Supreme Court Ruling??

Supreme Court Ruling??

This is a discussion on Supreme Court Ruling?? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have seen a number of times people posting that the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have an obligation to protect ...

Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Supreme Court Ruling??

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759

    Supreme Court Ruling??

    I have seen a number of times people posting that the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have an obligation to protect the citizen. Can anyone tell me what case that is??
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."


  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    I think there are 20 specific cases between SCOTUS and other courts. Here is one article you can use as reference to find all decissions

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Rob72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,468
    I would note that while some grossly negligent actions have been "protected" by these rulings, in a very real sense, it was necessary to retain a functional police force.

    Two little A-Holes call in "shots fired"(fakies), on opposite sides of a patrol area, and a real "man-down" call gets a delayed response....... the victim's family could (would) take essential funds from the department in a civil suit.

    The problem is not so much the rulings, but the amount of disinformation put out by the media, and LE itself, about the responsibility of the individual for self-protection.

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    While that IS an excellent article, it is in some need of an update. It's 14 years old now. Anyone have anything more recent?
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Team American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,826
    The last one I'm familiar with was about a year ago, I think the case was "Gonzales v Castle Rock" (not 100% sure on the name), and it took place here in Colorado.

    Basically a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex-husband...he broke into her house, kidnapped their 3 young daughters, shot and killed all 3, then drove to the Castle Rock police dept and opened fire, where he was quickly killed. The police found the 3 little girls in the truck.

    The mother sued the Castle Rock p.d. for not protecting her (because of the restraining order), and it went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court...I believe the ruling was unanimous against her, and stated again that the Police don't have a responsibility to protect anyone.
    "I surrounded 'em"- Alvin York

    "They're ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six"- Jeff Cooper

  6. #6
    Member Array Jaxon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    PRM
    Posts
    31
    They can't "protect" anyone. They enforce the laws, and in doing so maintain some semblance of a civlized society.

    For the most part, the police are re-active and not pro-active. Its just the way it is.

    RJ
    Sometimes there's Justice
    Sometimes there's Just Us

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array Timmy Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by Team American View Post
    The last one I'm familiar with was about a year ago, I think the case was "Gonzales v Castle Rock" (not 100% sure on the name), and it took place here in Colorado.

    You got the case right and it is a sad one.
    Timmy Jimmy

    If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.

    "Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."

  8. #8
    Member Array kikr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jacksonville, Fl
    Posts
    282
    I dont remeber the actual case, but I do know that the original began in NYC back in the early 70's when 2 woman attempted to sue NYPD because they felt the police did not properly respond to a 911 call.
    We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
    George Orwell

  9. #9
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy View Post
    I have seen a number of times people posting that the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments do not have an obligation to protect the citizen. Can anyone tell me what case that is??
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``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.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  10. #10
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    11,567
    The only other Supreme Court ruling I have come across is the previously mentioned Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
    Last edited by OD*; August 18th, 2006 at 08:37 AM. Reason: duh, forgot a word
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Warren v DC is the one I cite the most. Tells it in plain English. Everytime it is challenged, it is upheld. Public servant does not equal private bodyguard.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array palmgopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    722
    I love how this is upheld everytime but the sheeple STILL keep up with the police will protect you. They are some thick skulled folks arent they?

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    As mentioned before, there are a number of cases. I chose Warren V. for my sig line, It pretty much says it all.

    The only time you (individual citizen) are guaranteed protection is when a "special relationship" exist between yourself and a govt agency. That has been defined as "when a person is held against their will, the holding agency is responsible for that persons safety."

    A restraining order holds no one responsible for you. Only if you are in jail, or similar circumstance is any agency responsible for YOU. A restraining order just helps the lawyers at trial put an extra charge on the BG. If someone wants to hurt you, the Police are not going to stop it. They can't, no one can, except you.
    Here's a case.
    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6

    We as citizens must be ready to protect ourselves and rely on no one to do it for us.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array MNBurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Miggy View Post
    I think there are 20 specific cases between SCOTUS and other courts. Here is one article you can use as reference to find all decissions

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html
    Very good link. I will use it over and over again. Straight to the point!
    MNBurl

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,155
    Makes me laugh whenever I think of the promise of "police protection"
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Saf founder, attorney at supreme court monday for landmark ruling
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 06:03 PM
  2. DC City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 05:40 PM
  3. Supreme Court Gun Ruling Spawns Challenges From Felons
    By Emahevul in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 02:42 PM
  4. DC to Vote on Gun Bill in Response to Supreme Court Ruling
    By deadeye72 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: July 18th, 2008, 05:53 PM

Search tags for this page

supreme court decision warren v. district of columbia 444 a.2d. 1, d.c. ct. of ap. 1981

,

supreme court ruling july 2005 police protection

Click on a term to search for related topics.