Police are not required to protect you.....
This is a discussion on Police are not required to protect you..... within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I took this from a thread in another subforum, here. It's an issue that I'm interested in, and am looking for something to back it ...
April 13th, 2009 03:09 PM
Police are not required to protect you.....
I took this from a thread in another subforum, here. It's an issue that I'm interested in, and am looking for something to back it up.
You wouldn't happen to have a copy of that letter, would you? I live in TX, not AZ, but my attorney boss claims this isn't true.
Originally Posted by DPAZ
Many people on this forum have said that the police are not required to protect you, but I've never seen any proof (if there is such a thing). In the case that is often cited (can't remember the style, right now), my boss says is being misinterpreted.
I'm hoping to get a bit of discussion going, and I would love to show my boss that he's wrong. Don't know if I can or not.
"I pledge allegiance to the war banner of the united states of Totalitaria. And to the Republic, which no longer stands, several bankers, who are now god, indivisible, with Bernanke bucks and credit for all."
April 13th, 2009 03:15 PM
That isn't just an AZ thing. I believe SCOTUS ruled that the POPO have no duty or obligation to protect an individual, they are there to protect society as a whole. Try looking on the SCOTUS website
"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals
." - Sir Winston Churchill
April 13th, 2009 03:29 PM
The Supreme Court rules, “a police department is not required to provide personal protection, only society.” (Court: No right to police protection: United Press International, June 27, 2005) “In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!” Taken from Taking on Gun Control “Do you have a right to police protection?” retrieved September 13 2005 from Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection? .
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Other examples taken from PoliceCrimes.com
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Hope these help!
For freedom is never free someone else just picks up tab.
Kimber Custom II
Kimber Eclips Pro II
Marlin Camp Rifle .45acp
A 9mm may expand but a .45acp won't shrink
Remember there are only two types of Ships in the Navy, SUBMARINES and Targets!
April 13th, 2009 03:31 PM
Remember to shake a fireman's hand. They are the only ones that swear an oath to risk their lives to save yours.
Thank you to all the fire fighters here on the board.
The best preventative medicine is superior fire power.
April 13th, 2009 04:10 PM
The Supremes have decided that State law determines duty - which usually means no duty.
There's a list of all fifty States with case examples in this book:
Amazon.com: Dial 911 and Die: Richard W. Stevens, Richard W. Stevens, Garn Turner: Books
Some States the Police can create a duty to protect through a verbal contract. Such as when the 911 operator says "stay put, help will be there soon", so they changed their training to say, "I'm notifying dispatch", etc. instead.
Even if they have a duty... it will do you no good when you're dead.
"Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington
April 13th, 2009 04:57 PM
I've known this for a very long time. Besides.....I wouldn't trust anybody else to protect me. I like being independent.
Police are not required to protect you.....
April 13th, 2009 06:29 PM
Thier suppose to protect society are'nt we society??
A Native Floridian = RARE
IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
April 13th, 2009 06:36 PM
Wow. Learn something new everyday.
"Anyone worth shooting, is probably worth shooting several times."
April 13th, 2009 06:42 PM
hogdaddy, yes we are part of society but the police interpret it as Society in general, not one of us specifically. I'm quite sure that if a police officer were to be standing near you when someone tried to harm you, they would intercede. The old saying that "I carry a gun because a Policeman is to heavy" is very appropriate.
Its a shame that youth is wasted on the young.
April 13th, 2009 07:50 PM
It's been this way for at least 25 years. The ruling is intended to keep people from being able to sue a city, an officer or police dept, everytime they are a victim of crime.
Texas is no different.
"Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston
NRA Life Member
April 13th, 2009 08:13 PM
That's kinda why I carry.
God gave me the right to defend myself cuz the cops can't, and by God I will!
It’s so much easier now days, to "Love and honor" my wife, when she is armed, and shoots a better group than I do. (Till death do us part, eh?)
“The way you get shot by a concealed weapons permit holder is, you point a gun at him,” the Sheriff said.
April 13th, 2009 10:40 PM
Even if they are not required to protect you, I do live in Arizona and have always been pleased with LE down here.
April 13th, 2009 10:53 PM
Every LEO I know would do anything they can to help and protect the innocent. That said they aren't required to. There job is to keep the peace, and they do that by removing law breakers from society, thus protecting society. IMO
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!" Bart Simpson
April 15th, 2009 01:04 AM
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
By oakchas in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: September 21st, 2010, 08:23 AM
By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 03:48 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: May 31st, 2008, 02:04 AM
By Anubis in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 01:07 AM
By FortyFive in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: September 19th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Search tags for this page
chapman v. philadelphia, 290 pa. super. 281, 434 a.2d 753
chapman v. philadelphia, 290 pa. super. 281, 434 a.2d 753 (penn. 1981)
law enforcement not required protect
lawenforement not required to respond
list of rulings on police not required to protect individuals
police are not obligated to protect you supreme court
police are not required to protect you
police not obligated to respond personal protection
police not required to protect you
supreme court cases that say it is the police duty to protect the corporations and arrest the code breakers
wesson v. district of columbia supreme court police protection
Click on a term to search for related topics.