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 ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array gilraen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    668

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DPAZ View Post
    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.
    "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."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array spooter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    433
    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


  4. #3
    Member
    Array ecbaatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Michiganb
    Posts
    331

    Various Cases

    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!
    Eric

    EM1(SS) Retired

    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!

  5. #4
    Member Array CPTMO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    164
    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.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    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

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    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.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,252
    Thier suppose to protect society are'nt we society??
    A Native Floridian = RARE


    IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
    H/D

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array thebigdl86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    662
    Wow. Learn something new everyday.
    "Anyone worth shooting, is probably worth shooting several times."

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array Der Alte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    1,843
    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.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array TX-JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    5,736
    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

    Retired LEO
    Firearms Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array elkhunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    562
    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!
    Its 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.

  13. #12
    Member Array zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    37
    Even if they are not required to protect you, I do live in Arizona and have always been pleased with LE down here.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array BradyM77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    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

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-JB View Post
    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)]






    "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

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. Permit required vs. No permit required (long)
    By oakchas in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: September 21st, 2010, 07:23 AM
  2. Police"s Duty To Protect Individuals Running Again
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 02:48 PM
  3. The Police will protect you?
    By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 31st, 2008, 01:04 AM
  4. fingerprints not required?
    By Anubis in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 12:07 AM
  5. No CCW license required
    By FortyFive in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 19th, 2005, 11:44 AM

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

,
wesson v. district of columbia supreme court police protection
Click on a term to search for related topics.