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)
It's easy to become a good shot with an AR-15 at 100 yards.
Plus, you can buy 20/30/40 round magazines.
Win-win.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I have been on FR a year and a half and I am not versed in the law, so I found your story highly interesting. Thanks for posting.
Your welcome.
There is a difference between protecting in general and when a cop is witnessing a crime in progress.
I haven’t done the actual research into cases, but I believe that cases like those above were not cases where a cop was standing by and just watching it happen.
The cops are not your private security force and the court will not hold them to that standard, otherwise, they’d be liable for every crime in the country,e.g., I pay taxes for you to patrol the hood, so I shouldn’t have been robbed...
I haven’t heard of cases brought against cops for the mob situation like in anti-trump rallies where cops watch someone get attacked. That type of case might actually have some chance of success.
Property damage in the baltimore fiasco probably would not make it that far through the court because they would start off with the position that the damage was “cured” by insurance, so they would have no standing to sue, or something along those lines.
So let me ask, can this ruling be applied to say, Baltimore or other towns the liberal, white hating mayors tell the police to stand down? So store owners would have no standing if they sued?
Cops are there to generate revenue, do the paperwork and in rare instances stop/prevent crime.
It’s also true, that law enforcement in general exists to protect the criminals. Chew on that for a while.
We all knew that.
The primary duty of police is to draw the chalk line around you body at the scene of your murder.
They have guns to protect themselves not you.
So the Fed Govt says that LEOS do not necessarily have to protect you, but we’re also not going to grant national reprocity to allow you to defend yourselves everywhere you go.
Nice Govt we got there.
That’s kind of the key. If the police have two competing situations and can only respond to one of them, say a large accident with injured people and a lady calling about her restraining-order ex (which, in most of those situations, doesn’t end violently), do we want the decision as to which is priority to be based on keeping from being sued?
...easy solution, the woman needs to arm-up and know how to use them. If nothing else, shooting a few rounds, even if they miss, will push her way up in the police-priority order.
We all know that we are our own first line of defense. That is why I am so pissed off that NJ won’t allow open or concealed carry except to ex cops or protection services. We little people don’t count for shit in NJ.
Why do I stay? Family. Plus I like the Jersey shore and the tomatoes.
To Protect and Serve whom then?
Dogs rule Defense Layer #1 here as well. They can hear better than Us and sense danger as well. They protect Mama at all times on their on rules. 110# Cane Corso Italian Mastif and a 65# Boxer, They stick to Her like a shadow.
Then it’s Me and 1911 if needed.
The Scumbags would probably favor getting shot VS the agonizing death the Girls would give out.
True, that’s because governments are the biggest organized criminal enterprises known to man. We had over 200 million die in the 20th century because of legal government (law enforcement and military) actions by Germany, Soviet Union and China.
The US is no paragon of virtue either. We have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prisoners.
Government exists to protect and further government.
When seconds count the police are minutes away.
This is not new. The job of the police is to show up after a crime has been committed and attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice. You are responsible for your own safety. Own and carry a gun.
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.