Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

The Los Angeles Police Department Motto is "To Protect and to Serve".

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/1128

The Los Angele Police Department Mission Statement is slightly different:

"It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence."

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/844

From a practical stand point law enforcement agencies can not protect each individual.

Protection of citizens is not spelled out at any level of government. Individuals are their own first line of defense, whether they like it or not.

"Protect and to Serve" may be a snappy motto, but the serve part is the only obligation a government agency has.

I believe most all police departments do try and serve the public to the best of their ability, but that is all we can expect.

A generic job description from the bureau of labor would not be considered a official job obligation on the part of police forces.
 
The Los Angeles Police Department Motto is "To Protect and to Serve".

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/1128

The Los Angele Police Department Mission Statement is slightly different:

"It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve, to reduce the incidence and fear of crime, and to enhance public safety while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life. Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence."

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/844

From a practical stand point law enforcement agencies can not protect each individual.

Protection of citizens is not spelled out at any level of government. Individuals are their own first line of defense, whether they like it or not.

"Protect and to Serve" may be a snappy motto, but the serve part is the only obligation a government agency has.

I believe most all police departments do try and serve the public to the best of their ability, but that is all we can expect.

A generic job description from the bureau of labor would not be considered a official job obligation on the part of police forces.
All of witch the gun control fans don't want the people to understand.
 
All of witch the gun control fans don't want the people to understand.

Actually I'm pro gun but I still find this very odd.
Sure, you can't protect everyone every time but shouldn't the mission still include attempting to protect individuals from harm whenever possible?
On the contrary, I find some of the pro gun individuals here on the board simply jumping and creaming all over this one.

"It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve,
So safeguard... as in protect? When I say I will safeguard your safe deposit box, it means I am protecting it from theft, fire and other such things. If I started a business regarding "safeguarding" people's valuables, that is what they would expect.

Safeguard
–noun 1. something that serves as a protection or defense or that ensures safety.

2. a permit for safe passage.

3. a guard or convoy.

4. a mechanical device for ensuring safety.

So what part of that definition means that protection is simply not part of the definition?

If I started a safeguarding business and didn't protect the deposited items from harm, my business would be a fraud.




to reduce the incidence and fear of crime,

By not protecting people?

and to enhance public safety

By not protecting people? Maybe they'll just hand out reflective belts.

while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life.

How? By giving them employment? By providing quality education? Oh, no no... I get it, by not protecting people.

Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence."


Because a public that knows that the police will not protect them will feel so safe...
 
Actually I'm pro gun but I still find this very odd.
Sure, you can't protect everyone every time but shouldn't the mission still include attempting to protect individuals from harm whenever possible?
On the contrary, I find some of the pro gun individuals here on the board simply jumping and creaming all over this one.

"It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve,
So safeguard... as in protect? When I say I will safeguard your safe deposit box, it means I am protecting it from theft, fire and other such things. If I started a business regarding "safeguarding" people's valuables, that is what they would expect.

Safeguard
–noun 1. something that serves as a protection or defense or that ensures safety.

2. a permit for safe passage.

3. a guard or convoy.

4. a mechanical device for ensuring safety.

So what part of that definition means that protection is simply not part of the definition?

If I started a safeguarding business and didn't protect the deposited items from harm, my business would be a fraud.




to reduce the incidence and fear of crime,

By not protecting people?

and to enhance public safety

By not protecting people? Maybe they'll just hand out reflective belts.

while working with the diverse communities to improve their quality of life.

How? By giving them employment? By providing quality education? Oh, no no... I get it, by not protecting people.

Our mandate is to do so with honor and integrity, while at all times conducting ourselves with the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence."

Because a public that knows that the police will not protect them will feel so safe...
Not saying that it isn't the policy of Police to protect the people as well as they can. But the Courts have ruled that if you call the cops & they don't show up you can't sue them because you are responcible for your individual protection. Something circumvented by strict gun laws.
 
Actually I'm pro gun but I still find this very odd.
Sure, you can't protect everyone every time but shouldn't the mission still include attempting to protect individuals from harm whenever possible?
On the contrary, I find some of the pro gun individuals here on the board simply jumping and creaming all over this one.

"It is the mission of the Los Angeles Police Department to safeguard the lives and property of the people we serve,
So safeguard... as in protect? When I say I will safeguard your safe deposit box, it means I am protecting it from theft, fire and other such things. If I started a business regarding "safeguarding" people's valuables, that is what they would expect.

Safeguard
–noun 1. something that serves as a protection or defense or that ensures safety.

2. a permit for safe passage.

3. a guard or convoy.

4. a mechanical device for ensuring safety.

So what part of that definition means that protection is simply not part of the definition?

If I started a safeguarding business and didn't protect the deposited items from harm, my business would be a fraud.

Protecting yourself from crime is not just a gun rights issue. You can protect yourself to a degree without a gun.

