Police and protection?
- Thread starter TPAW
- Start date
There are a couple of fairly famous cases, one is out of DC from about 1985 or so. I am embarrassed that I can neither find my copy of the text file about it, or even recall the name, but someone whose brain is working better than mine is will come up with it.
The story is that three women who lived in an apartment heard two guys breaking in, and called the police. The police came by, saw no sign of forced entry, and left. The two men assaulted the women, who later sued the PD for failing to protect them. Court said that, as sad as it was that they were assaulted, it is not up to the police to provide personal security for any individual citizen, so they lost their lawsuit against the police department.
As I say, someone will post the proper citation (and this time I will not forget the name) - but this case is one of the ones often cited as proof that legally, you are responsible for your own self defense, and the police are not responsible to protect you.
I bet someone has posted it already, I type so slow...
The story is that three women who lived in an apartment heard two guys breaking in, and called the police. The police came by, saw no sign of forced entry, and left. The two men assaulted the women, who later sued the PD for failing to protect them. Court said that, as sad as it was that they were assaulted, it is not up to the police to provide personal security for any individual citizen, so they lost their lawsuit against the police department.
As I say, someone will post the proper citation (and this time I will not forget the name) - but this case is one of the ones often cited as proof that legally, you are responsible for your own self defense, and the police are not responsible to protect you.
I bet someone has posted it already, I type so slow...
vranasaurus
New member
The precedent is there I can't site the actual cases but it is the reason why you can't sue the police for failing to prevent a crime against you.
fbrown333@suddenlink
New member
Yep they serve the government not the individual.
I seem to be the dissenting voice within the forum as I understand the court's judgment to be correct. "...the government and it's agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen". Now.
What I don't understand is how come the complaint was dismissed in light of that in every jurisdiction there is a general negligence statute/case precedent which roughly states that a person who by an act or omission causes damage to another party through fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. This is nothing new under the sun. Same principle applies under Federal Jurisdiction in Civil Rights Litigation - money damages for the alleged violation of Constitutional rights stemming from official acts. Government doesn't act alone but through its agents.
If agents acted in a wanton and negligent manner in the execution of their duties and responsibilities as government officials, the government and the officials (in their personal capacity) should be held liable and responsible for the damages suffered.
I don't know much about case law but thats my 2 cents.
What I don't understand is how come the complaint was dismissed in light of that in every jurisdiction there is a general negligence statute/case precedent which roughly states that a person who by an act or omission causes damage to another party through fault or negligence shall be obliged to repair the damage so done. This is nothing new under the sun. Same principle applies under Federal Jurisdiction in Civil Rights Litigation - money damages for the alleged violation of Constitutional rights stemming from official acts. Government doesn't act alone but through its agents.
If agents acted in a wanton and negligent manner in the execution of their duties and responsibilities as government officials, the government and the officials (in their personal capacity) should be held liable and responsible for the damages suffered.
I don't know much about case law but thats my 2 cents.
Tommy Vercetti
New member
they're never around when you really need them anyway
"However, if there is no duty to protect the private citizen (and there just isn't), then there is no negligence in the performance of their duties.
That's the flaw in that line of reasoning."
I was thinking about that myself after posting but I believe that "no duty to protect a particular private citizen" doesn't automatically equate to no negligence in performing their duties, not to protect a particular citizen per SE but their actions according to their training in particular situations vis a vis their particular conduct in handling the actual situation. The example of the dispatcher announcing the incident with the wrong code is an example, the cops actions in attending the call vis a vis what the officer's training and regulations dictates.
For example, if a robbery in progress (or whatever the code is) is announced over the radio, regulations dictate a cop to act in such and such ways to ensure bla, bla, bla and the cops just drove by looking out the window. Such actions do not constitute an infraction of the duty to protect a particular citizen (which we agree does not exist) but an infraction to the statutes, regulations and rules which govern the officer's actions in a particular situation.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That's the flaw in that line of reasoning."
I was thinking about that myself after posting but I believe that "no duty to protect a particular private citizen" doesn't automatically equate to no negligence in performing their duties, not to protect a particular citizen per SE but their actions according to their training in particular situations vis a vis their particular conduct in handling the actual situation. The example of the dispatcher announcing the incident with the wrong code is an example, the cops actions in attending the call vis a vis what the officer's training and regulations dictates.
