POLICE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL (NOR SHOULD THEY)

[CactusCarlos]

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

 7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I saw this in a thread at FreeRepublic and thought it would be good for discussion here.

[Chris_]

Police have to protect the public.  To apply Monday Morning Quarterbacking on their (in)actions is counter-productive and against any reasonable public policy.

[NHSparky]

No, they're not private security guards per se, but if they're not being proactive in apprehending criminals, it does SOCIETY no good, nor the individuals therein.

That being said, if the SCOTUS believes that, then they should also have no problem with me enforcing Castle Doctrine in my home, period.  At least in NH, even if a perp is still ON YOUR PROPERTY, not just in your house, you have the right to use deadly force.

[Chris_]

No, they're not private security guards per se, but if they're not being proactive in apprehending criminals, it does SOCIETY no good, nor the individuals therein.

That being said, if the SCOTUS believes that, then they should also have no problem with me enforcing Castle Doctrine in my home, period.  At least in NH, even if a perp is still ON YOUR PROPERTY, not just in your house, you have the right to use deadly force.

That should be the law in all states.  At least the default in the absence of a State law proscribing it.

[DixieBelle]

I agree with the courts. The police are there to suppress as much crime as possible but they cannot prevent crime. They also need the freedom to do their job without being held liable for crimes against citizens in all but the most egregious of circumstances.

This line of thinking helps protect the Second Amendment in my book. I hope it's followed to the logical conclusion.