Skip to comments.Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Posted on 06/28/2005 1:46:17 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police d not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If not a direct win for the R2KBA, it definitely is strength in that direction.
I agre and disagree. Everyone's first responsibility is to protect oneself. However, I believe when police are sworn it as officers, their oath requires them to PROTECT and serve. That's what is expected from the police when you call for assistance.
Without knowing the specifics of this particualr case, I don't know whether the police failed to uphold their oath, but in general that's what they're paid to do - protect and serve.
Restraining orders are granted by courts in order to give law enforcement personnel the ability to create the right of a person not to be stalked and killed by another person. Since our country is based on freedom, a would-be killer would be allowed to stalk his prey and the police would be left to have to wait until the murder actually takes place.
This is old news. The police have a public duty to protect the public, but have no duty to protect any individual. Its old law.
Thank you. You saved me some time. Only the idiot would assume that everyone obeys the law...
There was a restraining order in effect. That would be law enforcement. This is just proof that the justices drank their lunch every day for these past two weeks.
Protect as in protect society as a whole in an emergency such as a storm or earthquake, but not individually unless they happen to see it in progress.An example would be a swat team in a hostage situation. The crime has already been commited, now they need to end it but it is not their obligation to prevent it unless they knew it was going to happen. In the story above did the police know the guy would kill his kids, the answer is no.
With a small change of wording from Dept to Dept, the normal Oath of Office for a Police Officer goes something like this....
All officers must swear (or affirm) to the following statement:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States of America.
I further swear (or affirm) that I will enforce the ordinances of the (Your City Here) and the (State of), protect the life and property of its citizens, that I will diligently seek to detect crime and to apprehend the perpetrators or crime, that I will be ever mindful of the trust that has been placed in my by the officials and citizens of the (Town), and will make every effort to live up to that trust.
So help me God.
Yes, LEO's take an oath to protect life however it is ridiculous (and most officers will tell you so) to expect an officer to be at the scene of a crime prior to an escalation of violence or to arrive in time to actually protect. That is why there are investigative units of any Dept.
The vast majority of LEO's would not stand still and watch a person harmed or watch a crime be committed. To try and imply most would is ridiculous and flys in the face of facts.
The public wants their police officers to be mini versions of Ms. Cleo, to somehow look into their crystal ball and know a crime is about to be committed or that a person is about to be harmed. The responsibility to defends ones self lies with the person themselves.
Those that believe the police should be their within 10 seconds of a 911 call to save their rear ends have their heads up this same area as much as those who bash LEO's at every turn.
Police reality in Los Angeles: Avoid Prosecution.
BTW, last night, the Penn & Teller Showtime show, Bu11$hit had an episode on gun control, and the first 7 or 10 minutes were heavily anti-gun. However, the remaining 20 - 23 minutes were so seriously pro-gun ownership, that they even had Jackie Mason saying that anyone who supports gun control is a "f'n moron!" Gotta love ol' Jackie!
Do you have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support that hypothesis? When I was in Chicago's dense inner city I personally practiced non-violence. Twice my life was saved by good people practicing concealed carry who drew their weapon and convinced my attacker to stop. Historically, illegal aliens in Chicago's dense inner city have felt that they could not call the police for protection. Thus, a high percentage of them practiced conceal carry. The criminals knew this and thus illegal aliens are not targeted by the criminals.
But their is some "gun crime" among illegal aliens. It is mostly related to not being able to hold their Corona and escalating an argument with their cousin or best friend. It rarely endangers the rest of us... at least in Chicagoland.
If it is an anarchy issue, then are libertarian issues like freedom of speech restricted by the threat of anarchy ?
Modern cities and immigration issues pose a signficant need for further analysis and consideration. But, I was pointing out that a tradition of not brining weapons into a city (which has also been practiced before firearms from time immemorial) is also a part of the American culture.
Thus, severly restrictung or outlawing guns in cities is not necessarily anti-gun.
Moreover, if a criminal is threatening you with a gun and you go to pull your gun, chances are you will get shot. If you are in a relatively sparsely populated area, that should be your risk to take. But, if you are in a big city, the chances of an innocent bystander getting shot is also a lot higher. Thus, the fewer armed people, the fewer dead people - even if you are legitimately defending yourself. It is a population density issue and no more.
This has been a recognized tenet of the necessary moderation on weapons since the beginning of civilization.
It's pretty obvious the Supreme Court has developed the same outlook on the Constitution.
The police's function is to "serve and protect" the LAW, not the people.
Quote from case --- "Although the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (the original source of §1983), did not create a system by which police departments are generally held financially accountable for crimes that better policing might have prevented, the people of Colorado are free to craft such a system under state law. Cf. DeShaney, 489 U. S., at 203.15 "
"everytime i post on here that all adults should be allowed guns wtih no restrictions i get flamed so bad"
I think there should be no restrictions, either.
"Guns are becoming like radar detectors...it is legal to buy them, own them and carry them...but illegal to use them."
Definition of fascism.
Amazing how stupid the lefties are, the 1s who love to cry "fascism, fascists" at every turn.
"It's more important for them to be out there giving out tickets for drivers not wearing seatbelts."
A violation of the 4th Amend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.