LAW-ENFORCEMENT HAS NO DUTY TO PROTECT

imported post

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. (10) In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."(11)

I know that no one or very few want to inform LE of their intent to OC. I would suggest reading about these cases, and the cases after 1983,before makinga decision. The cases after 1982 that had The Civil Rights Act (1983), every person that denies a right is liable for injury, was more or less thrown out. I would think a denial to OC in writing and/or a DC charge that was drummed up would be proof that your rights were denied. There was even verb-age on how the Constitution was for limiting the power of government. The major problemI see with this is that you end up dead and your family collects.

The more I read, the more I see how these :cuss:'s talk out of both sides of their mouths. Surprised? No. The degree of contradiction for educated people was a surprise though.

imported post

1983 was not the last time a court ruled that the police have no duty to protect you. As recently as 2005 SCOTUS ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, even if that person has a restraining order against the person who did them harm! The police only have a duty to maintain public order. The case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

"WASHINGTON, June 27 (2005) - 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 violent husband went on to attack her, kidnap her three children, and killed them all. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

imported post

johnyt101 thanks for that link.I was looking for that case today...

imported post

Johnyt101 wrote:

1983 was not the last time a court ruled that the police have no duty to protect you. As recently as 2005 SCOTUS ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, even if that person has a restraining order against the person who did them harm! The police only have a duty to maintain public order. The case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.

"WASHINGTON, June 27 (2005) - 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 violent husband went on to attack her, kidnap her three children, and killed them all. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Click to expand...

"The cases after 1982...." I think that I indicated more than one with "cases after 1982". Any extra info is great but I find too many go off on tangents when they reply. Thanks for staying on subject but I don't think a correction was needed.

It sounds petty of me and you just happened to be the one that got this. It is intended for others to think about too.

imported post

S.E.WI., just to clear up a misunderstanding, I was not trying to "correct" or disrespect anyone, as I was just simply pointing out that SCOTUS reenforced this principle again in 2005. 1856 was a long time ago and I thought I would just point out something more recent so if someone used this very important fact in a debate with an anti, it would be more relevent. Other words it still applies in a "modern society" not just back in the "day" or in the wild west etc...As for the appelate court rulings in the 1980s, some ignorant anti might just try to disreguard them by claiming that it is common for there to be conflicting rulings amungst the appelate courts. So that SCOTUS case clears it all up again in a modern setting. I actually rather appreciate that you posted this thread to inform people that the government has no duty to protect them, as most people do not realize that. After all that is one of the most common arguements that anits make is,"no one should have guns except for the police," or "you dont need a gun, that is what the police are for." So again sorry if you thought I was trying to "correct" you or if I sounded like I was trying to be a know it all, and thank you for bringing this to everyones attention.

best reguards

-johnyt101

imported post

Johnyt101 wrote:

S.E.WI., just to clear up a misunderstanding, I was not trying to "correct" or disrespect anyone, as I was just simply pointing out that SCOTUS reenforced this principle again in 2005. 1856 was a long time ago and I thought I would just point out something more recent so if someone used this very important fact in a debate with an anti, it would be more relevent. Other words it still applies in a "modern society" not just back in the "day" or in the wild west etc...As for the appelate court rulings in the 1980s, some ignorant anti might just try to disreguard them by claiming that it is common for there to be conflicting rulings amungst the appelate courts. So that SCOTUS case clears it all up again in a modern setting. I actually rather appreciate that you posted this thread to inform people that the government has no duty to protect them, as most people do not realize that. After all that is one of the most common arguements that anits make is,"no one should have guns except for the police," or "you dont need a gun, that is what the police are for." So again sorry if you thought I was trying to "correct" you or if I sounded like I was trying to be a know it all, and thank you for bringing this to everyones attention.

best reguards

-johnyt101

Click to expand...

Misunderstanding is easy to do when writing like this. I corrected my post to say that it was petty of me. (What I meant but worded poorly.)

In one of the cases I think the judge even wrote that it was our own responsibility to defend ourselves. I would think this would reinforce our 2A rights. The judges and legislators are violating the supreme law of the land with their rulings and laws. I want the next victim to be in a position to file suit under The Civil Rights Act.

It was no big deal and hope you will see what I meant if you read the post again.

Later

S.E.WI

imported post

S.E.WI wrote:

I want the next victim to be in a position to file suit under The Civil Rights Act.

Click to expand...

Thatmight be tough when they run up against DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CO.. But individual cases can often get different results and Deshaney (the premise of) was so publicly contested that a different set of circumstances could prevail.

imported post

WIG19 wrote:

S.E.WI wrote:

I want the next victim to be in a position to file suit under The Civil Rights Act.

Click to expand...

Thatmight be tough when they run up against DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CO.. But individual cases can often get different results and Deshaney (the premise of) was so publicly contested that a different set of circumstances could prevail.

Click to expand...

Not to speak for S.E.WI, but I think he/she meant the next victim of a DC charge for carrying should file a civil rights suit.

imported post

bnhcomputing wrote:

WIG19 wrote:

S.E.WI wrote:

I want the next victim to be in a position to file suit under The Civil Rights Act.

Click to expand...

Thatmight be tough when they run up against DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CO.. But individual cases can often get different results and Deshaney (the premise of) was so publicly contested that a different set of circumstances could prevail.

Click to expand...

Not to speak for S.E.WI, but I think he/she meant the next victim of a DC charge for carrying should file a civil rights suit.

Click to expand...

I would hope it would only be a DC charge. My idea here is to get an okay or denial to OC from LE of the area I will be in. Ifmy right is denied there would be proof of that. If I followed LE's instructions (denial) and I was attacked then everyone involved in denying my rights could be held liable because I didn't carry out of fear from LE. Medical bills could cost those involved a large amount of $$$$$. A DC charge would still be an injury but the judges would likely rule against me because, , fill in the blank like the judge will. I think we all know that not much will change until there is great cost in $$$$ or something hits too close to home for some lawmaker. There is more to setting this up but I'd be typing for quite awhile.

imported post

S.E.WI wrote:

I would hope it would only be a DC charge. My idea here is to get an okay or denial to OC from LE of the area I will be in. Ifmy right is denied there would be proof of that. If I followed LE's instructions (denial) and I was attacked then everyone involved in denying my rights could be held liable because I didn't carry out of fear from LE. Medical bills could cost those involved a large amount of $$$$$. A DC charge would still be an injury but the judges would likely rule against me because, , fill in the blank like the judge will. I think we all know that not much will change until there is great cost in $$$$ or something hits too close to home for some lawmaker. There is more to setting this up but I'd be typing for quite awhile.

Click to expand...

A suit for denial of civil rights (something which may spawn out of a bogus DC cite) can by itself quite often have substantial $$ attached to it.