Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Do You Have A Right to Police Protection?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Here is an Article that REALLY got me cookin' although I was already somewhat familiar with the issues and concerns in the Article.

    I wish I would be able to print this out and hand it out to people.

    ================================================== ========

    Go to Discussion Forum. Home. Go to Internet Tidbits.
    Attention Public Servant Letter. In depth evidence.



    Do You Have A Right to Police Protection?One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. I cannot explain their rationale, other than to say that gun control proponents must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But, in light of court decisions, we find that such is not the case. Further, look at the behavior of attorneys, and in particular, one attorney Mr. John Brophy, who doesn't deny that the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens, but does attempt to intentionally mislead people into believing that the government in this country recognizes and upholds citizens' rights to self defense, a belief that is completely and utterly false! Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun control legislation and associated court cases, the Bernard Goetz case in New York and other so called weapons charges cases, for evidence of the government's true intentions. In other words, Mr. Brophy is deliberately lying, in an attempt to cover up what the government really is, when he says that the government recognizes your legal rights to self-protection. Mr. Brophy's behavior is hardly surprising considering that he belongs to the same closed private club that the judges in the courts do. But, anyways, onto further discussion about what the courts have done.
    The courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that the courts have said they are under no legal obligation to do so. Another key point to remember is that the courts have committed treason against the people and sovereignty of this country in making those decisions, if, for no other reason than the following:
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
    For those who do not recognize what I just quoted, this is the Preamble to the United States Constitution, and the government is not obeying it because of the court decisions just mentioned, and which are backed up by case histories included later in this document.
    The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Preamble has as much legal force as the rest of the United States Consitution. Furthermore, the Preamble of the United States Constitution defines why, and for what reasons, the government should exist. If the government isn't following the Preamble of the United States Constitution, then, it isn't what the people intended that it should be. Or, in other words, the government is a fraud and is acting in bad faith.
    The questions that everyone should be asking now are:
    What is the government today and who does it serve if it isn't the people of this country? Find the answer here, even though the reading is dense.
    Who do the police serve? It appears that they ultimately serve whoever the courts serve.
    Who do the courts serve and are they accountable to the people of this country? Look at this. It should be obvious that the courts certainly do not serve the people of this country, that they are doing everything in their power to hide this from the people, and that they are trying to keep secret who it is that they do serve.
    What is the ultimate goal of the government in this country? Try this terrifying answer.
    here and I will add it to this webpage. Some of the court case cites in these case histories are links to the actual cases in official online law library databases. The reader may wish to take a look at those actual cases. All of the links were valid at the time that they were created and every effort is made to keep those links valid. Nonetheless, the validity of any of those links can't be guaranteed and I would very much appreciate being notified if a reader finds a link to be invalid. The reader can easily reach me through here.
    Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening, Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)). Those of you in the Silicon Valley, please note what city this happened in!
    Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened: "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "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 New York which now denies all responsibility to her" (Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)). Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self defense.
    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). Just what did happen to "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" anyways?
    The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).
    Look here to see when and where the United States Supreme Court first introduced that "general rule" that the police have no duty under federal law to protect the citizens. Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special membership" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney, the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused. Indeed, they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his father's custody ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?" Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991).
    The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf" (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006). In other words, this court's decision is just so much doublespeak designed to allow the government to turn its back on the people. Consider the absurdities that this court put forth, namely:
    A little boy in the legal custody of an abusive father is able to protect himself and is free to act on his own behalf, even though he is a minor and is not of legal age to act on his own behalf.
    The word or assurances of a government official, including those of a police officer, mean nothing, because this court has decided that the giving of that word or those assurances in no way obligates a government official to keep his or her word or assurances.
    About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990). Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her. So, when they failed to do so and she was injured, they were not held to be liable.
    Citizens injured because the police failed to protect them can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action. That very deceptive case, because it appears to favor Burch, who was the injured party, in part, states:
    "The constitutional violation actionable under 1983 is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process. Therefore, to determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred, it is necessary to ask what process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally adequate."
    "We express no view on the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim under 1983 for violation of his procedural due process rights."
    Many states, however, have specifically denied such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846, which state in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." No doubt, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) would still assert that those states provide adequate remedies.
    Another key point stated in Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) is that of making "due process" dependent, at least in part, on fiscal issues. To quote that case again:
    "Due process, as this Court often has said, is a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation. To determine what procedural protections the Constitution requires in a particular case, we weigh several factors:
    'First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)."
    Considering that the money in the United States is fraud, and that the problems that it has created will only get worse with time, it can be expected that the "due process" given the citizens of this country will also get more and more limited with time.
    Go to Discussion Forum. Home. Go to Internet Tidbits.
    Attention Public Servant Letter. In depth evidence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    This may be true but I submit that most people that call and request the police get one. It is a known fact that the police are NOT everywhere and cannot possibly protect EVERYONE.

