Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse

[Nathan Zachary]

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police d not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...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....

[Nathan Zachary]

All the more reason to exersize your 2nd amendment rights.

[marty60]

Then does this mean we don't have to pay the taxes that pay their salaries. We pay for the service of protection etc. If the police have no duty to protect us, then just exactly what should we expect them to do? I think these Judges have suddenly dropped 40 points of their IQ

[happinesswithoutpeace]

This is nothing new.

(Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).

[eastforker]

No, you pay for law enforcement, not protection. It is every ones responsibility to protect themselves, their property and family.

[Nathan Zachary]

I haven't a clue. You'd think that if you hire and pay them to provide a service, you should recieve that service.
I guess this will rebound thru the whole business world as well. City trash collectors; it has no end!

[Nathan Zachary]

Isn't a violation of a restraining order not breaking a law?

[Nathan Zachary]

I guess all the police will be removing the "To serve and protect" decals from their cars in the morning.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I guess all the police will be removing the "To serve and protect" decals from their cars in the morning.

Yep from now on it's "To Coffee and Doughnut"

[eastforker]

Sure it is, just like armed robbery. Are you gonna holler for police while some guy has a gun pointed at you while he takes your money or are you going to do something about it. Police enforce laws after the crime is committed. The cops you see patrolling banks are usually off duty cops being paid by the banks to protect them.

[frankiep]

Don't you just love it!
And for years the government has been doing just about everything possible to chip away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is not only harder for we the people equip ourselves for our own defense, but we are now told that the police aren't responsible for defending us either.

[snowsislander]

I am just surprised that there were two dissents in that case, even though both predictably came from the left side of the Court. Law enforcement agencies in the United States have never had an obligation to protect any individual.

[SoIA-79]

The police have apparently never had a Constitutional duty to protect anyone.

All they really have to do is show up and take good notes.

[eastforker]

What kind of nanny state do you want, one like UK where you do not have a right to self defense? The cops are not OBLIGATED to defend you, that is your responsibility.

[muir_redwoods]

The police are there to preserve order and investigate crime, pretty much in that order. Protection is, and always has been, the individual's responsibility. The very existence of a restraining order is proof of that. If the cops had the job of protecting each of us, no one would need a restraining order.

[frankiep]

I don't want any kind of nanny state and I completely agree that the police should not be under any obligation to protect you. I was just trying to point out that while rulings like this are made, rightfully so, that there are still some halfwits out there who want to place more and more restrictions on our 2A rights. It's ironic because one of the arguements these gun grabbers make is that the police will be there to protect you if you need them.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

it seems to me the citizens of every city now have great grounds for a class action lawsuit for false advertising against the police forces of every city that have cop cars painted with to serve and protect on the side and great defenses to use in court if you get arrested for illegal possession of a hand gun in Chicago la or new york or any other stalinist dictatorship of a city that outlaws all firearms possession

[freepatriot32]

so in light of this ruling do you now agree with me that even convicted felons should be allowed to conceal carry to protect their life and family from people that the police dont have to protect you from you cant have it both ways you cant say the police have no obligation to protect you then say if you area convicted felon or a gang banger or drug dealer you shouldn't be allow ed to own the only means to protect yourself everytime i post on here that all adults should be allowed guns wtih no restrictions i get flamed so bad i have third degree burns

[freepatriot32]

ping

[eastforker]

I do not know why you posted that to me, you never heard me make that kind of statement.

[goldstategop]

This ruling affirms a tradition going back to the 19th century... the duty of the police is to protect society, not particular individuals. Self-defense therefore is an obligation that must be exercised by the concerned individual seeking protecting from danger.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)