Posted on 06/24/2017 10:43:34 PM PDT by gattaca
In light of the recent terror attack in Orlando, Florida many people are asking the question, “What can the government do to protect the people?” Everything from banning certain types of firearms to prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns to immigration reforms has been proposed as possible government solutions.
In light of the recent terror attack in Orlando, Florida many people are asking the question, “What can the government do to protect the people?” Everything from banning certain types of firearms to prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns to immigration reforms has been proposed as possible government solutions.
However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety.
According to a 2005 ruling from the SCOTUS, the government doesn’t even have a duty to protect you if you’ve obtained a court issued restraining order. From a New York Times article on that ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.
Going back even further, to 1981, a federal court of appeals found the same lack of responsibility. From the Wikipedia page on Warren v. District of Columbia:
In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints.
In light of the recent terror attack in Orlando, Florida many people are asking the question, “What can the government do to protect the people?” Everything from banning certain types of firearms to prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns to immigration reforms has been proposed as possible government solutions.
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 7.03.35 PM
However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety.
According to a 2005 ruling from the SCOTUS, the government doesn’t even have a duty to protect you if you’ve obtained a court issued restraining order. From a New York Times article on that ruling:
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 7.07.38 PM
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
Screen Shot 2016-06-16 at 7.01.47 PM
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
A 1989 case found the same thing. Also from the Times:
A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.
Going back even further, to 1981, a federal court of appeals found the same lack of responsibility. From the Wikipedia page on Warren v. District of Columbia:
In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints.
In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In a unanimous decision, the court also held that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Given the fact that the government is not responsible for protecting the general public from common criminals, rapists, mass murderers and terrorists, then why do so many government proposed solutions involve limiting the general public’s access to firearms? It’s a question that is worth considering as we move forward with this discussion.
Sources: – Warren v. District of Columbia – Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (NY Times)
This is super old news. You must be new around here. Welcome!
I think everybody here knows that. Not bad to point it out again.
Every time an Obama son makes a terror attack, the government wants to disarm victims and keep its sponsorship of Obamasons intact...
Officials are stuck on stupid like that.
I was just surprised by this particular situation I should have said.
I agree, as a general warning, which is one more reason to resist the lefty siren song that oh, the government will be your militia.
The temptation to wrap themselves in the thin blue line will become immense. It takes a degree of steadfast principle to deny the domination of that temptation.
It’s something that we might tuck away for discussions on more mixed forums, like the much-maligned (but also much-opportunitied) Facebook.
They don’t have the duty, or the ability.
I was working with the Highway Patrol the other day and they will honestly take down any bastard that disrupts the community.
That charge is on you to save your ass when some nut is coming at you.
>> End of article: Why do so many government proposed solutions involve limiting the general public’s access to firearms?
Because structured limitations on society gives the impression of security despite the evidence that it doesn’t — the evidence mainstream media intentionally avoids.
This has been the Supreme Court’s position for over a *century*. This is not new, it’s just a repeat.
This is a well known fact. Forty years or so.
Sounds a bit like double talk though, unless they can opt you into the “community” or out of it at will.
Being a wag, I asked one of my colleagues in a place that has a “no guns” sign on the door (a gun pointed to the right with the NOT slash and circle through it) whether that means I have to always point my gun to the left when I am in there.
He knew I was joking, of course.
And the point here seems to be that even if the police COULD actually respond to your plight, and DID get an unmistakable alert that they were needed, there is ZERO liability on them (other than political backlash) if in fact they don’t come and help.
It’s also been codified in many jurisdictions.
I do believe, however, that once the police begin to take action, they have an affirmative duty to meet minimum standards of care.
LOL — brilliant.
And this ruling shows why the 2nd Amendment is and always has been an individual right.
JoMa
Not really. If they begin to take action, such as begin to suppress a riotous mob, then stop and leave the area, they cannot be held responsible for any damage, injuries or deaths in the area they abandon. Long decided and renewed after the LA Riots in 1992.
The cops whom are the good guys are at least 10 minuets from my home and probably a few minutes more. If violence comes to my home I am the protector of my family. The cops will just do the paper work when they arrive. Hopefully I will be the winner in the contest against evil.
I am armed anyplace it is legal. My home is armed to the teeth. My gentle dogs will lay down their life for me and family. They are actually very sweet but they know what a bad guy is. Each is 80 pounds of teeth and fury if you are a bad guy. They will lick the hand of a stranger once I show friendship. They stand guard until I say it is okay.
Dogs are smart. Good dogs and proficiency with firearms is the best damn insurance you can buy until the cops arrive.
I like my dogs.
CCW and dogs. Ain’t no better protection than that. Especially the dogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.