Supreme Court Ruling??

[Timmy Jimmy]

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??

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Miggy]

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

[Rob72]

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.

[SixBravo]

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?

[Team American]

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.

[Jaxon]

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

[Timmy Jimmy]

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.

[kikr]

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.

[OD*]

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.''

[OD*]

The only other Supreme Court ruling I have come across is the previously mentioned Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

[Tubby45]

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.

[palmgopher]

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?

[4my son]

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.

[MNBurl]

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!

[paramedic70002]

Makes me laugh whenever I think of the promise of "police protection"