Police and protection

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't imagine anyone voluntarily working at a job where it was his LAWFUL DUTY to help anyone needing his help.

Even Superman would get tired.

Not even lifeguards have a legal duty to rescue. It would be absurd: "Go out in that squall and bring back those kids."/"No way -- too dangerous!"/"You HAVE to -- it's your job!"/"Fine -- I quit."/"Too late -- you already took on the duty!"/"Nope. The duty existed only when I was a lifeguard, and I'm not one, anymore.").
 
The ultra small town that I reside in has a law on the books that states each home WILL have a loaded weapon available for self protection - since it takes law enforcement about 30 minutes to respond IF they are in the area. Any two legged creature that tries to do something stupid (illegal) on my property will not be able to tell their side of the story when the law shows up.
 
I can't imagine anyone voluntarily working at a job where it was his LAWFUL DUTY to help anyone needing his help.

I think that doctors, while working in a emergency room have the duty to assist anyone and everyone that walks in.
 
Maybe the people that think police are there to prtect them comes form "To protect and serve" writen on their cars.
And if the courts say its your responseablity to protect yourself (not the police) but live in a gun controling state. Can you then sue the state for takeing away your right to protect yourself after the court says its your responseablity too do so.
 
Quote:
I can't imagine anyone voluntarily working at a job where it was his LAWFUL DUTY to help anyone needing his help.

I think that doctors, while working in a emergency room have the duty to assist anyone and everyone that walks in.

They do. But remember, they practice in a controlled (relatively speaking) environment and have staff to help control the patient that may present a danger to themselves or the other staff. If the hospital security cannot handle the situation, we call the police. If the patient presents a lethal threat, such as a gun there is only one concern, not getting shot, then trying to help the other staff and patients not get shot. I know in the instance that situation arose in the my ED, we evacuated the staff and patients to an area we could barricade them behind, and then attempted to "guide" the nutcase outside where the cops took her into custody. Then, when they brought her back in, we treated her with a little vitamin "H" (that's Haldol, a potent anti-psychotic).

Outside of the ED, say on your day off, there is no obligation to assist in a medical emergency.
 
Duke of Doubt - You "can't imagine anyone working at a job where it was his LAWFUL DUTY to help anyone needing his help". Welcome to the United States Coast Guard - Semper Paratus (Always Ready) - and unofficially; "You Have to Go Out, but You Don't Have to Come Back" - and some don't. It is your duty to go to the assistance of a party in distress - at whatever the limit of your capability, and maybe, beyond that sometimes. I have personally been on a "repair" mission in measured 106 mile an hour winds (not gusts) in the open sea, and know the spirit of assistance in the Guard. Some people do take the saving of life and assistance to the limit. I don't believe that is to be expected of other law enforcement agencies - it's not in their job description - and there isn't anything wrong with that.
sailortoo
 
Deanimator said:
In addition to the links provided, read the book "Dial 911 and Die". It gives a state by state run-down of police duty to protect and liability.

Just wanted to second the book. It's distributed by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. $14.95

Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens

''Gun control'' survives as an idea because most Americans believe one single myth:

''You don't need a gun because the police protect you from crime.''

If you don't know exactly why that statement is a lie, then you cannot destroy ''gun control.''

If you can't effectively rebut that statement, then you cannot make the strongest positive case for private firearms ownership.

Anti-gun lobbyists get away with proposing to completely disarm the citizens only because most citizens just assume the police will protect them. That assumption is false. The police cannot protect everyone -- in fact the police usually have no legal duty to protect anyone.

Dial 911 and Die proves this fact. For nearly every American state and territory, this book shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect individuals from crime. The police in most places do not even have to come when you call.

Gun prohibitionist lobbyists, politicians and media have sold Americans the myth of police protection. Schools teach youngsters to ''Dial 911.'' There was a television program with ''911'' in the title. That phone number is perhaps the best known in the country. A generation of Americans has come to trust a telephone number for self- defense.

Government authorities and media pundits never told Americans about the dark side of 911. Too many Americans have dialed 911 and died because the police did not or could not help them.

Dial 911 and Die kills the logical root of ''gun control'' ideology. Erase Americans blind faith in police protection, and a rational person who faces a risk of criminal attack on himself or his loved ones would never voluntarily allow himself to be disarmed.

Erase the myth of police protection, and ''gun control'' dies as an idea ... permanently.

How often do the gun prohibitionists use the recent spate of murderous attacks on schools, businesses, community centers and churches as reasons for ''gun control''? When you understand the concept in Dial 911 and Die, those reasons evaporate. Each of those cases highlights that the police were powerless and unable to prevent or stop those attacks. Emergency 911 service is available almost everywhere in the U.S. -- and it was worthless against those armed attackers.

