Posted on 10/25/2024 8:22:45 AM PDT by EBH
We Americans have no general civil right to sue the police for failure to provide protection. In a nutshell, you cannot sue a government agency or a school district unless it’s done within a certain period of time after suffering an injury or loss. Even then, you can only sue the police or the Department of Social Services for certain things.
And providing you with your own personal protection services is not law enforcement’s function. In essence, since these are the king’s men, they are his sovereign representatives, shielded under the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Time and time again, left-wing politicians have argued that we don’t need private guns since we have police while simultaneously asserting we must also defund the police because of “systemic racism.” In a nutshell, their advocates at the New York Times, Atlantic, Washington Post, CNN, Mother Jones, etc., argue that socialism and a welfare state are incompatible with self-defense rights.
Those on the right argue we have a Second Amendment to guard against a corrupt government and to protect our families and businesses. In the middle, everyday people try to make sense of it all. I am Los Angeles personal injury attorney Michael Ehline.
I am a world-famous, award-winning attorney, honorably discharged U.S. Marine, legal historian, and expert on gun laws and firearms safety. Below, I will present the law of municipal police and cover why police have no general duty to protect individuals. Let’s go!
(Excerpt) Read more at ehlinelaw.com ...
Why am I posting? Because there can be some 'salty' talk on FR at times. And because of a recent experience of my own that left me basically stranded in an unknown part of town after a sideswipe hit-skip accident, with a dispatcher telling to leave the scene and drive to the first district station to report it. Basically...no officer was coming to the scene. But...that story is for another post on another day.
NO.
NO!
Castle Rock vs Gonzales.
1. Police have no duty to respond.
2. If police do respond, they have no duty to take heroic actions.
Whatever happened to the old “To Protect and Serve” motto?
Ironically, we don’t have a right to protect ourselves either.
“Whatever happened to the old “To Protect and Serve” motto?”
~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe that was removed from all police cars after the Castle Rock decision.
Fact Check: Did Police Remove Or Change Slogans By Deleting The Word “Protect” From Their Police Cruisers? These rulings discussed might be why police agencies started distancing themselves from such an apparently obligatory pronouncement starting in the late 1970s. Although slogans like “Protect and Serve.” or some variation has been painted on police vehicles for years, the Los Angeles Police Department coined the term. .
In the past, LAPD, including LAPD SWAT, led the way in law enforcement techniques, tactics, and traditions. So it makes sense that patrol cars across America would borrow the emblazoned police cruiser slogan idea.
Many municipal police departments removed the words “to protect” from their police cruisers and motto. We have heard that many police chiefs and mayors feared citizens might sue them for “accepting a duty” for declaring they must “protect” you, which is false.
NO.
Their FIRST Duty is to show up after the crime and put the tape or chalk outline around the body.
Their SECOND Duty is “Revenue Generation”
Not much comment from Uvalde Police Department on their school shooting (they were busy at the local donut shop).
I firmly believe that the Police serve one purpose: they protect the crooks from the citizens. Some of the crooks are “burglars” and some of the crooks are “politicians”. But the Police are mostly looking out for the interests of the Bad Guys. I truly believe this.
> Whatever happened to the old “To Protect and Serve” motto? <
Protect their department.
Serve the state.
And yes, I know that most police officers are doing a decent enough job. Based on my own experience (your mileage may vary), I’d say that 85% of the street level cops are okay.
But the other 15% are trash. Far from helping, they make matters worse. And in a critical field like policing, 15% is way too high a number.
I don’t want a cop around that is not prepared to defend a woman and child and the helpless. If a cop ain’t brave, he or she doesn’t need to be in uniform.
That’s right. SCOTUS has decided on this already.
Protect and serve only applies to their obligations to their paymasters ie government agencies. If they do help you it’s only out of a personal sense of moral obligation.
Do Police Have a Duty To Protect Individuals?
Ehline Law Firm ^ | Michael Ehline
No!
I think it would be more productive to look at judges and lawyers.
Wasn’t this already adjudicated that the police have no responsibility to serve and protect? Isn’t that why to ‘serve and protect’ was removed from police cars?
No, see South v. Maryland (1856).
We give cops special privileges that perhaps we shouldn’t, then extensive training, then tens of thousands of dollars in cars and equipment, then arm them when the people cannot often be armed, then they tell us they are allowed to be cowards.
We need to seriously change who the cops are as far as their privileges and responsibilities.
The slogan on their cars, “to protect and serve”, is meant for their political masters.
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.