Police and protection
- Thread starter tpaw
- Start date
- Status
The irony is that most police cars have "protect and serve" on the door. The multiple Supreme Court rulings that police have no duty to protect would suggest that this is fraudulent advertising. This advertising has likely contributed to the widespread public perception that police have a duty to protect. Do any of you believe that you would be able to fraudulently advertise for your private business for over 30 years (approxmately this long since the first Supreme Court rulings on this subject )? Wouldn't it be "fair" if when Obama reduces the common man's ability to defend themselves by banning firearms he increase the police force and require them to protect the common man?
indoorsoccerfrea
Member
no it wouldnt be "fair"...
that's like telling a bunch of soldiers that although they are being attacked and can't have their weapons, reinforcements with weapons will be there shortly. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...
I respect the police and am thankful for them, but they simply cannot protect everyone all the time.
that's like telling a bunch of soldiers that although they are being attacked and can't have their weapons, reinforcements with weapons will be there shortly. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...
I respect the police and am thankful for them, but they simply cannot protect everyone all the time.
wyocarp
Member
Well, if you know of any of these types, I'll give them my address freely and they can try that at my house. I'll welcome the training exercise. I'll even give them a heads up. Right now, I am wearing two glocks in 10mm, my son has a Glock 19, my wife a baby eagle, and we have a few "family" guns like the ak with light, laser, and 75 round drum. The police will bring less training, fewer rounds, and more politeness to the situation. I don't need or want them.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Stick with discussion of law and omit all the personal anecdotes and morality stuff.
Question: Until Heller, the 2A had nothing to do with personal self-defense. Some have claimed that the "equal protection" clause of the 14A addresses that issue.
Any knowledgeable legal types have a clue about that? Could it be used to persuade a court to order that carrying be made legal without NYC-type denials?
Art
Question: Until Heller, the 2A had nothing to do with personal self-defense. Some have claimed that the "equal protection" clause of the 14A addresses that issue.
Any knowledgeable legal types have a clue about that? Could it be used to persuade a court to order that carrying be made legal without NYC-type denials?
Art
MT GUNNY
Member
Police aren’t required to protect you. In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
MT GUNNY
Member
I would have to say that the only Police type that has a Obligation to Protect Physically is the Secret Service!!
Last edited:
JBinMontana
Member
Certain States still require an oath of ethics like here in Montana
http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=23.13.203
23.13.203 CODE OF ETHICS
(1) Regulations governing certification of public safety officers requires that a code of ethics shall be administered as an oath.
(2) The procedure for administration of the code of ethics is as follows:
(a) each applicant for certification will attest to this code of ethics and the oath shall be administered by the head of the public safety agency for which they serve, or by the Montana Law Enforcement Academy (academy) administrator or designee;
(b) the applicant and the administrator administering the oath will sign two copies of the public safety code of ethics; and
(c) one copy will be retained by the applicant and the other copy will be retained in the applicant's academy student file, which will be available for inspection by the council staff at any reasonable time.
(3) The oath of the public safety officers' code of ethics is:
"My fundamental responsibility as a public safety officer is to serve the community, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent, keep the peace, and ensure the constitutional rights of all are not abridged.
"I shall perform all duties impartially, without favor or ill will and without regard to status, sex, race, religion, creed, political belief or aspiration. I will treat all citizens equally and with courtesy, consideration, and dignity. I will never allow personal feelings, animosities, or friendships to influence my official conduct.
"I will enforce or apply all laws and regulations appropriately, courteously, and responsibly.
"I will never employ unnecessary force or violence, and will use only such force in the discharge of my duties as is objectively reasonable in all circumstances. I will refrain from applying unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person.
"Whatever I see, hear, or learn, which is of a confidential nature, I will keep in confidence unless the performance of duty or legal provision requires otherwise.
"I will not engage in nor will I condone any acts of corruption, bribery, or criminal activity; and shall disclose to the appropriate authorities all such acts. I will refuse to accept any gifts, favors, gratuities, or promises that could be interpreted as favor or cause me to refrain from performing my official duties.
"I will strive to work in unison with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.
"I will be responsible for my professional development and will take reasonable opportunities to improve my level of knowledge and competence.
"I will at all times ensure that my character and conduct is admirable and will not bring discredit to my community, my agency, or my chosen profession."
History: 2-15-2029, MCA; IMP , 2-15-2029, MCA; NEW , 2008 MAR p. 1587, Eff. 8/1/08.
It aint no clearer than that here in Montana... I remember my oath well.
http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=23.13.203
23.13.203 CODE OF ETHICS
(1) Regulations governing certification of public safety officers requires that a code of ethics shall be administered as an oath.
