Skip to comments.Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (2005 SC case)
Posted on 01/09/2013 3:01:18 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. 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 ...
If on social media, spread this SCOTUS case from 2005.
Also, if you know an anti, have them Google this on their phone while standing there: "Castle Rock Gonzales NY Times" and watch their face as they pull this article up.
America is now a country with a Tyrant-by-Fraud
and no Law.
If the police don’t have a duty to protect us, then what is the point in having them?
It looks like the redirect does not work. This should:
This is not new to me, there have been at least two previous SCOTUS rulings upholding the fact that police have no duty to protect anyone, (and cannot be punished for failure to do so) even if they voluntarily promise to protect a person.
That’s among other reasons why we have the 2nd Amendment. We have a duty to protect ourselves. It is the aim of the present rogue government to deprive us of that right and duty as well.
Revenue enhancement and donut sales.
I believe the first ruling to this effect dates back to the 1850’s.
To provide revenue to the municipality of their jurisdiction.
Precisely....and why I posted it.
Please spread this on Facebook or Twitter as I am not on those.
Traffic tickets for citizens, but not illegal aliens.
Something else to throw in the face of the antis:
Slain student called 911, but no one came in time (48 minute response time=dead girl)
I get their point, that this could open up every city/county to every imaginable lawsuit possible if protection or services are not provided to a precieved level desired. BUT that aside, I think with the restraining order the LEOs/courts were put on notice and therefore are brought into the situation a level higher than your average Gladys Kravitz calling about the neighbor’s dog pooing on her lawn again. My 2 cents.
The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.
What could possibly take away from a leftist twit's Bizarro World argument?
This ruling is morally and legally wrong.
You are confusing law and justice.
Presently in the US we have law and Just Us.
I agree with this decision. As citizens, we do not and should not have a “constitutional right” to government services.
I haven’t read it yet, but this seem like a reaffirmance of DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), otherwise known as the “poor Joshua” case. Joshua was a child beaten to the point of brain damage by his father, even though the city’s child protective agency had sufficient notice to prevent it. The Supreme Court held that the city was under no affirmative obligation, under the Due Process Clause, to protect the child against an evil committed by a private actor.
The Supreme Court was right then and it’s right now.
I agree, but most people do not know this case exists! Show them and they are shaken.
I have a right to self-defense, and this right comes from God, not from government.
Which is why we need Right to Self Defense laws.
Of course, In my area we are trying to lynch George Zimmerman for capping Trayvon Martin when Martin assaulted him.
Gun Control is just population control. Everyone has a right to self defense
I am reading the comments here and asking myself if this is really the comments from a conservative forum.
A federal “constitutional” duty for citizens or office holders to perform in a certain manner for any issue to a certain standard of care sounds like a pandora’s box to me.
A state ruling in a suit of mandamus is what the rememdy is for willful non performance of a state duty. The ability of someone to always go to Federal Court and claim broad aspects of equal protection compel perfect protection and having the Feds be the final remedy in all cases is stupid IMHO.
The primary duty of the Police is to enforce the law.
Protection of individual life was rule to be secondary to this objective. The two objectives often come into conflict.
Select vegetation enslavement program.
You hit the nail on the head. Rights come from God, not the government.
Okay, that means we all must protect ourselves and we need our guns to do that in a lawless society the Satan now leads.
Duh! Read the constitution lately? People have a natural right to self defense!
Gives governments an excuse to spend money.
When everything hits the fan, and it may be closer than any of us think, remember the police are minutes away after you dial 9-1-1 and the criminal that is threatening you and yours is less than a second away. Any questions?
Interesting that this is a reverification of an old decision that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect as I grew up seeing the police cars stenciled “to protect, and to serve”.
I recently read an acknowlegement as an andecdote in another column here at FR that many police departments had removed that phrase from their patrol cars, and wondered why.
OK, I'll agree with that.
I'll expand, as well.
Your right to keep and bear arms comes from God, and is enumerated in the Constitution's Second Amendment. No one but the Good Lord Himself, can rescind that right.
That makes clear which side Satan is on.
The cops got sued into submission, they did not voluntarily admit the legal untruthfulness of the slogan.
This is tough for some people to swallow, but police, fire, and ambulance folks have no duty to act. That’s why everyone should have the ability, at thier option, to keep and bear arms, have a fire extinguisher, and have a first-aid kit. If we become so dependent for everything, we’ll wind up with nothing. Some want to confiscate all guns, which is similar to banning fire extinguishers and first aid kits, and depending on the state for all of these things.
Someone has to shoot the dogs.
"Officer, this man is going to shoot me."
"Yer on yer own, pal. I don't have to do nothing until he shoots. Then I can get him for discharging a weapon inside the city limits."
"OK, wise guy! Yer under arrest!"
Been that way for YEARS ...
They are REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AGENTS period
Admission that 911 is really the governments definition of Dial A Prayer.
“Hello, police department, “We Serve and Protect,” uh, wait, forget that motto. If this is an emergency and you need protection or feel your life is in danger, please hang up and call a friend. If you survive, tomorrow you need to go out an buy some guns and a lot of ammo.
For fender benders, press 1. Parking violations, press 2. Dead bodies, press 3. For other problems, press 0, where an operator will tell you the only choices are 1, 2, 3, and 0.
We do not handle loud parties or barking dogs any longer, so do not press 4 or 5 or we will charge you will phone harrassment. Goodbye!”
The breakdown of American society continues apace.
The rift between the gov’t and law abiding citizenry grows wider.
The security of the nation’s domestic and foreign policy has been compromised.
It’s just a matter of time ...
Then we shouldn’t have to pay for them, right?
Then we shouldn’t have to pay for them, right?
You are quite correct. When I served on a Grand Jury in San Francisco in the early 80’s it was made quite clear that the police are essentially agents of the District Attorney. Their duty is to the law. People have a false impression, probably due to media crime dramas, that the police have a primary duty to “Protect and Serve” the citizenry.
The impression is that the duty is to the citizen but it actually is to the enforcement of the law, however flawed that may be and when the average citizen realizes that it is usually a somewhat of a shock.
Right now the liberals are attempting to create a government duty to provide healthcare. Does this mean that people can sue the government when their healthcare is inadequate, as proven by the fact that they die?
If so, then how much of the national treasure must be expended to save any particular person's life? Is a trillion dollars too much? How about a billion?
Millions of people every year die of heart disease. Is the government responsible and must the government spend untold trillions to research and eliminate heart disease? Certainly if the government has a duty to provide healthcare then how can it justify failing to spend any amount at all to cure such a disease?
Similar reasoning applies to police departments. How many policemen must be hired for each person in the nation in order to satisfy the requirement if the police have a duty to protect everyone?
Police departments are very similar to fire departments. There is no guarantee that the firemen will arrive in time and be able to extinguish the blaze. If you want to be an American, then you need a fire extinguisher and a gun in your home.