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....

[the OlLine Rebel]

Actually, I've only heard of "gun checks" at courthouses and such, not whole towns as a rule (maybe there were exceptions).

[Loud Mime]

time to start a movement to take the "Protect and Serve" from all the cop cars.

[Loud Mime]

great minds think alike........

Yours was my first thought

[Little Ray]

No surprise. This has been established for decades, at least.
It just makes me wonder about about gun-controllers when they say the police will protect you - are they liars or just stupid?

[Little Ray]

Nope. Felons have forfeited the trust and regard of their fellow citizens. Until they jump through the appropriate hoops to get it back, they shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Serving their time is NOT enough.

[politicalwit]

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

That's to "protect" their jobs and to be self-"serving".

[saleman]

Convicted felons can posses guns if they petition to have their rights restored. One of the biggest gun control laws, passed as a "common sense" measure, was denying gun rights to people convicted of domestic violence. Believe me it doesn't take much to get arrested for domestic violence, a misdemeanor. I'm not sure, but I believe if you are convicted of domestic violence you can never have your gun rights restored.

If you are saying murderers, rapist, armed robbers, etc. should be able to own and carry guns without review then I and definitely disagreeing with you. Someone disagreeing with you is not "flaming" you.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Stupid. Or at least ignorant.

Stupid cuz they actually believe - HOPE - in their little hearts that police will even arrive in time to do anything. Stupid cuz they don't seem to understand the laws of physics. If you ain't there, you can't do anything!

[AD from SpringBay]

No more - To Serve and Protect? This will cost millions when it's time to repaint all those car doors.

This lets a lot of air out of the anti-gunners primary argument. Hey ladies - getting raped? Just call the police and they will serve you. If there is a criminal in your home, just call the police, they'll serve you when they can.

[DCPatriot]

RE: SEATBELT TICKETS...A violation of the 4th Amend.

Apparently not.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

---

Well put.

The police are there to try to make sure the bad guy gets punished, when a citizen fails to protect himself.

[Old Mountain man]

There is nothing new here. The court of appeals was in error. There has NEVER been a constitutional duty for police to protect individuals.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Being molested - pulled over - just for not having 1 on (itself ridiculous cuz not wearing this or that safety device is not affecting any1 else) is a violation of the 4th.

[marty60]

You have a point, but then the question is salaries.

[CSM]

Initially, I agree with this one. However, in the places where the RTKBA has been limited in any way, then their duty should be to protect the citizens. When you legislate away the citizen's ability to protect themselves, then you (gov't.) must take on that responsibility.

I look forward to reading the Freeper Feedback on this one.

[SoVaDPJ]

East, as I recall, the purpose of the restraining order was because he was repeatedly threatening to kill the children's mother. I don't think it's much of a stretch. Besides which, the restraining order should have kept him from taking the children in the first place.

[SoVaDPJ]

"Moreover, if a criminal is threatening you with a gun and you go to pull your gun, chances are you will get shot."

Specious.

[SoVaDPJ]

"Nope. Felons have forfeited the trust and regard of their fellow citizens. Until they jump through the appropriate hoops to get it back, they shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Serving their time is NOT enough."

Agreed.

[Ditto]

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

Frankly, my copy of the Constitution is completly silent on the topic of police protection.

[SoIA-79]

Good point, the framers intended for us to be an armed society. In such a society any police force would be only secondary to the armed citizen in combating crime. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out like that tho.