1. By avoiding high crime areas. (If you live there move). Just don't expect police to be there should something happen.

2. Buy an alarm system and if you are religious pray the police arrive in time. If not religious use the time to bend over and kiss your a** goodbye.:wink:

3. Buy a dog. (Hope he does not bite you).

"If I started a safeguarding business and didn't protect the deposited items from harm, my business would be a fraud." ACoM

If you started a business like that you could be sued for non performance. But as has been shown, there is no legal obligation of law enforcement agencies to protect, no matter that they claim they will do so. So suits against law enforcement agencies fail.

I am sure some here might want this to be just another gun topic, but it is not.

Everyone has the freedom to protect themselves in any manor they can.
If they are able to protect themselves, they may be sued for the actions they take. But at least they are around to be sued.
 
Not saying that it isn't the policy of Police to protect the people as well as they can. But the Courts have ruled that if you call the cops & they don't show up you can't sue them because you are responcible for your individual protection. Something circumvented by strict gun laws.

I can understand that.
More important than gun laws would be to bring down crime by having a good education system.

As for the rest, pretty much what Chukpike said.
 
Not saying that it isn't the policy of Police to protect the people as well as they can. But the Courts have ruled that if you call the cops & they don't show up you can't sue them because you are responcible for your individual protection. Something circumvented by strict gun laws.

I am hoping what you said is an over simplification, I know in this part of the world if you call 111 (our 911 although 911 works here as well) with a "life in danger" type call and they do not arrive within a reasonable time (no one expects they will be teleported to your door but they can't stop for coffee and doughnuts on the way) they will find themselves in deep excrement.

Now I realise that that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection (aka the police are not going to protect you therefore you need guns) but the reality is that the police are there to provide assistance in a timely manner or in other words some level of protection.
 
I am hoping what you said is an over simplification, I know in this part of the world if you call 111 (our 911 although 911 works here as well) with a "life in danger" type call and they do not arrive within a reasonable time (no one expects they will be teleported to your door but they can't stop for coffee and doughnuts on the way) they will find themselves in deep excrement.
Usually, but there are areas in some major US cities that news reports say the Police tend to not show up in after calls, & you still can't sue them.
 
I am hoping what you said is an over simplification, I know in this part of the world if you call 111 (our 911 although 911 works here as well) with a "life in danger" type call and they do not arrive within a reasonable time (no one expects they will be teleported to your door but they can't stop for coffee and doughnuts on the way) they will find themselves in deep excrement.

I can see the headline; "Police stop for Tea While Family is Slain"

The police are in deep excrement. And the family is six feet deep.
Should allow them to rest in peace.:)


Now I realize that that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection (aka the police are not going to protect you therefore you need guns) but the reality is that the police are there to provide assistance in a timely manner or in other words some level of protection.

That is not the reality! They come after the fact, investigate and then very carefully, as not to infringe a criminals right to a fair trail, find and arrest a "possible suspect". Then after a lengthy trial, where we find the suspect may have been abused in an earlier incarnation, release him.

Can't even put them to death if they are found guilty, as a injection may cause them "cruel and unusual" pain. Like this case in California.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1007-death-penalty-20101007,0,6026964.story

Exhausted his appeals but not executed yet.

All he did was rape and beat a little girl to death. Then call the girls mother and taunt her about never seeing her daughter again. Of course the police were out searching and providing "assistance in a timely manner".
 
You realise that no matter how much orange paint you use you can't turn an apple into an orange?

All he did was rape and beat a little girl to death. Then call the girls mother and taunt her about never seeing her daughter again. Of course the police were out searching and providing "assistance in a timely manner".

Did he ring the police and tell them where he was during this event?

If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening, I am sorry your justice system is failing you but whether or not the guy is executed is irrelevant to the discussion.

I can see the headline; "Police stop for Tea While Family is Slain"

The police are in deep excrement. And the family is six feet deep.
Should allow them to rest in peace.:)

You do realise that the role of the individual to provide their own protection does not negate the role of the police to provide some protection right?
 
Last edited:
You realize that no matter how much orange paint you use you can't turn an apple into an orange?



Did he ring the police and tell them where he was during this event?

If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening, I am sorry your justice system is failing you but whether or not the guy is executed is irrelevant to the discussion.

Just as irrelevant as your comment: "Now I realize that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection". quote MontyB
Since the topic is: Police have no duty to Protect Individuals .

I am surprised Rob is not ranting about you staying on topic.


You do realize that the role of the individual to provide their own protection does not negate the role of the police to provide some protection right?

Of course it does not negate something the police are not required to provide!

Police forces are reactionary. They respond to calls for aid. So they do not protect.
Apparently in New Zealand officers may get their hand slapped if it is ever determined they "did not respond within a reasonable time". They do not get there hand slapped for not providing PROTECTION.

Like you said, "If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening,

For the record the taunting calls came after the girl was reported missing and while the police and others were searching. So per your statement my argument applies.

Sorry Robbie, but no game set or match.
 
