Police are not required to protect you.....

[gilraen]

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.

in AZ that the first item covered was a letter from the director of the Department of Public Safety (State Police) stating that it is your responsibility to protect yourself, not the responsibility of the police.

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.

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.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[spooter66]

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

[ecbaatz]

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!

[CPTMO]

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.

[matiki]

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.

[Ram Rod]

Police are not required to protect you.....

I've known this for a very long time. Besides.....I wouldn't trust anybody else to protect me. I like being independent.

[hogdaddy]

Thier suppose to protect society are'nt we society??

[thebigdl86]

Wow. Learn something new everyday.

[Der Alte]

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.

[TX-JB]

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.

[elkhunter]

Yup!
That's kinda why I carry.

God gave me the right to defend myself cuz the cops can't, and by God I will!

[zebra]

Even if they are not required to protect you, I do live in Arizona and have always been pleased with LE down here.

[BradyM77]

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

[P7fanatic]

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.

Many more years than that. Can you say 'the mid 1800's'?
Don't have time to go into it deep but here's a couple[/U] ago.

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement
had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to
enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433
(1856)].

"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the State
against being murdered by criminals or madmen." [Bowers v. DeVito,
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882) See also
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)]