The unarmed victims of criminal attack and their families cannot get compensation from the city governments that failed to protect them in these famous terrible cases. The only people on location when the attackers came were the victims themselves. At the same time, the prevailing laws and anti-gun culture made sure those victims were unarmed. Police help was too little, too late.

Those murderous events do not prove the need for ''gun control'' -- they prove the utter inability of the police to protect individuals from violent crime. Police typically investigate crimes after the fact -- they don't prevent very many crimes. And the laws in nearly every state say that the police don't even owe a duty to protect individual citizens. Citizens are on their own -- and the sooner they know it, the better.

There are many excellent arguments against ''gun control.'' Only one argument destroys its logical root. Master that argument. Get Dial 911 and Die for yourself, your local talk host, your local NRA leaders, your family, your local libraries. Read the harrowing, gut-wrenching stories of crime victims who tragically depended upon police to help. See how the courts just dismiss the victims appeals out of hand. You'll never look at your telephone -- or your gun rights -- the same way again.


sailortoo said:
It is your duty to go to the assistance of a party in distress - at whatever the limit of your capability, and maybe, beyond that sometimes.

sailortoo,

I admire the men and women who serve as Coasties. It's a hell of a job, and yes some rescuers do in fact perish in their attempts. Just as some police perish helping their citizens. So don't take this the wrong way:

Don't confuse mission with duty. The legal concept of duty is not the same as mission. The concept of duty carries obligations, and penalties for failure to perform those duties. A mother has a duty to care for her child. A manufacturer has a duty to produce a safe product.

A Coastie will not be personally sued or jailed for failure to rescue his victim if the conditions make the attempt too hazardous; or if they fail to arrive in time; or if they don't have enough rescue craft for the area. A mother can be both personally sued and jailed for failure to provide basic health care or food for her child. A manufacurer can be sued, and sometimes even jailed, for producing a dangerously unsafe product.

Coasties do God's work, and consider it their duty. But it's not legally binding.


Police can, in limited and very specific circumstances, be duty-bound and required to provide individual protection. Usually it's in situations such as when a person is in custody and under arrest.
 
BullfrogKen - Distinction accepted, but I personally always considered it a "duty", and I still see it that way. "Mission" is a distinction that I guess is a lawyer way to look at it - to me, and those I served with, it was, and is, a duty.
sailortoo
 
BullfrogKen - addendum - Do remember, the USCG also is a law enforcement agency (military in time of war), and does have that same arrest and protection "duty", not necessarily connected to life saving. One of those usually misunderstood facts. I don't mean to drift from the thread, but I hate to leave with incomplete info. The "Dial 911 and Die" concept is right on, and I second the idea that too many citizens do not understand the roll of law enforcement, even though the term itself "law enforcement" is the clearest of statements. It is not "protect the citizens", nor "protect property", but enforce the LAW. 30 minutes or less in a school classroom would seem enough to get the future adults to understand that concept, and understand their personal responsibility - way too much to expect.
sailortoo
 
It is not "protect the citizens", nor "protect property", but enforce the LAW. 30 minutes or less in a school classroom would seem enough to get the future adults to understand that concept, and understand their personal responsibility - way
The problem is not just simple ignorance. A BIG part of the problem is intentional disinformation. Time after time, I've seen anti-gunners, both citizens and police officials explicitly state that you "don't need a gun" because the police will "protect" you. How often have you heard "Well, why do you think we have police?" or "That's OUR job."?

Police protection of individuals isn't just a misconception, it's a LIE being spread to discourage self-defense with firearms and to justify existing unconstitutional restrictions on self-defense with firearms.
 
What's ironic is that you have people who want to take away the right and ability to defend ones self while the police and government are under no obligation to provide that protection either.

Generally, police have shifted from peace officers whose job was to keep the peace, serve and protect, etc. to "law enforcement" officers whose job it is to enforce laws. Individual officers may still view their job as being to serve and protect, but I think their numbners are declining as officers seem to shift more towards viewing themselves as paramilitary enforcers rather than civilian peace officers.

Many or most departments have also been pressured into earning their keep by writing tickets and seizing property rather than serving the public. That's why you have so much focus on traffic enforcement like speed traps and drug/prostitution stings rather: they earn the municipality money through cash seized and vehicles/homes to auction. They also allow for better statistics like more police on the streets, more arrests, etc. On the flip side, we end up with jails full of minor scumbags in for pot, pills, and prostitution and have no place to put the major scumbags like rapists, wife beaters, and burglars that really impact the average citizens perception of quality of life.

