Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (2005 SC case)

NY Times ^

[Red in Blue PA]

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. 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.

[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.

[Argus]

That’s among other reasons why we have the 2nd Amendment. We have a duty to protect ourselves. It is the aim of the present rogue government to deprive us of that right and duty as well.

[elkfersupper]

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

Revenue enhancement and donut sales.

[Tijeras_Slim]

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

[RIghtwardHo]

Horrible decision.

[Navy Patriot]

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

To provide revenue to the municipality of their jurisdiction.

[Red in Blue PA]

If you are on Facebook or Twitter, spread this far and wide

[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)

 

 

[Red in Blue PA]

Precisely....and why I posted it.

Please spread this on Facebook or Twitter as I am not on those.

[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

[jmcenanly]

If the police don’t have a duty to protect us, then what is the point in having them?
To study the victim to find the perp so that he can gamble in court.

[Red in Blue PA]

Something else to throw in the face of the antis:

Slain student called 911, but no one came in time (48 minute response time=dead girl)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/16/grace.coldcase.zimmerman/index.html

[enraged]

I get their point, that this could open up every city/county to every imaginable lawsuit possible if protection or services are not provided to a precieved level desired. BUT that aside, I think with the restraining order the LEOs/courts were put on notice and therefore are brought into the situation a level higher than your average Gladys Kravitz calling about the neighbor’s dog pooing on her lawn again. My 2 cents.

[Red in Blue PA]

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

[Navy Patriot]

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?

What could possibly take away from a leftist twit's Bizarro World argument?