    If the people were entitled to this one on one personal protection we would need to hire a great deal more cops.

    We are all aware that it takes about 6 minutes for the police to arrive to a call involving some type of emergency. If you want a faster response you will need to demand that more cops be hired by your locality.

    The police have limitations on what they can do and there have been many times I have told people. "Sorry, nothing I can legally do for you at the moment."



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    In defense of our own local constabulary, I can say that I've never had a brush with them, despite being kind of a rotten bastard (not evil, just a "scofflaw" type) when I was young and having lived here off-and-on for about 30 years. They also have excellent response times for 911 calls - last time I called I had 2 squad cars on-site within 90 seconds, guns drawn, looking for the pricks who burglarized my dad's house. Well done.

    -ljp

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    This may be true but I submit that most people that call and request the police get one. It is a known fact that the police are NOT everywhere and cannot possibly protect EVERYONE.

    If the people were entitled to this one on one personal protection we would need to hire a great deal more cops.

    We are all aware that it takes about 6 minutes for the police to arrive to a call involving some type of emergency. If you want a faster response you will need to demand that more cops be hired by your locality.

    The police have limitations on what they can do and there have been many times I have told people. "Sorry, nothing I can legally do for you at the moment."


    Yep. It ALWAYS amazes me how people depend on LEO's for EVERYTHING and not letting them do what they are designated for.

    I try to tell the people about things that have been shared in this Article and I just get a....:what:...."You say WHAT"...:what:.

    Then I tell them and kinda discreetly point at my sidearm and say "Why do you think I carry one of these.".

    They kinda get the point. I even tell them to go home and Google it.

    TJ


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    TJ,

    That is why my wife carries!!!! I am not always by her side and it is my husbandly duty to protect her. But we both realize that neither the police nor her husband can always be there to keep her safe.

    People need to arm themselves and take a stand when necessary. Let the police investigate... but defend yourself when necessary from the bad people out there.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    I don't see the contradiction. The preamble only guarantees domestic tranquility, Common defense, etc, etc in the general sense, at least the way I read it.
    Even if we had a cop on every block the police couldn't guarantee everyone's safety...

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Yep. It ALWAYS amazes me how people depend on LEO's for EVERYTHING ....
    TJ, they want to depend on the government for EVERYTHING. They're socialists and don't even realize it!



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    "WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY". KNOW IT, LIVE IT, LIVE BECAUSE OF IT. The operative word in Self Defense is SELF!!!!!!!!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Yep. It ALWAYS amazes me how people depend on LEO's for EVERYTHING ....
    TJ, they want to depend on the government for EVERYTHING. They're socialists and don't even realize it!
    I almost replied that they were brought up and educated that way.

    Then I remembered (Ben Franklin's?) admonition that it would be the end of the Republic when the people realized they could vote themselves money from the public treasury. Sounds like he had experience with these types of people even then.

    Ben Franklin said something else to indicate that there have beenplenty of these people with us since forever. At or after the Constitutional Convention he was asked by an older woman, "[What sort of government have you given us]?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." And, of course, there is his admonition about people who give up essential liberty for temporary safety do not deserve either.

    Yep, these people have been with us since the dawn of time. If you want to be mad about something, understand that they are living partially, some perhaps even entirely, off the sweat of your brow.

    While they help erode your freedoms, of course.

    Yep, we carry them along on our backs.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Yep. It ALWAYS amazes me how people depend on LEO's for EVERYTHING ....
    TJ, they want to depend on the government for EVERYTHING. They're socialists and don't even realize it!

    I know. But I thought I left all that (socialism) in Sweden when I moved here I guess not



    TJ

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    914

    Post imported post

    "when every second counts, the police are only minutes away."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    A video clip I saw recently said it best.





    Speed of response, 40 - 80 mph. Plus the amount of time it takes to whine about having to go on a call in the middle of his coffee and donut break.




    .45 ACP


    Speed of response, 900 feet per second, or 3,240,000 mph. Yours faithfully, 99.99% of the time. And the best part is that it is always and instantly on scene, if you want it to be.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    John wrote:
    A video clip I saw recently said it best.

    Speed of response, 40 - 80 mph. Plus the amount of time it takes to whine about having to go on a call in the middle of his coffee and donut break.


