duty subjects an officer to a civil suit by any individual who, as a result, suffers damages,(29) which the Court found contrary to any recorded case in American or English law30)

The history of the law for centuries proves this to be the case. Actions against the sheriff for a breach of his ministerial duties in the execution of process are to be found in almost every book of reports. But no instance can be found where a civil action has been sustained against him for his default or misbehavior as conservator of the peace, by those who have suffered injury to their property or persons through the violence of mobs, riots, or insurrections.

The Failure of Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce the Law

This can also be found in Civil Liability in Criminal Justice THIRD edition

CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL TORT LAW page 31

Darrell L Ross author

 

[phylodog]

I guess she didn't get the memo

Arlington officer died trying to protect child, police say | Arlington | News from Fort ...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not to start crap, but the cops on here wonder why we have such a sour taste in our mouth when we deal with them.

Are you saying you have a "sour taste" in your mouth because the USSC has ruled that police have no duty to protect you?

I would be HARD PRESSED to find any police officer that does the job honorably (of which there are a great many) that take that ruling to heart.

 

[jsharmon7]

Are you saying you have a "sour taste" in your mouth because the USSC has ruled that police have no duty to protect you?

I would be HARD PRESSED to find any police officer that does the job honorably (of which there are a great many) that take that ruling to heart.

To me it's the difference between "required to" and "want to." I may not be required by law to protect someone, but I'm going to do it. I'm sure many on this website would step in to protect an innocent person if the chance arose, LEO or otherwise.