Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals - Page 3




 
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
 
October 12th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
The Los Angeles Police Department Motto is "To Protect and to Serve".

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lap...asic_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_lap...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.
October 12th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
The Los Angeles Police Department Motto is "To Protect and to Serve".

http://lapdonline.org/inside_the_lap...asic_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_lap...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.
October 12th, 2010  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Don't get started...
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
October 12th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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...
October 12th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
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.
October 12th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
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.

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.
October 12th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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.
October 12th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
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.
Ways of preventing crimes, such as better education, is O/T!
October 12th, 2010  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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.
October 12th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
 


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