Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse

Posted on 06/28/2005 1:46:17 AM PDT by 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....

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; blackrobedtyrants; castlerock; donutwatch; govwatch; leo; ruling; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Nathan Zachary
AMEN! If the cops do not have to respond, then we must have firearms. This argument should destroy gun control!

If the cops pretend to work, then we should pretend to pay them.

21 posted on 06/28/2005 2:48:29 AM PDT by A.B.Normal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Police motto: Defend and Protect. Police reality: get a good case to the prosecution.


22 posted on 06/28/2005 2:52:07 AM PDT by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

That's why I said it's all the more reason to excercise your 2nd amendment rights. Now the court strengthened the argument.
YOUR life is in YOUR hands, you have a right to protect it.


23 posted on 06/28/2005 3:16:05 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Or, as someone from another site says, "a gun in your hand is better than 2 cops on the phone!"


24 posted on 06/28/2005 3:19:44 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marty60

I don't want them to protect me, giving them that role allows them to control me.


25 posted on 06/28/2005 3:25:09 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (LET ME DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, ALEX KOZINSKI FOR SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
In a major metropolitan area the on duty cop to citizen ratio is one cop to a few thousand citizens at best. Tough job to accomplish if the SC ruled otherwise.

Of course, the 2nd amendment exists, in part, to assist me in facilitating my own protection.

26 posted on 06/28/2005 3:39:10 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

But the law enforcers have always had the option of whether or not to enforce the law. If a law is on the books, then it should be enforced--equally for everyone. If it can't be enforced or enforced equally--or won't be--then the law should be voided and dropped from the books.


27 posted on 06/28/2005 3:42:53 AM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Washington State--Land of Court-approved Voting Fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

See my tagline.

The worst thing we ever did was to start "professional" police forces. They have turned into the enforcement arm of our leftist, anti-American courts and become a plague on the populace.

A citizens militia would be cheaper, more effective, and less likely to pander to idiotic legal decisions by renegade judges.


28 posted on 06/28/2005 3:49:14 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carumba

That's odd... I felt like I was protecting and serving on Sunday night when I caught the guy trying to break in to a family's home. The family was very appreciative as well.

As for the 2nd Amendment - after speaking with that very same homeowner, I talked him into applying for his gun permit and attending the various gun safety classes. Both he and his wife expressed an interest.


29 posted on 06/28/2005 3:50:30 AM PDT by islander-11 (Save Nantucket - Vote Republican!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
any other stalinist dictatorship of a city that outlaws all

Um, didn't Wyatt Earp outlaw gun possession in tombstone too?

It is an acceptable tenet for a very long time, in the most gun-rich aspects of American culture, you have to "leave your guns at the city-line". Firearms in high-density situations are a much different story from even outside the city line. It isn't a libertarian issue, it is an anarchy issue.

30 posted on 06/28/2005 3:53:48 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (“There is a law – a law of nature. Man is not the ruler.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

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

- Good point...but what happens when 'gun control' unsurpes our ability to to do so? Guns are becoming like radar detectors...it is legal to buy them, own them and carry them...but illegal to use them...even in cases of self defense due to the courts humungous gray area of to what extent a person can do to protect themselves 'excessive use of force' baloney.


31 posted on 06/28/2005 4:07:46 AM PDT by Tempestuous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

People must be capable of self-defense and that's why we need the guns more than the cops do. Cops need little notebooks and that yellow chalk to draw the outline of the body on the ground.


32 posted on 06/28/2005 4:10:12 AM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

33 posted on 06/28/2005 4:11:36 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this decision make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

34 posted on 06/28/2005 4:11:47 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...

Will this make getting a "carry permit" easier in a place like Albany, NY?

35 posted on 06/28/2005 4:12:42 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infocats

Oh...oh...I triple posted by mistake. Sorry!


36 posted on 06/28/2005 4:13:35 AM PDT by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

It's more important for them to be out there giving out tickets for drivers not wearing seatbelts.


37 posted on 06/28/2005 4:14:32 AM PDT by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
It is an acceptable tenet for a very long time, in the most gun-rich aspects of American culture, you have to "leave your guns at the city-line".

There's nothing acceptable about it. Only an idiot would leave his guns at the city line.

38 posted on 06/28/2005 4:16:24 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

If the SC is going to come down with rulings like this, then it has to (or, more accurately, a reasonable SC would) allow people the right to self defense. In a roundabout way, this ruling is a pro-2A ruling


39 posted on 06/28/2005 4:20:38 AM PDT by white trash redneck (Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: marty60
If the police have no duty to protect us, then just exactly what should we expect them to do?

I thought police took an oath "to protect and serve"?

40 posted on 06/28/2005 4:26:55 AM PDT by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson