Police duty to protect

[Brigdh]

imported post

Warren v District of Columbia
http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/january2004.cfm

The court ruled that the state has no duty to provide public goods, thus the police have no obligation to protect and thus do not even have to come to your assistance. How far have similar cases gone? SCOTUS? thanks

 

[DT4E31]

imported post

Of course the police must come when called. I believe the decision is being taken out of context. It means if your killed you cant sue the state because the police failed to safeguard your life. If your in witness protection the have to protect you. But joe public cant expect 24/7 bodyguard service.

 

[Leader]

imported post

DT4E31 wrote:

Of course the police must come when called. I believe the decision is being taken out of context. It means if your killed you cant sue the state because the police failed to safeguard your life. If your in witness protection the have to protect you. But joe public cant expect 24/7 bodyguard service.

Actually they don't. The courts have ruled over & over that the police are NOT responsable for YOUR saftey.

 

[DT4E31]

imported post

Well you should get a new job as a union rep, all those dispatchers, cops etc who have lost pay, vacation days or there jobs for not responding in a timely fashion to a legitamate 911 emergency could have used you at there disciplinary hearings.

 

[Brigdh]

imported post

Although it is not the law, it may be local policy, and thus able for officers to be fired under. Just like you can be fired for breaking company policy.

In any case, the inability to legally depend on the police is a valid reason for OC/CC, and an argument against antis.

 

[Leader]

imported post

So you are saying I can sue the local police department for not preventing the theft of my tools? And Women can sue for not preventing rapes? People that are victoms foe any crime can sue the local departments because you say they are responsable?

Where I live, the police usually take a report when something happens so you can file with your insurencs company. In some cases, they may investagate to see if they think they can find who is responsable but not always. They don't even act when the person who comitted the crime is known in many cases.

 

[OC-Glock19]

imported post

Leader wrote:

They don't even act when the person who comitted the crime is known in many cases.

That's true. I had a revolver stolen by my roomate, and when I reported it to the police they didn't even want to talk to my roomie when I told them that I suspected him of taking it. (He later confessed to me that he'd taken it, but it was long gone by then.) So, yeah, the police are there for you -- to write down what happened and to file the paperwork.

 

[possumboy]

imported post

Brigdh wrote:

Warren v District of Columbia
http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/january2004.cfm

The court ruled that the state has no duty to provide public goods, thus the police have no obligation to protect and thus do not even have to come to your assistance. How far have similar cases gone? SCOTUS? thanks

The short list I keep around. Notice the wording. No duty to protect. If any officers gets fired or reprimanded, it is police of that department, not the "laws" making it happen.

[highlight= #ffff88]Warren[/highlight] v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981), states:

“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.”



Other case law includes:

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);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981);
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

 

[Brigdh]

imported post

Leader wrote:

So you are saying I can sue the local police department for not preventing the theft of my tools? And Women can sue for not preventing rapes? People that are victoms foe any crime can sue the local departments because you say they are responsable?

I'm assuming this post was directed at me. You can sue, but you have no legal standing. The court case i referenced states (at least in DC) that the police are not responsible.

Possumboy: Thanks for the list. More bed time reading

 

[ProguninTN]

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Brigdh wrote:

Warren v District of Columbia
http://www.mcsm.org/noduty1.html
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/january2004.cfm

The court ruled that the state has no duty to provide public goods, thus the police have no obligation to protect and thus do not even have to come to your assistance. How far have similar cases gone? SCOTUS? thanks

The short list I keep around. Notice the wording. No duty to protect. If any officers gets fired or reprimanded, it is police of that department, not the "laws" making it happen.

[highlight= #ffff88]Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981), states:

“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.”



Other case law includes:

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);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981);
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Don't forget Deshaney v. Winnebago County 489 U.S. 189 (1989). or Castle Rock v. Gonzalez 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

BTW, possumboy thanks for posting that. (I used to have a site with the list stored in my favorites, but the site got taken offline and I lost the list.)

ProguninTN

 

[Leader]

imported post

Brigdh wrote:

Leader wrote:

So you are saying I can sue the local police department for not preventing the theft of my tools? And Women can sue for not preventing rapes? People that are victoms foe any crime can sue the local departments because you say they are responsable?

I'm assuming this post was directed at me. You can sue, but you have no legal standing. The court case i referenced states (at least in DC) that the police are not responsible.

Possumboy: Thanks for the list. More bed time reading

Actually No. It was in responce to DT4E31.

He seems to be a police officer and actually believes that protect & serve stuff.

 

[possumboy]

imported post

Leader wrote:

Actually No. It was in responce to DT4E31.

He seems to be a police officer and actually believes that protect & serve stuff.

He could be trying to say that most Officers try to protect and serve. I have a few friends that are LEOs in NoVA, and they believe in what they do.

I may be a minority, but I believe most LEOs do want to protect and serve.


I do think that DT4E31 could find a better way of saying that, if that is what he means.

 

[JD]

imported post

possumboy wrote:

Leader wrote:

Actually No. It was in responce to DT4E31.

He seems to be a police officer and actually believes that protect & serve stuff.

He could be trying to say that most Officers try to protect and serve. I have a few friends that are LEOs in NoVA, and they believe in what they do.

I may be a minority, but I believe most LEOs do want to protect and serve.


I do think that DT4E31 could find a better way of saying that, if that is what he means.

The list of officers with those thoughts is dwindling, I spoke with an officer the otehr week who was going to retire in two days, 23 years total on the force, I thanked him for his service mentioning tht it was one job I wouldn't want.

His reply was a little disheartening, he said that he tells the newer guys to "Just treat it like a job, show up, do your job, get paid, put your time in, and get out at 20"

It's not the overall job of the PD to save anyone, while it is part of the job, their main task is to pick up the pieces afterward, and try to get the suspect in front of a judge and jurry.

IMHO it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for their safety, not the PD.

 

[smccomas]

imported post

JD wrote:

possumboy wrote:

Leader wrote:

Actually No. It was in responce to DT4E31.

He seems to be a police officer and actually believes that protect & serve stuff.

He could be trying to say that most Officers try to protect and serve. I have a few friends that are LEOs in NoVA, and they believe in what they do.

I may be a minority, but I believe most LEOs do want to protect and serve.


I do think that DT4E31 could find a better way of saying that, if that is what he means.

The list of officers with those thoughts is dwindling, I spoke with an officer the otehr week who was going to retire in two days, 23 years total on the force, I thanked him for his service mentioning tht it was one job I wouldn't want.

His reply was a little disheartening, he said that he tells the newer guys to "Just treat it like a job, show up, do your job, get paid, put your time in, and get out at 20"

It's not the overall job of the PD to save anyone, while it is part of the job, their main task is to pick up the pieces afterward, and try to get the suspect in front of a judge and jurry.

IMHO it is the individual who is ultimately responsible for their safety, not the PD.

+1 Thats why I carry, my life my responsibility.

 

[mvpel]

imported post

JPFO publishes a book called "Dial 911 and Die!" that goes through all fifty states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and DC, and examines case law on the general lack of liability for failing to provide, or provide sufficient, police protection.

See http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

 

[ne1]

imported post

The police have no duty to protect spouses either.

PHILADELPHIA -- Despite "grave concerns" about the alleged failure of police to arrest an abusive officer who later shot his wife, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that she cannot seek damages from the officers.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/14110510/detail.html?dl=headlineclick