Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; blackrobedtyrants; castlerock; donutwatch; govwatch; leo; ruling; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
All the more reason to exersize your 2nd amendment rights.
1 posted on 06/28/2005 1:46:18 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Then does this mean we don't have to pay the taxes that pay their salaries. We pay for the service of protection etc. If the police have no duty to protect us, then just exactly what should we expect them to do? I think these Judges have suddenly dropped 40 points of their IQ


2 posted on 06/28/2005 1:51:21 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

This is nothing new.

(Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).


3 posted on 06/28/2005 1:57:31 AM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60

No, you pay for law enforcement, not protection. It is every ones responsibility to protect themselves, their property and family.


4 posted on 06/28/2005 1:58:28 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marty60

I haven't a clue. You'd think that if you hire and pay them to provide a service, you should recieve that service.
I guess this will rebound thru the whole business world as well. City trash collectors; it has no end!


5 posted on 06/28/2005 1:58:49 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

Isn't a violation of a restraining order not breaking a law?


6 posted on 06/28/2005 2:01:19 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

I guess all the police will be removing the "To serve and protect" decals from their cars in the morning.


7 posted on 06/28/2005 2:05:00 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I guess all the police will be removing the "To serve and protect" decals from their cars in the morning.

Yep from now on it's "To Coffee and Doughnut"


8 posted on 06/28/2005 2:08:54 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK (secus acutulus exspiro ab Acheron bipes actio absol ab Acheron supplico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Sure it is, just like armed robbery. Are you gonna holler for police while some guy has a gun pointed at you while he takes your money or are you going to do something about it. Police enforce laws after the crime is committed. The cops you see patrolling banks are usually off duty cops being paid by the banks to protect them.
9 posted on 06/28/2005 2:10:30 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Don't you just love it!
And for years the government has been doing just about everything possible to chip away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is not only harder for we the people equip ourselves for our own defense, but we are now told that the police aren't responsible for defending us either.


10 posted on 06/28/2005 2:19:09 AM PDT by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

I am just surprised that there were two dissents in that case, even though both predictably came from the left side of the Court. Law enforcement agencies in the United States have never had an obligation to protect any individual.


11 posted on 06/28/2005 2:19:19 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
The police have apparently never had a Constitutional duty to protect anyone.

All they really have to do is show up and take good notes.
12 posted on 06/28/2005 2:27:07 AM PDT by SoIA-79 ("The plans differ; the planners are all alike." – Bastiat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep

What kind of nanny state do you want, one like UK where you do not have a right to self defense? The cops are not OBLIGATED to defend you, that is your responsibility.


13 posted on 06/28/2005 2:27:35 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

The police are there to preserve order and investigate crime, pretty much in that order. Protection is, and always has been, the individual's responsibility. The very existence of a restraining order is proof of that. If the cops had the job of protecting each of us, no one would need a restraining order.


14 posted on 06/28/2005 2:33:44 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

I don't want any kind of nanny state and I completely agree that the police should not be under any obligation to protect you. I was just trying to point out that while rulings like this are made, rightfully so, that there are still some halfwits out there who want to place more and more restrictions on our 2A rights. It's ironic because one of the arguements these gun grabbers make is that the police will be there to protect you if you need them.


15 posted on 06/28/2005 2:33:48 AM PDT by frankiep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abram; Alexander Rubin; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

it seems to me the citizens of every city now have great grounds for a class action lawsuit for false advertising against the police forces of every city that have cop cars painted with to serve and protect on the side and great defenses to use in court if you get arrested for illegal possession of a hand gun in Chicago la or new york or any other stalinist dictatorship of a city that outlaws all firearms possession

16 posted on 06/28/2005 2:33:48 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
so in light of this ruling do you now agree with me that even convicted felons should be allowed to conceal carry to protect their life and family from people that the police dont have to protect you from you cant have it both ways you cant say the police have no obligation to protect you then say if you area convicted felon or a gang banger or drug dealer you shouldn't be allow ed to own the only means to protect yourself everytime i post on here that all adults should be allowed guns wtih no restrictions i get flamed so bad i have third degree burns
17 posted on 06/28/2005 2:38:14 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Travis McGee

ping


18 posted on 06/28/2005 2:39:35 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

I do not know why you posted that to me, you never heard me make that kind of statement.


19 posted on 06/28/2005 2:44:49 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
This ruling affirms a tradition going back to the 19th century... the duty of the police is to protect society, not particular individuals. Self-defense therefore is an obligation that must be exercised by the concerned individual seeking protecting from danger.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
20 posted on 06/28/2005 2:47:25 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
AMEN! If the cops do not have to respond, then we must have firearms. This argument should destroy gun control!

If the cops pretend to work, then we should pretend to pay them.

21 posted on 06/28/2005 2:48:29 AM PDT by A.B.Normal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Police motto: Defend and Protect. Police reality: get a good case to the prosecution.


22 posted on 06/28/2005 2:52:07 AM PDT by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

That's why I said it's all the more reason to excercise your 2nd amendment rights. Now the court strengthened the argument.
YOUR life is in YOUR hands, you have a right to protect it.


23 posted on 06/28/2005 3:16:05 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Or, as someone from another site says, "a gun in your hand is better than 2 cops on the phone!"


