Relevant case law - something to add to your 2A/self-defense education

Relevant case law - something to add to your 2A/self-defense education

This is a discussion on Relevant case law - something to add to your 2A/self-defense education within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This is an incomplete list of case law that I think is relevant. I posted this on my FB page, and it surprised a lot ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078

    Relevant case law - something to add to your 2A/self-defense education

    This is an incomplete list of case law that I think is relevant. I posted this on my FB page, and it surprised a lot of my friends (who do not carry and are under the false supposition that police are required to protect them).

    Is it the police? or are you responsible for your and your family's safety? What are you doing to ensure your safety and protect you and your family? Hoping something bad won't happen to you is not a plan.

    Here is what the courts have to say about police and their duty to protect individuals. Be prepared to be surprised.

    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981), states: “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 court ruled that the state has no duty to provide public goods, thus the police have no obligation to protect and thus do not even have to come to your assistance.

    Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); a woman who telephoned police to beg for protection from her boyfriend sued the city for its failure to protect her from an assault in which he threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, damaging the other and scarring her face. The city denied responsibility, and the courts agreed. Dissenting opinion: What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her

    Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); On 20 April 1961, Josephine M. Keane, a teacher in the Chicago City Public Schools was assaulted and killed on school premises by a student enrolled in the school. Keane's family sued the City of Chicago, claiming that, "the City was negligent in failing to assign police protection to the school, although it knew or should have known that failure to provide this protection would result in harm to persons lawfully on the premises (because) it knew or should have known of the dangerous condition then existing at the school." The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Presiding Judge Burke of the Appeals Court held that, "Failure on the part of a municipality to exercise a government function does not, without more, expose the municipality to liability." Justice Burke went on to say that: "To hold that under the circumstances alleged in the complaint the City owed a special duty' to Mrs. Keane for the safety and well being of her person would impose an all but impossible burden upon the City, considering the numerous police, fire, housing and other laws, ordinances and regulations in force."
    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983): Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection

    Lynch v. N.C.Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E.2nd 247 (N.C.App. 1989). The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them (the children - ed.) any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death ...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect the individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public

    Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982). U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:.. there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order

    Deshaney v. Winnebago County 489 U.S. 189 (1989). A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.

    Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 545 U.S. 748 (2005). was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

    South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].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.

    Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)]. The California Court of Appeal held that any claim against the police department: "is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly section 845, which states: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection

    Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981): The duty of the City of Philadelphia to provide police protection is a public one which may not be claimed by an individual unless a special relationship exists between the city and the individual. A special relationship is generally found to exist only in cases in which an individual is exposed to a special danger and the authorities have undertaken the responsibility to provide adequate protection for him...[The plaintiffs] urge this court to proclaim a sweeping duty of protection in the law of tort, far beyond anything any court or indeed our own State legislature has been willing to recognize.

    Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982): a man stabbed Yolanda Davidson while she was using a laundromat. At the time of the stabbing, police officers had the laundromat under surveillance for the purpose of preventing assaults and apprehending the perpetrator of three stabbings that had occurred there or at nearby laundromats. Thus, the officers knew Davidson was in the laundromat. When the officers saw the man enter and leave the laundromat several times, they believed that he was the likely perpetrator of at least one of the prior assaults. Nevertheless, the officers did not warn Davidson, and she eventually was stabbed inside the laundromat. (Id. at p. 201.) The Supreme Court concluded the officers had no duty to warn or to otherwise protect Davidson
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Makes it pretty clear that the protection of you, your family and your property is your responsibility, and yet the powers that be, especially in NYC where it is illegal to carry just about anything that could be considered a weapon, want to grossly infringe on your ability to do so.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,373
    Good post. Thank you for the references.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Array bigdog44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    577
    Makes one wonder if there is not an obligation to protect the citizenship, and it is our own obligation to protect ourselves, then how can we be denied our second amendment rights? That is what people need to continue to sue for
    It's not a problem til they make it one!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Array rson63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Summit Point
    Posts
    744
    Nice post, makes me want to buy more ammo, a lot more.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -- Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,781
    Did not realize NC had one, thanks!
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array cwblanco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Posts
    835
    Texas law is the same. No duty.
    Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array ks kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    Posts
    564
    Thanks for the post. Did you do the research for this or did you find it? I would like to search my state case laws to see what is out there and have no idea where to start.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,432
    The police are few; the population is many. Does anyone really expect the police to protect everyone?
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    The Riss case is especially bad because I believe she did apply for a carry permit but was denied. She was then assaulted and the city, of course, said it wasn't their fault.
    The government can't deny someone the necessary tools for the citizenry to defend themselves, then claim they're not liable when someone is assaulted or killed. They can't have it both ways.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,756
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The police are few; the population is many. Does anyone really expect the police to protect everyone?
    Definitely not, but so many just think that there is no need to arm yourself when 911 is (mistakenly thought to be...) just a phone call away.
    Yep, call 911 and the guy with the 'chalk' will eventually get to the scene.
    Stay armed...it's YOUR job...stay safe!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  12. #12
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,551
    Thank you. Nice post.

  13. #13
    Member Array Random's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Clayton NC
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The police are few; the population is many. Does anyone really expect the police to protect everyone?
    Yes, that's exactly what most people DO expect.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    The police are few; the population is many. Does anyone really expect the police to protect everyone?
    My issue isn't with the fact that the police can't and are under no obligation to protect individual citizens. My problem is the recognition of that fact by the powers that be and yet they insist on disarming law abiding citizens of one of the most effective means of protecting themselves.
    Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF, Old Bethpage Rifle & Pistol Club

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    Quote Originally Posted by ks kid View Post
    Thanks for the post. Did you do the research for this or did you find it? I would like to search my state case laws to see what is out there and have no idea where to start.
    I believe I started with Google, but then again, when I originally did the research, I was working on my Masters degree and may have used some of the school's search tools.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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. How to find an attorney in case of a self defense shooting ?
    By VAguy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 29th, 2010, 03:39 AM
  2. Courtroom Tactics-Defending the Self-Defense Case (Merged)
    By BikerRN in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 5th, 2009, 07:55 PM
  3. Lasers - a case for self defense against them?
    By matiki in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2008, 03:53 PM
  4. Tulsa Domestic Dispute May Be Case of Self-Defense
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 17th, 2008, 12:23 AM
  5. Fatal Shooting in Alaska May Be Case of Self-Defense
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 07:55 PM

Search tags for this page

case law on self defense

,

case law on self defense ct

,
case law self defense education
,
content
,
educators rights to self defence case law
,

judge that said the state has no obligation to protect individuals against thugs, murderers and madmen

,
keane v. city of chicago, 98 ill. app.2d 460, 240 n.e.2d 321
,
law cases related to deshaney ruling of special relationships
,
legal provision in deshaney ruling
,

list of case law, relevant to policing

,
relevant law to self defense
,
relevant topics in the legal case
,
state public employee self defense training
,
teacher rights & case law & list
,
what is? to add something to a discussion
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors