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

Skip to comments.

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
Public Rights ^ | 2005 | compiled by Neal Seaman

Posted on 02/26/2008 3:14:25 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; brittanyzimmerman; dial911anddie; police; rkba; ussc
The website (PublicRights.org) is no longer updated, but this page is still listed there. I thought it might be a handy reference.
1 posted on 02/26/2008 3:14:29 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

It’s true.

The police cannot protect every citizen. and it’s not their job, anyway. The police’s job is retribution. That’s all.

They find the bad guy and get him before he hurts someone else.

We’re each responsible for our own safety.

Sorry.


2 posted on 02/26/2008 3:19:28 AM PST by Santiago de la Vega (El hijo del Zorro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santiago de la Vega

How many times and how many ways can this be stated. In a free nation you have personal responsibility. The government is not the answer to all your problems.
The job of the police is to introduce the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. The outcome of that introduction is not within their control. The responsibility for your individual safety, begins and ends with you. Second Amendment anyone?


3 posted on 02/26/2008 3:26:02 AM PST by Steamburg (Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Remember, when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.


4 posted on 02/26/2008 3:29:38 AM PST by NurdlyPeon (New tag line in progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

And we have the obligation to protect ourselves and our families. Therefore any attempt by a fascist government to take away this right must be resisted.


5 posted on 02/26/2008 3:30:58 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (over my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santiago de la Vega
With all these court cases establishing the FACT that the individual is on his or her own despite an expensive police force, it only seems logical that the 2nd Amendment should be greatly EXPANDED to enumerate the right to self-protection!
6 posted on 02/26/2008 3:34:56 AM PST by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
Great. Let's leave the borders open.


7 posted on 02/26/2008 3:38:34 AM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
But yet, the gun-grabbers argue that no one needs to own a firearm since the police will always be there to protect you. If you do shoot an intruder in your home, or fire in self-defense elsewhere, they want YOU prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since you did no wait for the cops to respond. Idiots, all of them.
8 posted on 02/26/2008 3:56:25 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

The reason every citizen concerned about protecting themselves and their family should be allowed to own and carry firearms. The police are no longer required to do their job (ok - so it is no longer their job - so what is? Writing tickets? OOoooo I feel so much safer now...).

What ever happend to that motto I still see on many police cars? You know - the one that says:

“To protect, and to serve”.

What does that mean? To protect their own butts, and to serve each other donuts?


9 posted on 02/26/2008 4:58:20 AM PST by TheBattman (LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

Yep, they have to have time either to (1) gulp down their donuts and coffee, (2) start up the engine and crawl out from behind the bushes or roadsigns where they’ve been hiding to find folks going three miles over the speed limit (or, in Maryland, running the windshield wipers without turning on the lights — yes, a moving offense), or (3) profiling white motorists for any one of a million minor infractions so that they (the cops) don’t have to go down to the “hood’s” open air drug markets and fight real crime.

I’m sorry. I know there are a lot of great cops. But, by and large, that industry has become a repository for a bunch of power-hungry thugs who like to lord it over cowed perpetrators of the most minor of misdemeanors.


10 posted on 02/26/2008 5:13:41 AM PST by lapster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lapster
1. Cops are the legal gangs in many locales.

2. Cops are there to do the paperwork and to try and find the perp until distracted by something else.

3. Cops have a closure rate of about 40% on murders.

4. It is better to have a gun in hand than a cop on the phone.

5. If you are an attractive woman - especially blond - you get to meet many cops in your life.

11 posted on 02/26/2008 5:18:52 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

I’m ready, abled, and licensed to protect whatever I feel needs protecting.


12 posted on 02/26/2008 5:21:14 AM PST by G Larry (HILLARY CARE = DYING IN LINE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Santiago de la Vega
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim

The Police have, what is known as, indemnification.

13 posted on 02/26/2008 5:30:28 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Liscensed ??? Im morally obligated...


14 posted on 02/26/2008 5:35:57 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Vote for Principle to inspire Conservatives to service...LiveFreeOrDie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Even in the face of this information, the leftist DhimmiRats and Libs are still clamoring to eliminate my Second Amendment rights. I don’t think so...

