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
click here to read article
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.
Actually, I've only heard of "gun checks" at courthouses and such, not whole towns as a rule (maybe there were exceptions).
time to start a movement to take the "Protect and Serve" from all the cop cars.
great minds think alike........
Yours was my first thought
No surprise. This has been established for decades, at least.
It just makes me wonder about about gun-controllers when they say the police will protect you - are they liars or just stupid?
Nope. Felons have forfeited the trust and regard of their fellow citizens. Until they jump through the appropriate hoops to get it back, they shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Serving their time is NOT enough.
" I thought police took an oath "to protect and serve"?"
That's to "protect" their jobs and to be self-"serving".
Stupid. Or at least ignorant.
Stupid cuz they actually believe - HOPE - in their little hearts that police will even arrive in time to do anything. Stupid cuz they don't seem to understand the laws of physics. If you ain't there, you can't do anything!
Police motto: Defend and Protect. Police reality: get a good case to the prosecution.
There is nothing new here. The court of appeals was in error. There has NEVER been a constitutional duty for police to protect individuals.
Being molested - pulled over - just for not having 1 on (itself ridiculous cuz not wearing this or that safety device is not affecting any1 else) is a violation of the 4th.
You have a point, but then the question is salaries.
Initially, I agree with this one. However, in the places where the RTKBA has been limited in any way, then their duty should be to protect the citizens. When you legislate away the citizen's ability to protect themselves, then you (gov't.) must take on that responsibility.
I look forward to reading the Freeper Feedback on this one.
East, as I recall, the purpose of the restraining order was because he was repeatedly threatening to kill the children's mother. I don't think it's much of a stretch. Besides which, the restraining order should have kept him from taking the children in the first place.
"Nope. Felons have forfeited the trust and regard of their fellow citizens. Until they jump through the appropriate hoops to get it back, they shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Serving their time is NOT enough."
Frankly, my copy of the Constitution is completly silent on the topic of police protection.
Perhaps you misspoke but such a right is pretty well established as early as the Declaration in US law and no court created it. The Creator did.
The public wants their police officers to be mini versions of Ms. Cleo...
What, then, is the duty of police officers, pray tell?
I guess traffic stops.
If you use punctuation more people will read your verbiage, and some might even understand it.
It's virtually impossible to read your comment.
Yup, read it. And after reading all the comments on this thread, it is clear that police cannot possibly protect everyone from criminals. In this case, since the murderer had a restrainng order against him which he repeatedly violated, and threatened violence, it seems reasonable to think the cops could have done something.
The cops cars around Souter's house is disgusting example of "them" and "us" different treatments.
One reason the cops can't protect people is the (I'm shouting now) EFFING COURTS AND THE ACLU ARE SCREWING US EVERY WHICH WAY AND EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. Criminals' have more rights than the victims they plunder, torment and kill. The death penalty needs to be brought back, public caning should be implemented, and the crime rate would plummet.
And, concealed and open carry in every state.
one of my favourite "protect and serve" jokes...
so there was the gentleman who called in a robbery in progress to 911, and was told that since there wasn't a car in the area, to get a good description of the perp and give it to the cop when he got there. a minute later the man called 911 back and said "nevermind, i just shot the bastard"
well, within five minutes there were a dozen city, county and state police cars at the home, who managed to catch the burglar red handed. the cop in charge said "i thought you said you shot him?"
the old man retorted, "i thought you didn't have a car in the area"
seems like typical cop response to a problem. "get me a description and we'll look later."
Not in this country. If that's your style, there are plenty of countries in Asia and the Indian sub-continent that would be more to your liking.
Historically public canings have been very useful at preventing repeat criminals.
I was on grand jury duty for about 3 months a couple of years ago in my rural, red county-in-a-blue state. At the end of the entire session, the soon to be retiring head D.A. for the county talked to us personally. I was the last one to leave (as usual) and had a conversation with him. I expressed my appreciation for being able to serve on the grand jury, that I had learned a tremendous amount, not the least of which the was seeing first hand the dedication of the LEOs and prosecuting attorneys to the thankless task they perform. I also noted the repeat criminals - in fact, the LEOs called them "clients" - know them all by name, habits, and so on. I also opined that public caning a la Singapore was likely the only thing that would lower the crime rate and get the repeat offenders to clean up their acts.
He totally agreed - after looking around to make sure no one else was in the room. But added, the public would never go for it. Sensitive flowers, the public. They don't see the underbelly of what keeps their streets relatively free of the mayhem that would sweep over them but for the LEOs and justice dept, as poorly performing as it is.
Look at it this way - for a repeat lowlife offender, what would be more humane - constant revolving door of the "system", court appearances, public defenders, court ordered testing, etc etc etc, some jail time, then out, commiting more theft/robbery/assault/meth lab production/then arrest, then the cycle all over again, OR - one simple public beating, say 15 or 20 strokes by a rattan cane, and then back to private life.
It would take but one afternoon for everyone concerned, give the offender something to think about for a very long time, and criminal wannabees would also have much food for thought.
It really is the only way to go.
Save a tremendous amount of money and a large number - probably the vast majority - of repeat offenders will clean up their acts. Jail time steals years of their lives, they hang out with other losers and become worse, it doesn't do anyone any good at all, and costs US a s**tload of money. Money for nothing.
Public pain and public shame.
I think the police WILL protect you if they can, but if they can't you certainly can't SUE THEM. I suppose I can't come down too hard on them for this ruling. That's ok, there are plenty of others out there from the last few weeks to blast them on.
When oh when will congress rediscover it has the power, and the duty to overrule the court when it gets out of line?
""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"?""
They do they just never said who and what they protect and serve.
I think the first case stating this was in 1857.
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.