Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public - Kimber Forum

Kimber


Go Back   Kimber Forum > Off Topic Area > Off-Topic Discussion Forum

Like Tree37Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2018, 06:51 PM   #1
Super Moderator
 
Chuck43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 32,341
Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public

Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public

In light of the recent terror attack in Orlando, Florida many people are asking the question, “What can the government do to protect the people?” Everything from banning certain types of firearms to prohibiting people on the no-fly list from buying guns to immigration reforms has been proposed as possible government solutions.

However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety.

According to a 2005 ruling from the SCOTUS, the government doesn’t even have a duty to protect you if you’ve obtained a court issued restraining order. From a New York Times article on that ruling:

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.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

A 1989 case found the same thing.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.

Going back even further, to 1981, a federal court of appeals found the same lack of responsibility. From the Wikipedia page on Warren v. District of Columbia:

In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints.

In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In a unanimous decision, the court also held that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Given the fact that the government is not responsible for protecting the general public from common criminals, rapists, mass murderers and terrorists, then why do so many government proposed solutions involve limiting the general public’s access to firearms? It’s a question that is worth considering as we move forward with this discussion.

Sources:
Warren v. District of Columbia
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (NY Times)
Jflytle, Mini Me, Elf1 and 1 others like this.
__________________
BOTH POLITICIANS AND DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON!
Chuck43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Remove Ads
Old 02-23-2018, 06:56 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Shootinit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,678
then fire every gd one of them
Cucamonga kid and PaulWVa like this.
Shootinit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 07:19 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
NewStainless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 465
Interesting. So what does “protect and serve” mean? I guess police are just a suggestion. Wonder what would happen if this also applied to the military.
PaulWVa likes this.
NewStainless is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 02-23-2018, 07:28 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Cucamonga kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Big Sky Country-The Last Best Place
Posts: 3,900
They should be truthful and remove the "Protect and Serve" decals from the doors of their patrol vehicles and replace them with "Go Home Safe".
PaulWVa likes this.
__________________
Buy American - MAGA!
Cucamonga kid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 07:40 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
PaulWVa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Dunbar, WVa
Posts: 1,509
Just read an article about the county, city and state police in Florida are all pointing fingers at each other. From the reports of lack of any action being taken by sheriffs on scene it's been suggested that Broward County will be changed to Coward County.

We call this a "cluster f***". Watch now how these "public servants" try to cover their own a$$es by deflecting blame to the gun used, the gun store and manufacturer. Hopefully the Florida unemployment lines will get a little longer ... but I doubt it.
PaulWVa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:18 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Albert.Cairns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,847
Originally Posted by Cucamonga kid View Post
They should be truthful and remove the "Protect and Serve" decals from the doors of their patrol vehicles and replace them with "Go Home Safe".
Their job is taping off the scene and collecting casings. Maybe a little paint around where the body layed and pictures.
Albert.Cairns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:28 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
NewStainless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 465
Perhaps “drain the swamp” includes the police and FBI.
NewStainless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:31 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Cardinal Nation
Posts: 19,269
I really don't care what the SCOTUS said in their ruling. All I know is that many of my friends are cops and they represent their communities well and they "Protect and Serve" from the time they clock on until they call it a night.

To all of the cops and former cops on KT......THANK YOU
Attached Images
File Type: jpg il_570xN.1019531735_hhfi.jpg (26.1 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg il_570xN.711373494_74qu.jpg (36.9 KB, 2 views)
Marshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 06:23 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
OLE442's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Way too close to the city
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Marshall View Post
I really don't care what the SCOTUS said in their ruling. All I know is that many of my friends are cops and they represent their communities well and they "Protect and Serve" from the time they clock on until they call it a night.

To all of the cops and former cops on KT......THANK YOU
I believe 80 to 90 percent are good cops trying to do the right thing! A kid (32 Y/O) I work with told me he believes the opposite!! And to think, he has two kids he's raising! Funny, he has some funny quotes from a local criminal lawyer! Looked online to see if he had any criminal history. Nothing!! The lawyer must have gotten it expunged....LOL!
OLE442 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2018, 07:13 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Elf1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Alabama
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by Marshall View Post
I really don't care what the SCOTUS said in their ruling. All I know is that many of my friends are cops and they represent their communities well and they "Protect and Serve" from the time they clock on until they call it a night.

To all of the cops and former cops on KT......THANK YOU
Wish I could like this multiple times! These men and women are paid next to nothing and put their lives on the line everyday. One of our young (27 y.o.) officers was killed just the other day by going to a home to notify a husband of his wife's death. Guy shot the officer through the window before he ever went on the porch. They get blamed anytime there's a bad outcome! Remember, there MUST be a balance between people's rights and protection. People have forgotten WE are responsible for our actions and there will be consequences if we choose to act badly. Unfortunately, the consequences have often been taken away but those on the far left!
Marshall and wayne like this.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You are only helpless while your nail polish is wet. Even then you could pull the trigger if you had to."
Elf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ambulance service now available for police dogs injured in the line of duty Chuck43 Off-Topic Discussion Forum 18 08-19-2017 11:54 AM
Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court Chuck43 Off-Topic Discussion Forum 6 02-01-2017 06:49 PM