GUN The police have no responsibility to protect you.

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by D-FENS, Mar 21, 2005.

  1. D-FENS

    D-FENS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Messages:
    5,197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can anyone provide me with a link, or just the name of the case, in which the supreme court ruled that it is not the police's responsibility to protect you?
     
  2. mvizos

    mvizos New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NoVA
  3. D-FENS

    D-FENS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Messages:
    5,197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tried it, couldn't find it.
     
  4. htex1004

    htex1004 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Taking it a little out of context but this is what you're refering to...

    it's more of police aren't responsible for their failure to protect... as in you can sue them for something happening to you.


    "Courts Have Held that Police
    Have No Obligation to Protect

    Courts have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.) So, Maryland law enforcement can release violent people back into society (see Pinder vs. Johnson for another case of gross failure of law enforcement that resulted in the deaths of three children) and Maryland officials have no responsibility for that negligence.



    Moreover, other jurisdictions have held similarly:
    ". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

    Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers."

    "Prof. Leddy, formerly a N.Y. officer, cites personal experience: The ability of the state to protect us from personal violence is limited by resources and personnel shortages [in addition to which] the state is usually unable to know that we need protection until it is too late. By the time that the police can be notified and then arrive at the scene the violent criminal has ample opportunity to do serious harm. I once waited 20 minutes for the New York City Police to respond to an "officer needs assistance" call which has their highest priority. On the other hand, a gun provides immediate protection. Even where the police are prompt and efficient, the gun is speedier.

    Reference: Silver and Kates, "Handgun Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society" in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS at 144-7. "
     
  5. oakie

    oakie my ninja.

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    26,169
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    SoDo
    so much for "protect and serve"

    police should be retitled "tax agents"... as taxin people for speeding seems to be their only concern, at least up here.
     
  6. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    We cannot respond fast enough to save you if you are being attacked at that moment. That's why you will find most LEOs are firmly behind citizens carrying concealed and defending themselves.
     
  7. copperhead035

    copperhead035 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    Police orginaziations in Ohio surely aren't. They got the governer to block out CCW law from passing for several years. I'm not totally sure what changed his mind, but we finally got it, but with such severe restrictions that it's hardly worth the effort to get it.

    In Ohio, to legally shoot someone in your own home, you have to prove that you had no way out of the house, and that the intruder was threatening your life. I believe that what you shoot the person with also makes a difference. For example, I would only load my 12 guage with an 18.5 inch barrel and pistol grip with "less lethal" ammo, such as bean bag rounds or rocksalt, to try and prevent a court from trying to show that I was using excessive force or that I simply had the motivation to kill someone.

    There was a person here a year or so ago that shot an intruder that was in their garage with a shotgun, and killed the intruder. The homeowner was put in jail over it, since the intruder was not threatening his life. If the homeowner would have shot the intruder with a bean bag round, he would have been fine since he never had the intention of killing the person.
     
  8. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    The unions and organizations are not the rank and file. Same goes for the Police Chiefs/Commissioners. That's what drove me nuts. The union would ask for opinions from their members then do a complete 180 on their stance.
     
  9. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Organizations is the keyword there. Most cops recognize the ridiculousness of prohibiting people with clean records from protecting themselves.

    Chiefs are playing political games to keep their jobs and any unions that lobby for bans are probably trying to get in good with the chiefs. How a union like that wouldn't get voted out is beyond me.

    i'd be careful with those beanbag rounds. You're just as likely to get the "Why did you use a gun if you didn't feel the threat was dangerous enough to kill?" attack.
     
  10. copperhead035

    copperhead035 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    And I would say "My intention was never to kill anyone. I just wanted to end the threat quickly without any kind of loss of life."

    Without killing anyone, and using a round designed to not kill, I can't be put on the stand for murder or attempted murder. There would be no case against me for protecting myself and my property, where if I used buckshot and killed the person, I would probably be sent up for aggravated murder, or if the guy lived, attempted murder. That's BS.
     
  11. Mexican_Pirate

    Mexican_Pirate New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, it is. If some guy breaks into your house with a 12-gauge and you shoot them and kill them, obviously, you weren't going out of your way to kill them.
     
  12. Michael Westen

    Michael Westen OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Miami
    plenty of law enforcement in ohio is actually against concealed carry, they say its yet another threat to them on the job. Not all, and probably not the majority feel this way
     
  13. Mexican_Pirate

    Mexican_Pirate New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most criminals that attack police officers are illegally carrying concealed weapons anyways. That doesn't make sense.
     
  14. Michael Westen

    Michael Westen OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Miami
    I understand that, but not everything in law enforcement, and government makes sense... the state of OHIO is trying to balance their budget, and they could save a few million dollars by not issuing front AND rear license plates..... but they won't get rid of the front plates because the state troopers are against it, they say it helps them capture criminals... when reality is its the only target for their laser/LIDAR guns which is their weapon of choice for catching speeders.

    lots of people think guns are bad, and most of those people dont have the experience/responsibility to make such generalizations.
     
  15. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    No, not the majority. The majority who are behind civilian CCW never get air time or publicity.
     
  16. hitnrun99

    hitnrun99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen to that. :wtc:
     
  17. Jefferson Darcy

    Jefferson Darcy Ol' shit chest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    0
    its teh job of the police to "serve and protect" society as a whole, not individuals. thats why its up to people to defend themselves.

    but really the job of LAW ENFORCEMENT is to enforce the law, and thats it.
     
  18. Mexican_Pirate

    Mexican_Pirate New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    And they can enforce the law by protecting people.
     
  19. RealFastV6

    RealFastV6 OMFGh4x0rzZ!!111

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Connecticut
    The two may be similar, but they're certainly not the same.
     
  20. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    This is an argument from the anti gun crowd. "It's the job of the police to protect us, not ourselves"
    Unfortunately in the real world, shit happens in a matter of seconds and it's just not possible for police to respond and teleport to your house or whereever to save the day. Average times are 8 minutes and in big cities with traffic it can be an hour. Fact of life. We would rather you have the means to protect yourself until we can arrive instead of arriving too late and having to put what's left of you in a bodybag.
     

Share This Page