It’s in the tagline.

Lock and Load.


15 posted on 02/26/2008 5:43:25 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

It’s already in there. The second doesn’t need any tweaks. It’s clear on its face.

Lock and Load.


16 posted on 02/26/2008 5:44:53 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
Keep your safety in your own hands.


17 posted on 02/26/2008 5:46:59 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Support castle doctrine laws in every state. That’s a good place to start.
Support conservative candidates to improve the likelihood of approving constructionist judges to the Federal bench.

All is not lost. But, it is time that we make our voices heard, and take action to ensure this grand experiment for our children and generations yet to come.


18 posted on 02/26/2008 5:48:46 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

I always get a chuckle out of the bumpersticker: “Troopers are your best protection.” Yeah, sure.


19 posted on 02/26/2008 5:53:40 AM PST by NewHampshireDuo (Earth - Taking care of itself since 4.6 billion BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

btt


20 posted on 02/26/2008 5:55:39 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

It is well established that the police do not owe a duty to protect any individual citizen. Their duty is to the community at large to maintain order and bring to justice those who break the law. That’s pretty much it when it comes to the duties of a law enforcement agency.


21 posted on 02/26/2008 6:19:43 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

Actually, I’ve been advocating that all along. We could do away with most of our police forces if people would just take their personal safety a LOT more seriously.


22 posted on 02/26/2008 6:34:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
The 9-11 hijackers were only able to do what they did because GOVERNMENT disarmed the very people that could have fought back.

Further, how many of the 19 hijackers came across the border illegally? From what I've read, they came in on legal visa's.

23 posted on 02/26/2008 6:37:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

This situation is also why we often hear Police Chiefs and Police Union bosses coming out in favor of banning guns. Guns in other people’s hands do make cops working conditions more dangerous and though guns offer citizens protection and defense, those things are not legally or institutionally a mandate for the police. Police chiefs and police organizations don’t get judged , except in the most cursory way, on crime prevention, but on post crime performance, Unions are interested only in their members, the public is left to fend, unarmed for itself.


24 posted on 02/26/2008 7:13:23 AM PST by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
So basically, the police won't protect us, but then the liberals ban guns and deny law-abiding citizens (including college students!) the right to defend themselves?

No wonder there are shootings on college campuses.

25 posted on 02/26/2008 7:39:49 AM PST by rabscuttle385 (Admin Moderator for President. The lesser of two evils is still evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Katrina made that clear.

LEOS primary duty is now revenue generation, bad backs, disability, early retirement, second careers.


26 posted on 02/26/2008 8:00:17 AM PST by NoLibZone (If the Clinton years were so great for the libs why is Obama doing so well?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Police and district attorneys have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect. This is called The Public Duty Doctrine.

This doctrine cannot be found in any textbook, either in high schools or college classes. When our children reach adulthood, they haven’t a clue about this.

Therefore, here is the problem: Police and district attorneys have no legal duty to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect.


27 posted on 06/16/2010 2:32:23 PM PDT by Edelweisse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Mark


28 posted on 03/05/2011 7:48:16 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

The U.S. Supreme Court has written: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

No duty to protect means there is no corresponding obligation of allegience. No allegiance to their million+ laws, statutes and regulations.

A State is a body politic — political society. A body politic is the citizens.

Connect the dots:
There is no duty to protect > there is no obligation of allegiance > there are no citizens > there is no body politic — no political society > there is no State.

Factually what is a State? What is the State of Arizona? The State of Arizona is an act of congress — words on paper. A legal fiction. Prior to February 14, 1912, the State of Arizona didn’t exist.

What is government? Men and women providing services by compulsion/violence.

Politicians don’t represent people. Pay the tax or go to jail isn’t representation. It’s ownership, or at least enslavement.


29 posted on 03/29/2013 3:25:28 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The enemy is well within the gates and have taken over our Congress, media, Hollywood, banking and Wall Street.

ReDiscover911(dot)com to get the entire picture in mind.


30 posted on 08/20/2013 1:37:25 PM PDT by whole2th (ReDiscover911.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

ping


31 posted on 08/14/2014 6:08:18 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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