Just my .02. Please don't read my opinions as bashing all cops (or even most of them). I've had several friends in various departments and some very positive experiences with officers. I've also had some very bad experiences with cops who had an "us vs them" mentality viewing everyone as a perp looking for a charge.
 
I am sure there are a number of police officers who participate in THR forums. If they are honest, they will ALL admit that they cannot protect people individually. Their best chance is to provide limited COLLECTIVE protection to a community, which means that their presence (seen and unseen) provides some deterence to criminals simply running rampant with no law in town.

All the same, even the police agencies who are the best at providing collective protection are only scratching the surface. I spent eight years in the law enforcement profession and can tell you that I never protected a single individual. I still remember my academy class receiving careful instruction as follows: "The best thing you can do to protect your community is to be as VISIBLE as possible. Keep moving. Cover all the ground you can and try to present the APPEARANCE of being around all the time. You can't be everywhere and protect everyone."

And the D.C. case of the rapist in the woman's house brings the point to discussion regarding how far police will go to answer a call. Do you really think that if the officer actually goes to the door and knocks or rings the bell with no answer and hears nothing that he is going to break down the door of the house and go search around inside? That's called unreasonable search and seizure based on only a phone call with no other substantiating probable cause. Police officers won't do it. So, if the rapist is holding the woman at gunpoint IN SILENCE, what other evidence might the officer have?

We can debate individual cases all we want, and the courts do just that - debate. Remember this - the courts have years to debate and finally adjudicate cases in which we have a few seconds or a split second to decide what to do to protect ourselves. My department's motto for ourselves and our advice to our citizens was this: "Better tried by twelve than carried by six."

Common sense tells us that the police cannot protect us. In addition to the arguments in the book quoted here in this thread, you can simply ask people the following question: "How many times do the police walk or drive by YOUR home per day?" Anything in between is the opportunity for any criminal to take action without police intervention. Comforting, isn't it?
 
I feel very fortunate, I live in a town that is 2.5 square miles and is protected by 4 police deputies per shift. Average response time to any type call is 2 minutes. These four deputies have a minimum of 30 deputies for backup within 2 to 3 minutes from the other surrounding towns. I don't know what your LE types do , but ours Protect and Serve.
We use a traffic patrol to relieve the residential and commercial patrols of traffic duties. What are police for if not To Protect and Serve?????

Oh, I know what the problem is, you have a police union and they dictate what the police can and can't do. We have a contract with our police, not the union, that states what they are to do.
 
Maybe the people that think police are there to prtect them comes form "To protect and serve" writen on their cars.
And if the courts say its your responseablity to protect yourself (not the police) but live in a gun controling state. Can you then sue the state for takeing away your right to protect yourself after the court says its your responseablity too do so.

Ummm, can you sue them? Sure, I can sue you because I don't like the way you part your hair.

Can you win the suit, or even get it to trial? Nope.
 
Average response time to any type call is 2 minutes.

I'm glad you live in a community where you feel the police presence is adequate, and you are confident in your police force.

But even two minutes is 1 minute 55 seconds too long if you are not prepared to protect yourself.
 
What are police for if not To Protect and Serve?????

According to all of the relevant appellate and Supreme Court decisions, they are to enforce the law and not to protect individuals. Individuals do not have a constitutional right to police protection. No contract that says otherwise is enforceable.

If the police do arrive, say, in two minutes, and see a forcible intrusion attempt in progress (a felony) their duty is to arrest the felon--but according to the courts, it is not to ensure the safety of anyone inside a house or on the street.

Of course, if the seizure of the felon is timely, it serves the same purpose. If they don't get there in time, the duty of the police is to collect evidence and attempt to find the culprits.

That's of course in addition to looking for dealers in and users of controlled substances, and such.

By the way, "To Protect and to Serve" was adopted as the motto of the LAPD decades ago, but that doesn't give it legal status.

Court decisions aside, consider the practical issues. A two minute response time is extremely rare. In most cases a determined intruder can get into a house in much less time than it takes to answer the questions posed by a 911 dispatcher. Than add the time it takes to get a patrol car to the scene and for the officers to engage. Ever wonder why so many 911 call recordings include the sounds of an attack?

Think about it.

And reflect on what elktrout has to say:
I am sure there are a number of police officers who participate in THR forums. If they are honest, they will ALL admit that they cannot protect people individually. Their best chance is to provide limited COLLECTIVE protection to a community, which means that their presence (seen and unseen) provides some deterence to criminals simply running rampant with no law in town.