For example, if a robbery in progress (or whatever the code is) is announced over the radio, regulations dictate a cop to act in such and such ways to ensure bla, bla, bla and the cops just drove by looking out the window. Such actions do not constitute an infraction of the duty to protect a particular citizen (which we agree does not exist) but an infraction to the statutes, regulations and rules which govern the officer's actions in a particular situation.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
RedneckFur
New member
I think the biggest problem is the general feeling of the public. Seems to me that most people have the misconception that law inforcement's purpose is to serve and protect them. How many people were taught at a young age that the cops "are here to protect you"? These court cases seem actually finish the sentence "to serve and protect the courts". I think if more people knew the true purpose law inforcement, they would see things differently, especially issues regarding concealed cary, and civil rights in regards to an arrest.
I find it strange that firefighters and EMT's have been fired, and in some cases, sued in the past for failing to save or protect life. Is this an unfair double standard?
I find it strange that firefighters and EMT's have been fired, and in some cases, sued in the past for failing to save or protect life. Is this an unfair double standard?
Don't some police departments have "To serve and protect" written on the side of their police cars?
Does all this reasoning also apply to fire departments?
I think part of the problem may be big cityness. It is easy to not know people, ironically, even though you are surrounded by so many people. People feel no obligation to help other people. Obviously, people help one another all the time, sometimes as risk of their own lives, even for strangers, and firemen are well known for doing that. But that's their job. Same for the police.
Do the police ever walk a beat anymore? I think you ought to get to know the local policeman real well, same as the guys at the gas station, everyone at your bank (where you want to be well known) and your next door neighbors for good measure. But the city and suburbs, perhaps everywhere but the small town like I grew up in seems a little too big for that.
I used to work for a savings and loan in D.C. way back when there were savings and loans. A policeman who seemed like someone out of Car 54 would escort someone walking to the bank (a savings & loan was not a bank) a block away to the old National Savings & Trust, one block from the White House. But I guess times have changed. Still, there is always a danger of taking one incident and thinking that happens all the time, everywhere.
Does all this reasoning also apply to fire departments?
I think part of the problem may be big cityness. It is easy to not know people, ironically, even though you are surrounded by so many people. People feel no obligation to help other people. Obviously, people help one another all the time, sometimes as risk of their own lives, even for strangers, and firemen are well known for doing that. But that's their job. Same for the police.
Do the police ever walk a beat anymore? I think you ought to get to know the local policeman real well, same as the guys at the gas station, everyone at your bank (where you want to be well known) and your next door neighbors for good measure. But the city and suburbs, perhaps everywhere but the small town like I grew up in seems a little too big for that.
I used to work for a savings and loan in D.C. way back when there were savings and loans. A policeman who seemed like someone out of Car 54 would escort someone walking to the bank (a savings & loan was not a bank) a block away to the old National Savings & Trust, one block from the White House. But I guess times have changed. Still, there is always a danger of taking one incident and thinking that happens all the time, everywhere.
I can't cite cases, sorry...
But the general rule is that the police have a duty to the general public, and not to any specific individual. You can't sue the police dept for failing to protect you. (you can, but it will go nowhere). Under certain conditions, you might have a case against individual police officers, but against the general dept, no.
But the general rule is that the police have a duty to the general public, and not to any specific individual. You can't sue the police dept for failing to protect you. (you can, but it will go nowhere). Under certain conditions, you might have a case against individual police officers, but against the general dept, no.
jakeswensonmt
New member
I can't cite any court cases, but I can refer you to the hilarity that ensued when a few years ago I survived a home invasion, and subsequently asked the detectives what protection I could expect from the police in the future. With very lighthearted but bone-chilling matter-of-factness they informed me, between bouts of laughter, that any such protection was not part of their job description. This particular conversation is a big part of the reason that I frequent this forum, and contributed to my understanding of one of the aspects of the rights granted under the 2nd amendment.
That little jewel of disinformation gives the populace a false impression of the duties of the police and in a better world would be painted over on each and every police vehicle. If there ever was a time that it was true, that time has passed, and it probably persists as a mechanism for police chiefs to discourage the citizenry from availing themselves of their 2nd amendment rights.