Once again you are trying to sell this as two separate entities when it isn't both civilian and police roles are intertwined.

While no one should expect that the police are going to be everywhere I am prepared to bet that no one is going to buy the line that the police have no role to play in protecting the public.
 
Last edited:
Just as irrelevant as your comment: "Now I realize that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection". quote MontyB
Since the topic is: Police have no duty to Protect Individuals .

I am surprised Rob is not ranting about you staying on topic.
The phrase police protection is in his statement, therefore it is not off the topic.
Of course it does not negate something the police are not required to provide!

Police forces are reactionary. They respond to calls for aid. So they do not protect.
Apparently in New Zealand officers may get their hand slapped if it is ever determined they "did not respond within a reasonable time". They do not get there hand slapped for not providing PROTECTION.
Do you mean their? I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe someone who cannot even use the correct form of a word. Especially since you are a native English speaker.

Police forces respond to calls for aid (aka someone in need of PROTECTION).
Just because it is a reactionary protection does not mean it is NOT protection.

Like you said, "If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening,

For the record the taunting calls came after the girl was reported missing and while the police and others were searching. So per your statement my argument applies.

Sorry Robbie, but no game set or match.
When the calls came does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens. All they can do is attempt to stop the crime from getting worse.


Chukpike, policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city. Some of those laws include things like "It's illegal to shoot someone." If a policeman sees someone about to violate this law, or knows of a plot to violate this law, he or she is bound to stop that law from being broken. Now, when an individual stops a sort of harmful event from occurring upon another individual, the first individual just PROTECTED the second. Yes?
 
Once again you are trying to sell this as two separate entities when it isn't both civilian and police roles are intertwined.

While no one should expect that the police are going to be everywhere I am prepared to bet that no one is going to buy the line that the police have no role to play in protecting the public.
Yes thier interwtined. & your last sentence is exactly the point. The Police exist to protect the public, just not individuals.
 
Police forces respond to calls for aid (aka someone in need of PROTECTION).
Just because it is a reactionary protection does not mean it is NOT protection.

When the calls came does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens. All they can do is attempt to stop the crime from getting worse.

If you believe that responding to calls for aid equals protection I am sorry for you.
For the sake of argument I will agree, as the original post states, that police supply some ancillary protection. But it is also clear that primary responsibility for personal safety lies with the individual.
Original post:
"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent." 1st post, this topic

"The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens." quote Rob Henderson

So you admit the police not being able to predict crimes, cannot protect individuals. Thanks Rob, we are in agreement.
While you may have been brainwashed since early childhood that the police would protect you, it should now be clear that is not likely.



Chukpike, policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city. Some of those laws include things like "It's illegal to shoot someone." If a policeman sees someone about to violate this law, or knows of a plot to violate this law, he or she is bound to stop that law from being broken. Now, when an individual stops a sort of harmful event from occurring upon another individual, the first individual just PROTECTED the second. Yes?

"policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city" quote Rob Henderson
Are they? Then in the original posting on this topic why are there so many examples of police failure to enforce restraining orders?

Knowing what a masterful student you are, it is easy to see how a Music major carries over to being a PHD in Law. Did you study under the Rehnquist or the present Roberts Supreme Court?:D
Please supply the penal code and source for the legal example you give:
"It's illegal to shoot someone." quote Rob Henderson

I really need to see a source for the above statement as it appears to be made up.
 
If you believe that responding to calls for aid equals protection I am sorry for you.
For the sake of argument I will agree, as the original post states, that police supply some ancillary protection. But it is also clear that primary responsibility for personal safety lies with the individual.
Original post:
"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent." 1st post, this topic

"The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens." quote Rob Henderson

So you admit the police not being able to predict crimes, cannot protect individuals. Thanks Rob, we are in agreement.
While you may have been brainwashed since early childhood that the police would protect you, it should now be clear that is not likely.





"policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city" quote Rob Henderson
Are they? Then in the original posting on this topic why are there so many examples of police failure to enforce restraining orders?

Knowing what a masterful student you are, it is easy to see how a Music major carries over to being a PHD in Law. Did you study under the Rehnquist or the present Roberts Supreme Court?:D
Please supply the penal code and source for the legal example you give:
"It's illegal to shoot someone." quote Rob Henderson

I really need to see a source for the above statement as it appears to be made up.

Rob is mistaken. In most cases it is discharging a weapon that is the crime. The fact that someone you didn't like was in your line of fire is less a factor. Unless you actually hit them and then it becomes more a case of murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, assault or attempts.

From Virginia State Code:
18.2-279 - Discharging firearms or missiles within or at building or dwelling house; penalty
18.2-280 - Willfully discharging firearms in public places
18.2-282 - Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearan...
18.2-286 - Shooting in or across road or in street
18.2-286.1 - Shooting from vehicles so as to endanger persons; penalty

This does not even begin to address mitigation for the act of shooting.
 
Back
Top