[Red in Blue PA]

Citizens have no Constitutional right to police protection. How many know that this is still the law of the land? None from my experience.

If on social media, spread this SCOTUS case from 2005.

Also, if you know an anti, have them Google this on their phone while standing there: "Castle Rock Gonzales NY Times" and watch their face as they pull this article up.

[Diogenesis]

America is now a country with a Tyrant-by-Fraud
and no Law.

[SoCal SoCon]

If the police don’t have a duty to protect us, then what is the point in having them?

[Red in Blue PA]

It looks like the redirect does not work. This should:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

[Navy Patriot]

This is not new to me, there have been at least two previous SCOTUS rulings upholding the fact that police have no duty to protect anyone, (and cannot be punished for failure to do so) even if they voluntarily promise to protect a person.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I believe the first ruling to this effect dates back to the 1850’s.

[RIghtwardHo]

Horrible decision.

[Political Junkie Too]

Doesn't this take away the argument from the Left that people don't need guns for self-protection because it should be left to the police?

-PJ

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Meh - there's a literal pile of these rulings that span across the decades, partial list below -

 

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)

 

Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)

 

Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)

 

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap. 1971)

 

Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)

 

Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

 

Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)

 

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

 

Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)

 

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

 

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)

 

Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

 

Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)

 

 

[Political Junkie Too]

If the police don’t have a duty to protect us, then what is the point in having them?

Traffic tickets for citizens, but not illegal aliens.

-PJ

[TBP]

This ruling is morally and legally wrong.

[Parmenio]

I agree with this decision. As citizens, we do not and should not have a “constitutional right” to government services.

[BCrago66]

I haven’t read it yet, but this seem like a reaffirmance of DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), otherwise known as the “poor Joshua” case. Joshua was a child beaten to the point of brain damage by his father, even though the city’s child protective agency had sufficient notice to prevent it. The Supreme Court held that the city was under no affirmative obligation, under the Due Process Clause, to protect the child against an evil committed by a private actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

The Supreme Court was right then and it’s right now.

[SeminoleCounty]

Which is why we need Right to Self Defense laws.

Of course, In my area we are trying to lynch George Zimmerman for capping Trayvon Martin when Martin assaulted him.

Gun Control is just population control. Everyone has a right to self defense

[KC Burke]

I am reading the comments here and asking myself if this is really the comments from a conservative forum.

A federal “constitutional” duty for citizens or office holders to perform in a certain manner for any issue to a certain standard of care sounds like a pandora’s box to me.

A state ruling in a suit of mandamus is what the rememdy is for willful non performance of a state duty. The ability of someone to always go to Federal Court and claim broad aspects of equal protection compel perfect protection and having the Feds be the final remedy in all cases is stupid IMHO.

[allmendream]

Duh! Read the constitution lately? People have a natural right to self defense!

[rockinqsranch]

Interesting that this is a reverification of an old decision that Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect as I grew up seeing the police cars stenciled “to protect, and to serve”.

I recently read an acknowlegement as an andecdote in another column here at FR that many police departments had removed that phrase from their patrol cars, and wondered why.

[SERKIT]

This is tough for some people to swallow, but police, fire, and ambulance folks have no duty to act. That’s why everyone should have the ability, at thier option, to keep and bear arms, have a fire extinguisher, and have a first-aid kit. If we become so dependent for everything, we’ll wind up with nothing. Some want to confiscate all guns, which is similar to banning fire extinguishers and first aid kits, and depending on the state for all of these things.

[TexasTransplant]

Been that way for YEARS ...

They are REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AGENTS period

TT

[SandRat]

Admission that 911 is really the governments definition of Dial A Prayer.

[Right Wing Assault]

“Hello, police department, “We Serve and Protect,” uh, wait, forget that motto. If this is an emergency and you need protection or feel your life is in danger, please hang up and call a friend. If you survive, tomorrow you need to go out an buy some guns and a lot of ammo.

For fender benders, press 1. Parking violations, press 2. Dead bodies, press 3. For other problems, press 0, where an operator will tell you the only choices are 1, 2, 3, and 0.

We do not handle loud parties or barking dogs any longer, so do not press 4 or 5 or we will charge you will phone harrassment. Goodbye!”