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
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.