    .45 ACP


    Speed of response, 900 feet per second, or 3,240,000 mph. Yours faithfully, 99.99% of the time. And the best part is that it is always and instantly on scene, if you want it to be.
    Did not appreciate the comment about whining while on the coffee and donut break

    :X

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Sometimes I question the 'professionality' of LE agencies in that the individuals involved bear no legal burden for the performance of their duties. Contrast that to the medical profession, where RNs are held accountable, by law, to provide medical care to the patient's assigned. Failure to do so is called 'abandonment' and carries stiff penalties and loss of licensure.

    Other than the cost to the governmental body involved in any claim, why LEO's are not held more legally accountable is lost on me.

    +1 on the 'provide for the common defense' argument.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    John wrote:
    A video clip I saw recently said it best.

    Speed of response, 40 - 80 mph. Plus the amount of time it takes to whine about having to go on a call in the middle of his coffee and donut break.


    .45 ACP


    Speed of response, 900 feet per second, or 3,240,000 mph. Yours faithfully, 99.99% of the time. And the best part is that it is always and instantly on scene, if you want it to be.
    Did not appreciate the comment about whining while on the coffee and donut break

    :X
    LEO...U fuuuny. ROTFLMAO

    TJ

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    John wrote:
    A video clip I saw recently said it best.

    Speed of response, 40 - 80 mph. Plus the amount of time it takes to whine about having to go on a call in the middle of his coffee and donut break.


    .45 ACP


    Speed of response, 900 feet per second, or 3,240,000 mph. Yours faithfully, 99.99% of the time. And the best part is that it is always and instantly on scene, if you want it to be.
    Did not appreciate the comment about whining while on the coffee and donut break

    :X
    I'll be the first to say there are some good cops out there......there has to be......I just haven't met one yet.

    We met a park ranger that we liked, once. I guess that qualifies, since PA State Park Rangers are just dressed up State Troopers.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    I like this quote from a slightly older document better.

    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." -- Declaration of Independence

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    John wrote:
    I'll be the first to say there are some good cops out there......there has to be......I just haven't met one yet.

    We met a park ranger that we liked, once. I guess that qualifies, since PA State Park Rangers are just dressed up State Troopers.
    Same goes for citizens..... good and bad. I have met both.

    In my job I meet more bad than good.

    I met a citizen once that I liked too. :?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    John wrote:
    I'll be the first to say there are some good cops out there......there has to be......I just haven't met one yet.

    We met a park ranger that we liked, once. I guess that qualifies, since PA State Park Rangers are just dressed up State Troopers.
    Same goes for citizens..... good and bad. I have met both.

    In my job I meet more bad than good.

    I met a citizen once that I liked too. :?
    Was that the one you married ?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Leader wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    John wrote:
    I'll be the first to say there are some good cops out there......there has to be......I just haven't met one yet.

    We met a park ranger that we liked, once. I guess that qualifies, since PA State Park Rangers are just dressed up State Troopers.
    Same goes for citizens..... good and bad. I have met both.

    In my job I meet more bad than good.

    I met a citizen once that I liked too. :?
    Was that the one you married ?
    You know it!


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    BobCav wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Yep. It ALWAYS amazes me how people depend on LEO's for EVERYTHING ....
    TJ, they want to depend on the government for EVERYTHING. They're socialists and don't even realize it!

    I know. But I thought I left all that (socialism) in Sweden when I moved here I guess not



    TJ
    Hey try living in Canada where you have to get a licence to own a handgun but you also have to register it and where if you own more then 10 guns then they can make a random inspection on you and if you want bring your gun to the range you will need a Authorization to Transportdocument from the government and if you want to bring your weapon to a gunsmith who does not work at your range then you have to apply for another Authorization to Transportdocument so for every location you want to bring your weapon you have to have a separate document, oh and if you bring the gun to the range or anywhere else it has to be in a container which can be padlocked and the guns have to be unloaded and the guns have to have either a trigger lock or a lock inside the action down through the magazine well and up the outside, oh and I forgot... if you bring your guns anywhere in the container then you also have to bring the Authorization to Transport for the location you are going to and Proof of Gun Registration with you too, preferably in the container.


    Another thing I forgot about is that we have the same damn magazine restrictions as California so only 10 round magazines and good luck ever trying to get a concealed carry licence which is non-existant.


    Sorry for the run-on sentence but my neck is acting up and I need to head to bed and just want to make my comment before I head to bed but any admin is welcome to edit it for grammar and other fun stuff which I am really bad at. :P

    Thanks in Advance. :P


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •