|
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 01:19 PM by spin
No one but you is responsible for your safetyPublished: May 17, 2010 3:00 a.m.Who is responsible to protect you from crime and, specifically, from violent crime? Many believe police and sheriff’s deputies are responsible for protecting citizens from crime and violent crime. They are not. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held police have no constitutional obligation or any other legal obligation to prevent citizens from being victims of violent crime, with the most recent case being Town of Castle Rock, Colo., v. Gonzales. Although the police have no duty to prevent violent crime, essentially every police officer will do everything possible in response to a “priority 1” call to stop an assault, rape, burglary, murder or attempted murder. The problem is, in spite of the finest police efforts, they usually arrive too late to prevent violent crime. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100517/EDIT05/305179996/1021/EDIT Note: the above article is worthwhile reading as it gives advise on practicing situational awareness, a tactic I've often mentioned here. No Right to Police Protection in the United StatesThe courts have decided that you have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. While case law dates back to the early 1960's, a leading case on the topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) when the Court stated "fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." In fact, the first precedent established by the United States Supreme Court regarding protecting citizens dates back to the late 1930's in the case of Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188) when the Court stated "there is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or 'general,' be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts." The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)). The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. Yet, gun rights opponents rarely, if ever, speak of these precedents but citizens need to be aware that they have every right to self defense and to protect themselves. Some states have passed state statutes that reiterate that citizens have no right to police protection. Such is the case of California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846, which state in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee may be sued for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." Citizens injured because the police failed to protect them can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. The most recent case, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) was a 7-2 decision by the United States Supreme Court that provided that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. Luckily, there is a little known law known as the "Castle Doctrine." The "Castle Doctrine" is an American legal doctrine that arises from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. The "Castle Doctrine" also has a lengthy beginning dating back 1895 in the case of Beard v. U.S. (1895). This is sometimes called the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine and states that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground." Many states have statutes of 'No Duty to Retreat" regardless of where the attack occurs. As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own. An aggressor whose victim fights back in self-defense may not invoke the doctrine of self-defense against the victim's legally justified acts. http://m.hg.org/law-articles/20903/No_Right_to_Police_Protection_in_the_United Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005WASHINGTON, June 27 - 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 decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html edited because I felt I was replying to another poster. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
