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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last
To: Nathan Zachary
IIRC, the courts had ruled on this (the same way) a number of years ago...

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!

Mark

51 posted on 06/28/2005 5:01:37 AM PDT by MarkL (It was a shocking cock-up. The mice were furious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
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.

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 ?

52 posted on 06/28/2005 5:08:29 AM PDT by NormalGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NormalGuy

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.


53 posted on 06/28/2005 5:32:31 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (“There is a law – a law of nature. Man is not the ruler.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

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

It's pretty obvious the Supreme Court has developed the same outlook on the Constitution.

54 posted on 06/28/2005 5:41:01 AM PDT by Gritty ("The moment you give up your principles your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker


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

Your right, however sometimes you
could use a little help.

Reginal Denny 1992 LA riot


55 posted on 06/28/2005 5:41:37 AM PDT by Major_Risktaker
[ 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.

The police's function is to "serve and protect" the LAW, not the people.

56 posted on 06/28/2005 5:41:50 AM PDT by MamaTexan (NEVER underestimate the ~power~ of righteous indignation!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Link to Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Interesting read.

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 "

57 posted on 06/28/2005 6:18:53 AM PDT by gatex (NRA, JPFO and Gun Owners of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"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.


58 posted on 06/28/2005 6:31:21 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tempestuous

"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.


59 posted on 06/28/2005 6:36:01 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

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


A violation of the 4th Amend.


60 posted on 06/28/2005 6:38:13 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sandy; Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Actually, I've only heard of "gun checks" at courthouses and such, not whole towns as a rule (maybe there were exceptions).


61 posted on 06/28/2005 6:39:26 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

time to start a movement to take the "Protect and Serve" from all the cop cars.


62 posted on 06/28/2005 6:40:16 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Get your opinion to your congressman...thotline dot com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

great minds think alike........

Yours was my first thought


63 posted on 06/28/2005 6:41:23 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Get your opinion to your congressman...thotline dot com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

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?


64 posted on 06/28/2005 6:44:55 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

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.


65 posted on 06/28/2005 6:47:11 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

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

That's to "protect" their jobs and to be self-"serving".


66 posted on 06/28/2005 6:54:05 AM PDT by politicalwit (USA...A Nation of Selective Law Enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Convicted felons can posses guns if they petition to have their rights restored. One of the biggest gun control laws, passed as a "common sense" measure, was denying gun rights to people convicted of domestic violence. Believe me it doesn't take much to get arrested for domestic violence, a misdemeanor. I'm not sure, but I believe if you are convicted of domestic violence you can never have your gun rights restored.

If you are saying murderers, rapist, armed robbers, etc. should be able to own and carry guns without review then I and definitely disagreeing with you. Someone disagreeing with you is not "flaming" you.
67 posted on 06/28/2005 6:54:27 AM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

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!


68 posted on 06/28/2005 6:55:17 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
No more - To Serve and Protect? This will cost millions when it's time to repaint all those car doors.

This lets a lot of air out of the anti-gunners primary argument. Hey ladies - getting raped? Just call the police and they will serve you. If there is a criminal in your home, just call the police, they'll serve you when they can.
69 posted on 06/28/2005 6:57:56 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
RE: SEATBELT TICKETS...A violation of the 4th Amend.

Apparently not.

70 posted on 06/28/2005 7:05:08 AM PDT by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: carumba

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



Well put.

The police are there to try to make sure the bad guy gets punished, when a citizen fails to protect himself.


71 posted on 06/28/2005 7:08:52 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

There is nothing new here. The court of appeals was in error. There has NEVER been a constitutional duty for police to protect individuals.


72 posted on 06/28/2005 7:21:37 AM PDT by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

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.


73 posted on 06/28/2005 9:08:34 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

You have a point, but then the question is salaries.


74 posted on 06/28/2005 9:20:16 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

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.


75 posted on 06/28/2005 9:49:11 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

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.


76 posted on 06/28/2005 1:03:00 PM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Moreover, if a criminal is threatening you with a gun and you go to pull your gun, chances are you will get shot."

Specious.

77 posted on 06/28/2005 1:07:00 PM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

"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."

Agreed.


78 posted on 06/28/2005 1:09:36 PM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SoIA-79
The police have apparently never had a Constitutional duty to protect anyone.

Frankly, my copy of the Constitution is completly silent on the topic of police protection.

79 posted on 06/28/2005 1:16:34 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Good point, the framers intended for us to be an armed society. In such a society any police force would be only secondary to the armed citizen in combating crime. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out like that tho.
80 posted on 06/28/2005 1:52:06 PM PDT by SoIA-79 ("The plans differ; the planners are all alike." – Bastiat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
It just makes me wonder about about gun-controllers when they say the police will protect you - are they liars or just stupid?

Who says they can't be both.
81 posted on 06/28/2005 1:55:44 PM PDT by SoIA-79 ("The plans differ; the planners are all alike." – Bastiat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon
"create the right of a person not to be stalked and killed by another person."

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.

82 posted on 06/28/2005 2:19:34 PM 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 43 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
The public wants their police officers to be mini versions of Ms. Cleo...


83 posted on 06/29/2005 1:33:19 PM PDT by Axenolith (Got Au? Ag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

What, then, is the duty of police officers, pray tell?

I guess traffic stops.


84 posted on 06/29/2005 1:39:37 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

If you use punctuation more people will read your verbiage, and some might even understand it.

It's virtually impossible to read your comment.


85 posted on 06/29/2005 1:41:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Good point.


86 posted on 06/29/2005 1:42:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
See the recent post in this forum concerning that simpleton from New Hampshire, Supreme Court Justice Souter.

It seems some local people, incensed at the idiotic and unconstitutional decision he and his henchmen have recently rendered, availed themselves of their constitutional right to peacefully petition the government by sending a letter to the local authorities urging them to condemn Souter's house and turn the property to another use.

There are now two police cruisers parked outside the Souter farmhouse "just in case".

So what kind of treatment is this? NOBODY has threatened any violence to Souter or his property, but the minions of the Court are out there to protect him from an as of yet inexistent threat.

Yet if somebody feels personally threatened and THEY call the police, this article tells it all.

In modern day America, all Americans are equal before the law, but judges, law enforcement personnel, lawyers, insurance lobbies, construction lobbies, intrusive left-wing journalists, atheists, homosexuals, illegal aliens, leftist politicians like Diane Feinstein (the anti-gun "gun moll")and pedophiles are apparently more equal than the rest of us.
87 posted on 06/29/2005 1:52:03 PM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

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.


88 posted on 06/29/2005 5:23:44 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

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."


89 posted on 06/30/2005 8:51:52 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
public caning should be implemented

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.

90 posted on 06/30/2005 10:27:52 AM PDT by Melas (Lives in state of disbelief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Melas

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.


91 posted on 06/30/2005 11:02:31 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

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?


92 posted on 06/30/2005 11:07:41 AM PDT by johnb838 (Adios, liberal mofos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

""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.


93 posted on 06/30/2005 11:08:36 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: happinesswithoutpeace
This is nothing new.

I think the first case stating this was in 1857.

94 posted on 06/30/2005 11:09:18 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Now that taglines are cool, I refuse to have one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


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