All the same, even the police agencies who are the best at providing collective protection are only scratching the surface. I spent eight years in the law enforcement profession and can tell you that I never protected a single individual. I still remember my academy class receiving careful instruction as follows: "The best thing you can do to protect your community is to be as VISIBLE as possible. Keep moving. Cover all the ground you can and try to present the APPEARANCE of being around all the time. You can't be everywhere and protect everyone."

Common sense tells us that the police cannot protect us. In addition to the arguments in the book quoted here in this thread, you can simply ask people the following question: "How many times do the police walk or drive by YOUR home per day?" Anything in between is the opportunity for any criminal to take action without police intervention. Comforting, isn't it?

Emphasis added.
 
As near as I can tell, the courts recognize the physical impossibility of individual protection at all times. So, the thrust of the intent is that the legal obligation is to maintain the overall peace and order of a community.

The "ought to" part comes in from our moral views and the sense of duty on the part of law enforcement personnel.

The cops do the best they can, but when negligence is not involved, there is no civil liability for some absence of protection.
 
Wyocarp: I do live in a decent area with very low crime, but things do happen. Last year a few blocks away there was an armed home invasion where a few people knocked on a door and pretended to have car trouble. When the person came to the door they kicked it in, waved guns around and robbed them. This type of thing is very much out of the norm for this area, but it just goes to show that anything can happen to anyone at any time.
 
Look up the case of Riss v. City of New York.

Linda Riss was stalked for six months by her former fiancee who stated that if he couldn't have her no one would and threatened to mutilate her. Riss applied for a pistol license and was denied on the grounds that she lacked proper cause. Riss received a phone call one night from her former fiancee stating that "this is you last chance". Terrified she went to the police who turned her away and refused to protect her. The next day Riss was attacked by her former fiancee who mutilated and partially crippled her by dousing her face with lye.

The New York State Court of Appeals held that the police had no duty to protect Linda Riss, only society as a whole.

The following excerpt is from Justice Keating's dissent:

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 (former Penal Law, § 1897). 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. (Riss v. City of New York)

To deny a person the right to keep and bear arms not only violates their right under the Second Amendment it violates their rights to life, liberty and property as well.
 
The law here is the basis for perhaps the best pro-gun argument available. However, when I consider cases that have already gone to court, I'm not encouraged at all. I think about Riss v. City of New York, cited above. The dissent recognized the irony of not allowing CCW while cops still have no duty to protect an individual. So, attorneys must have presented this argument in court...in court! Meanwhile, New York City is as anti-gun as ever.
 
It's a sick joke is what it is. Linda Riss applied for and was denied a pistol license by the NYPD months before she was assaulted and rendered almost wholly blind on the grounds that she lacked what, in New York State, is known as "proper cause" pursuant to Article 400 of the Penal Law. Article 400 states, in part, that a license can be issued under the following conditions:

(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;


In other words, you may be issued a license to carry a pistol or revolver but only when there is proper cause. Proper cause is never defined and every single Judge, Police Commissioner or Sheriff who grants licenses (depending upon the county involved) determines for his or herself what "proper cause" means. Thus, if you aren't extraordinarily wealthy, politically connected or a celebrity you will not receive a concealed carry license unrelated to employment (i.e. armored car guard etc), at least not in lower NYS.

New York State Penal Law Article 35 recognizes the right to use deadly force to prevent or to terminate the commission of murder, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, robbery and arson. Burglary may also be terminated via deadly force but only under certain conditions. At the same time New York State Penal Law Article 265 makes it a criminal offense to possess and carry any weapon whatsoever without a license. Yet, you, as an ordinary citizen, cannot obtain a license to carry a firearm. You have the right to defend yourself with deadly force but no right to possess the means to actually do so. This renders the right to self defense null and void. This is the problem with victim disarmament. It not only circumvents the right to keep and bear arms but the right to live as well. A right is meaningless without the means to defend it and you cannot successfully defend your life against an armed assailant or a group of armed assailants without a deadly weapon. No martial artist, no matter how good, will confront multiple assailants with knives or firearms. Movies aren't reality. Sean Connery was robbed years ago in NYC while he was with his wife. What did James Bond do? He gave up his cash and jewelry. Why? Because he didn't have a pistol but his attacker did.

Below are other parts of NYS law. Hopefully a lawsuit similar to Heller can be launched in NYS sometime soon. If one does come about I'd expect to see these items included as part of the brief.


New York State Civil Rights Law Article 2 § 4. Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

New York State Constitution Bill of Rights Article 1 § 6.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top