(2) The procedure for administration of the code of ethics is as follows:
(a) each applicant for certification will attest to this code of ethics and the oath shall be administered by the head of the public safety agency for which they serve, or by the Montana Law Enforcement Academy (academy) administrator or designee;
(b) the applicant and the administrator administering the oath will sign two copies of the public safety code of ethics; and
(c) one copy will be retained by the applicant and the other copy will be retained in the applicant's academy student file, which will be available for inspection by the council staff at any reasonable time.
(3) The oath of the public safety officers' code of ethics is:
"My fundamental responsibility as a public safety officer is to serve the community, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent, keep the peace, and ensure the constitutional rights of all are not abridged.
"I shall perform all duties impartially, without favor or ill will and without regard to status, sex, race, religion, creed, political belief or aspiration. I will treat all citizens equally and with courtesy, consideration, and dignity. I will never allow personal feelings, animosities, or friendships to influence my official conduct.
"I will enforce or apply all laws and regulations appropriately, courteously, and responsibly.
"I will never employ unnecessary force or violence, and will use only such force in the discharge of my duties as is objectively reasonable in all circumstances. I will refrain from applying unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment of any person.
"Whatever I see, hear, or learn, which is of a confidential nature, I will keep in confidence unless the performance of duty or legal provision requires otherwise.
"I will not engage in nor will I condone any acts of corruption, bribery, or criminal activity; and shall disclose to the appropriate authorities all such acts. I will refuse to accept any gifts, favors, gratuities, or promises that could be interpreted as favor or cause me to refrain from performing my official duties.
"I will strive to work in unison with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice.
"I will be responsible for my professional development and will take reasonable opportunities to improve my level of knowledge and competence.
"I will at all times ensure that my character and conduct is admirable and will not bring discredit to my community, my agency, or my chosen profession."
History: 2-15-2029, MCA; IMP , 2-15-2029, MCA; NEW , 2008 MAR p. 1587, Eff. 8/1/08.
It aint no clearer than that here in Montana... I remember my oath well.
Deanimator
Member
But does that impose any LEGAL duty to any INDIVIDUAL?
Violation is probably grounds for sanction or termination, but I'm sure there's no legal liability to anyone who's harmed by a failure to uphold.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Art: "Question: Until Heller, the 2A had nothing to do with personal self-defense. Some have claimed that the "equal protection" clause of the 14A addresses that issue. Any knowledgeable legal types have a clue about that? Could it be used to persuade a court to order that carrying be made legal without NYC-type denials?"
I'm not sure I understand the question. There is no "right to self defense" under law; self-defense is an affirmative defense -- a legal justification, or excuse, for otherwise criminal homicide or assault. When charged with a crime, or sued civilly, self-defense may be raised by the defendant, sometimes successfully, to defeat the charges brought against him. The trier of fact, either judge or jury, determines whether in that particular case, the defendant may rely on self-defense as a defense to homicide or whatever.
But self-defense is a legal defense, not a positive political right.
That is, we do not resort to our right to vote to defend ourselves from criminal charges of illegal voting -- voting is a positive right, which we use to defeat obstacles placed in the way of legal voting. Self-defense may not be raised, according to my understanding, as a positive right to defeat obstacles placed in the way of firearms ownership. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see that happen, though! With the right judges, it's conceivable.
I'm not sure I understand the question. There is no "right to self defense" under law; self-defense is an affirmative defense -- a legal justification, or excuse, for otherwise criminal homicide or assault. When charged with a crime, or sued civilly, self-defense may be raised by the defendant, sometimes successfully, to defeat the charges brought against him. The trier of fact, either judge or jury, determines whether in that particular case, the defendant may rely on self-defense as a defense to homicide or whatever.
But self-defense is a legal defense, not a positive political right.
That is, we do not resort to our right to vote to defend ourselves from criminal charges of illegal voting -- voting is a positive right, which we use to defeat obstacles placed in the way of legal voting. Self-defense may not be raised, according to my understanding, as a positive right to defeat obstacles placed in the way of firearms ownership. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see that happen, though! With the right judges, it's conceivable.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
DoD, the argument I've read about the 14th is that if we are all supposed to have equal protection under the law, that means we have the civil right to live. That's from the whole "Mississippi Burning" civil rights case.
Since the police are not obligated and cannot guarantee any such civil right to live, we must ourselves have the right to use whatever means are available to stay alive.
Since the police are not obligated and cannot guarantee any such civil right to live, we must ourselves have the right to use whatever means are available to stay alive.
Just a thouhgt and ponder if you will these immortal words
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--
Kinda (at least to me) we have a right to be able to defend yourselves.
Could be wrong but real hope that I am not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--
Kinda (at least to me) we have a right to be able to defend yourselves.
Could be wrong but real hope that I am not.
- Status
