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

Skip to comments.

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
Public Rights ^ | 2005 | compiled by Neal Seaman

Posted on 02/26/2008 3:14:25 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: NewJerseyJoe

It is well established that the police do not owe a duty to protect any individual citizen. Their duty is to the community at large to maintain order and bring to justice those who break the law. That’s pretty much it when it comes to the duties of a law enforcement agency.


21 posted on 02/26/2008 6:19:43 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

Actually, I’ve been advocating that all along. We could do away with most of our police forces if people would just take their personal safety a LOT more seriously.


22 posted on 02/26/2008 6:34:52 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
The 9-11 hijackers were only able to do what they did because GOVERNMENT disarmed the very people that could have fought back.

Further, how many of the 19 hijackers came across the border illegally? From what I've read, they came in on legal visa's.

23 posted on 02/26/2008 6:37:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

This situation is also why we often hear Police Chiefs and Police Union bosses coming out in favor of banning guns. Guns in other people’s hands do make cops working conditions more dangerous and though guns offer citizens protection and defense, those things are not legally or institutionally a mandate for the police. Police chiefs and police organizations don’t get judged , except in the most cursory way, on crime prevention, but on post crime performance, Unions are interested only in their members, the public is left to fend, unarmed for itself.


24 posted on 02/26/2008 7:13:23 AM PST by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
So basically, the police won't protect us, but then the liberals ban guns and deny law-abiding citizens (including college students!) the right to defend themselves?

No wonder there are shootings on college campuses.

25 posted on 02/26/2008 7:39:49 AM PST by rabscuttle385 (Admin Moderator for President. The lesser of two evils is still evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Katrina made that clear.

LEOS primary duty is now revenue generation, bad backs, disability, early retirement, second careers.


26 posted on 02/26/2008 8:00:17 AM PST by NoLibZone (If the Clinton years were so great for the libs why is Obama doing so well?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Police and district attorneys have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect. This is called The Public Duty Doctrine.

This doctrine cannot be found in any textbook, either in high schools or college classes. When our children reach adulthood, they haven’t a clue about this.

Therefore, here is the problem: Police and district attorneys have no legal duty to disclose that they have no legal duty to protect.


27 posted on 06/16/2010 2:32:23 PM PDT by Edelweisse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

Mark


28 posted on 03/05/2011 7:48:16 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

The U.S. Supreme Court has written: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

No duty to protect means there is no corresponding obligation of allegience. No allegiance to their million+ laws, statutes and regulations.

A State is a body politic — political society. A body politic is the citizens.

Connect the dots:
There is no duty to protect > there is no obligation of allegiance > there are no citizens > there is no body politic — no political society > there is no State.

Factually what is a State? What is the State of Arizona? The State of Arizona is an act of congress — words on paper. A legal fiction. Prior to February 14, 1912, the State of Arizona didn’t exist.

What is government? Men and women providing services by compulsion/violence.

Politicians don’t represent people. Pay the tax or go to jail isn’t representation. It’s ownership, or at least enslavement.


29 posted on 03/29/2013 3:25:28 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The enemy is well within the gates and have taken over our Congress, media, Hollywood, banking and Wall Street.

ReDiscover911(dot)com to get the entire picture in mind.


30 posted on 08/20/2013 1:37:25 PM PDT by whole2th (ReDiscover911.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

ping


31 posted on 08/14/2014 6:08:18 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

SIERRA MIKE CHARLIE!!!


32 posted on 02/20/2016 7:16:29 PM PST by The_Police
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 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