24 posted on 06/28/2005 3:19:44 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marty60

I don't want them to protect me, giving them that role allows them to control me.


25 posted on 06/28/2005 3:25:09 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (LET ME DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, ALEX KOZINSKI FOR SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
In a major metropolitan area the on duty cop to citizen ratio is one cop to a few thousand citizens at best. Tough job to accomplish if the SC ruled otherwise.

Of course, the 2nd amendment exists, in part, to assist me in facilitating my own protection.

26 posted on 06/28/2005 3:39:10 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

But the law enforcers have always had the option of whether or not to enforce the law. If a law is on the books, then it should be enforced--equally for everyone. If it can't be enforced or enforced equally--or won't be--then the law should be voided and dropped from the books.


27 posted on 06/28/2005 3:42:53 AM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Washington State--Land of Court-approved Voting Fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

See my tagline.

The worst thing we ever did was to start "professional" police forces. They have turned into the enforcement arm of our leftist, anti-American courts and become a plague on the populace.

A citizens militia would be cheaper, more effective, and less likely to pander to idiotic legal decisions by renegade judges.


28 posted on 06/28/2005 3:49:14 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carumba

That's odd... I felt like I was protecting and serving on Sunday night when I caught the guy trying to break in to a family's home. The family was very appreciative as well.

As for the 2nd Amendment - after speaking with that very same homeowner, I talked him into applying for his gun permit and attending the various gun safety classes. Both he and his wife expressed an interest.


29 posted on 06/28/2005 3:50:30 AM PDT by islander-11 (Save Nantucket - Vote Republican!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
any other stalinist dictatorship of a city that outlaws all

Um, didn't Wyatt Earp outlaw gun possession in tombstone too?

It is an acceptable tenet for a very long time, in the most gun-rich aspects of American culture, you have to "leave your guns at the city-line". Firearms in high-density situations are a much different story from even outside the city line. It isn't a libertarian issue, it is an anarchy issue.

30 posted on 06/28/2005 3:53:48 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (“There is a law – a law of nature. Man is not the ruler.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

"No, you pay for law enforcement, not protection. It is every ones responsibility to protect themselves, their property and family."

- Good point...but what happens when 'gun control' unsurpes our ability to to do so? Guns are becoming like radar detectors...it is legal to buy them, own them and carry them...but illegal to use them...even in cases of self defense due to the courts humungous gray area of to what extent a person can do to protect themselves 'excessive use of force' baloney.


31 posted on 06/28/2005 4:07:46 AM PDT by Tempestuous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

People must be capable of self-defense and that's why we need the guns more than the cops do. Cops need little notebooks and that yellow chalk to draw the outline of the body on the ground.


32 posted on 06/28/2005 4:10:12 AM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

33 posted on 06/28/2005 4:11:36 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

34 posted on 06/28/2005 4:11:47 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

35 posted on 06/28/2005 4:12:42 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

Oh...oh...I triple posted by mistake. Sorry!


36 posted on 06/28/2005 4:13:35 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

It's more important for them to be out there giving out tickets for drivers not wearing seatbelts.


37 posted on 06/28/2005 4:14:32 AM PDT by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
It is an acceptable tenet for a very long time, in the most gun-rich aspects of American culture, you have to "leave your guns at the city-line".

There's nothing acceptable about it. Only an idiot would leave his guns at the city line.

38 posted on 06/28/2005 4:16:24 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

If the SC is going to come down with rulings like this, then it has to (or, more accurately, a reasonable SC would) allow people the right to self defense. In a roundabout way, this ruling is a pro-2A ruling


39 posted on 06/28/2005 4:20:38 AM PDT by white trash redneck (Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marty60
If the police have no duty to protect us, then just exactly what should we expect them to do?

I thought police took an oath "to protect and serve"?

40 posted on 06/28/2005 4:26:55 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

If not a direct win for the R2KBA, it definitely is strength in that direction.


41 posted on 06/28/2005 4:28:33 AM PDT by Bear_Slayer (DOC - 81mm Mortars, Wpns Co. 2/3 KMCAS 86-89)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
No, you pay for law enforcement, not protection. It is every ones responsibility to protect themselves, their property and family.

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.

42 posted on 06/28/2005 4:30:55 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
If the cops had the job of protecting each of us, no one would need a restraining order.

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.

43 posted on 06/28/2005 4:36:01 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

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.


44 posted on 06/28/2005 4:36:52 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

Thank you. You saved me some time. Only the idiot would assume that everyone obeys the law...


45 posted on 06/28/2005 4:39:21 AM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

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.


46 posted on 06/28/2005 4:40:08 AM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
This from a Court who says the police aren't obligated to enforce restraining orders going along with the decision from the same Court who gave the State and locals as well as the Feds the right to take our land without a true definition of Just Compensation. This is totally out of control.
47 posted on 06/28/2005 4:40:47 AM PDT by Paige ("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

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.


48 posted on 06/28/2005 4:45:39 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

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.


49 posted on 06/28/2005 4:51:15 AM PDT by Brytani ("Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work - Edison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: carumba
Police reality: get a good case to the prosecution.

Police reality in Los Angeles: Avoid Prosecution.

50 posted on 06/28/2005 4:53:56 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Durka Durka Durka. Muhammed Jihad Durka.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson