Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals - Page 2




 
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
 
April 17th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
[quote=Donkey;306347]MMarsh buddy why don't you check the ultimate reference the US Constitution...

Glad to!
Which part are you referring to?

Furthermore all you listed is nothing to do with protecting the citizen until they called for it...

Of course, thats a bit logical. Nobody expects the police to be all-seeing, all knowing so that they stop every crime before it happens. But they are still expected to protect the citizenry. SERVE AND PROTECT.

You miss the point see they could be held liable if they say that they are to protect everyone anytime anything happens and they where not there to protect it would be their fault...

I have no idea to what you referring to, police are not liable if something happens and they are not around. That only happens if they are negligent. Nobody expects them to beam into a trouble spot the second it happens, this isn't Star Trek.
April 17th, 2007  
5.56X45mm
 
 
The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.
April 17th, 2007  
Donkey
 
 
^^^ That was what I was talking about
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
April 17th, 2007  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Sorry, but you and 5.56 are mistaken. Peter Kasler the author of the piece, is a a GUNS RIGHTS ACTIVIST, Not a cop. (yes, I checked). Rewritting the definition of police officier is push an agenda is beyond pathetic. Here is what I found, and my sources a tiny bit more trustworthy...
Police Depart from City of Austin Texas (I found more or less the same thing on other Police sites).
  • Patrolling their districts,responding to calls for service, conducting preliminary investigations, investigating traffic related incidents, writing reports, pursuing and detaining suspects, and making arrests.
  • Enforcing traffic and parking laws.
  • Participating in Community Policing activities.
  • Working with other police department units as well as other local, state, and Federal entities.
  • Preparing for and attending court appearances.
  • Participating in mandatory and elective training.
  • Keeping proficient with firearms

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/recruiting/duties.htm


AND From the US Department of Labor

"People depend on police officers and detectives to protect their lives and property. Law enforcement officers, some of whom are State or Federal special agents or inspectors, perform these duties in a variety of ways, depending on the size and type of their organization. In most jurisdictions, they are expected to exercise authority when necessary, whether on or off duty".

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm

And Gator is right, if any police officer has a problem with this they need to consider a career change.
I was referring to this statement made by Gator:

Quote:
Your job, as a Police Officer, is to die in the protection of the Civilian Population, if need be,
This is the biggest load of BS I have heard. It is categorically wrong to believe that it is a Police Officer's "job" to die in protecting the public. They are there for essentially the same reason an interior guard is posted in the military: Preserve Order, Protect Property, Enforce Regulations. Anything else they do is above and beyond the call of duty.
April 17th, 2007  
Donkey
 
 
The police should be more of a deterrent then a pro active force...

From what happened yesterday we can not run around and live in fear causing us to have a false sense of security by putting a armed guard at ever street corner...
April 17th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
MarinerRhodes

Ok I think I follow you better, and I don't think our positions are too far off.

I agree that a policeman duty is not to sacrifice himself while protecting us frightened civvies. I am not a Daimyo (Samurai Master), and the cop is not my retainer. I don't expect him to commit suicide if he fails to protect me.

But to be a police officer you must accept that being killed protecting others is a possibility. The 200 NYPD (and 300 NYFD, no disrespect to the boys in Red) made exactly that choice when they decided to enter the WTC as it was about to collapse. Its like joining the military, you better understand and accept the risks before you sign.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was the point Gator was trying to make...
April 18th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Self Sacrifice seems to have taken a back seat to Self Preservation in jobs which can by definition demand a selfless act.

I hope that the Fire Department does not take its cue from Police, and perhaps stop going to House Fires because they feel it is the Publics Duty to put out Fires on their own from now on.

I find it strange that the Police may still want paid and the kudos which come with wearing the Uniform, without any of the risk involved of course.

Well, I guess paying the Police for nothing does help the economy a bit, if by nothing else keeping Dunkin Donuts in business.
April 18th, 2007  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
MarinerRhodes

Ok I think I follow you better, and I don't think our positions are too far off.

I agree that a policeman duty is not to sacrifice himself while protecting us frightened civvies. I am not a Daimyo (Samurai Master), and the cop is not my retainer. I don't expect him to commit suicide if he fails to protect me.

But to be a police officer you must accept that being killed protecting others is a possibility. The 200 NYPD (and 300 NYFD, no disrespect to the boys in Red) made exactly that choice when they decided to enter the WTC as it was about to collapse. Its like joining the military, you better understand and accept the risks before you sign.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was the point Gator was trying to make...
After reading Gators last post. . . consider yourself corrected.

I accept that being a US Marine may lead to me being killed. I am sure that anyone that puts on an LEO uniform is prepared, at least in some small way, to possibly die in the line of duty. But reading it the way Gator puts it, like it is their job to die regardless of the cirsumstances. . . no way.

He makes it sound like you stated earlier with being a Samurai and all that.
October 11th, 2010  
stodolaj1
 
 
All of you who actually do believe that the police have a duty to protect us need to do some research. The U.S. Supreme court in DeShaney v Winnebago cty Social Services, Justice Stevens stated; " the constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm". Does this sound like they are here to protect us? Where they are better equipped and more valuable is in the aftermath, after we have accepted the responsibility to protect ourselves, which in all reality is a much better concept as they (police)cannot get to you in time in most cases anyway. I don't wish to sound like I am bashing the police, but they are here for a specific purpose and it is not to protect us.
October 12th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
It is to.... ?
 


Similar Topics
Patch Collecting?
US Officer Spells Out Iraq Police Training Woes
Impact Of Police Being Sent To Iraq Felt On Street
Report Faults Training Of Afghan Police
Rioters pelt Sydney police with Molotov cocktails