Community | April 13, 2009 | 25 comments

Gun Law Fact Check: The Police have no legal responsibility to protect you, or your family.

source: http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/12/2303566-things-you-should-know-the-police-are...

Image
FrankyZemo
In his book "100 things you're not supposed to know" Russ Kick talks about the responsibility of the police to the average citizen when he writes:

"Without even thinking about it, we take it as a given that the police must protect each of us. That’s their whole reason for existence right?

While this may be true in a few jurisdictions in the US and Canada, it is actually the exception, not the rule. In general, court decisions and state laws have held that cops don’t have to do a damn thing to help you when you’re in danger.

In the only book devoted exclusively to the subject, “Dial 911 and Die,” attorney Richard W. Stevens writes:

‘It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.’

But this doesn’t apply to just the wild, upside down world of Kalifornia. Stevens cites laws and cases for every state – plus Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada – which reveal the same thing. If the Police fail to protect you, even through sheer incompetence and negligence, don’t expect that you or your next of kin will be able to sue.

Even in the nations heartland, in bucolic Iowa, you can’t depend on 911. In 1987, two men broke into a family’s home, tied up the parents, slit the mother’s throat, raped the 16 year old daughter, and drove off with the 12-year old daughter( whom they later murdered). The emergency dispatcher couldn’t be bothered with immediately sending police to chase the kidnappers/murderers/rapists while the abducted little girl was still alive. First he had to take calls about a parking violation downtown and a complain about harassing phone calls. When he got around to the kidnapping, he didn’t issue an all-points bulletin but instead told just one officer to come back to the police station, not even mentioning that it was an emergency. Even more blazing negligence ensued, but suffice to say that when the remnants of the family sued the city and the police, their case was summarily dismissed before going to trial. The state appeals court upheld the decision, claiming authorities have no duty to protect individuals.

Similarly, people in various states have been unable to successfully sue over the following situations:

• When 911 systems have been shut down for maintenance
• When a known stalker kills someone
• When the police pull over but don’t arrest a drunk driver who runs over someone later that night
• When a cop known to be violently unstable shoots a driver he pulled over for inadequate muffler
• When authorities know in advance of a plan to commit murder but do nothing to stop it
• When parole boards free violent psychotics, including child rapist murders
• When felons escape from a prison and kill someone
• When houses burn down because of the fire department didn’t respond promptly
• When children are beaten to death in foster homes

Don’t look to the constitution for help. “In the landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” Stevens writes, “The US Supreme Court declared that the constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect citizens from critical harm.”

All in all, as Stevens says, you’d be much better off owning a gun and learning how to use it. Even in those cases where you could successfully sue, the victory comes only after years (sometimes more than a decade) of wrestling with the justice system and only after you’ve been gravely injured or your loved one has been snuffed. "
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Culture,   Learn
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics
  3.     
    |

25 comments // Gun Law Fact Check: The Police have no legal responsibility to protect you, or your family.

  • KaT_Trina
    • 0
      KaT_Trina  

    • Is this NRA propaganda or what?

      You missed the part where the police and 911 dispatchers are human beings too and in 99.9% of the time they want to do something to help their fellow man.

      Also, there will always be psychopaths, rapists, murderers, etc...it's no more the policeman's fault that a murder, rape or burglary occurs, which is why there are laws in place to protect them for being held responsible for the murderers, rapists actions.

      I am normally not on the Po Po sides - but in this case, I feel this posting is using fear as propaganda to buy hand guns.

    • 2 years ago
  • FrankyZemo
  • FrankyZemo
  • FrankyZemo
    • 0
      FrankyZemo  

    • Unimatrix -

      Actually, you speak the truth when you say that you are more likely to kill *yourself* with a gun, than being murdered.

      However, I will assume that your primary purpose to wanting gun stricter gun laws is to *save lives.*

      Case in point, European countries (Britain for example) have seen HUGE increases in suicides with other means, besides guns (hangings, most notably). Guns are much, much harder to come by in Great Britain.

      The conclusion to be drawn: Much like killing other people, people will kill *themselves* by any means necessary if they really want to.

      Once again, I am *assuming* that your primary focus for gun control is to save lives. With the interest of saving lives in mind, it would be a far more effective expenditure of resources, by spending on Counceling, suicide awareness + prevention, as well as greater use of antidepressants.

      In the medical establishment, it is desired to treat the cause of the disease, rather than the symptom. Gun violence is not only a symptom of mental illness, but also economic hardship, and many other socio-economic factors. Timothy McVey was a disturbed individual, intent on....*causing violence* and death. Instead of a gun, he used a bomb.

      I actually have a chart in a book I was reading which correlates increased suicides through other means with stricter gun control. The book is called "Night Falls Fast" by Kay Jamison. I can scan, and post it, if you wish.

      As for shooting a loved one yourself, well...people need to know how to use guns, and use them responsibly. Children should not have access to guns, and it's a *parents* responsibility to make sure they do not have access to firearms.

      Once again...this is the US...I am probably asking way too much of parents, when I say to "be responsible."

      Sadly, gun laws seem to apply only to guns that are purchased legally...take our black market/back alley dealer Joe and his buddy Mark, for instance:

      Mark: "So, do you have my 9mm?"
      Joe: "You know, you're going to have to wait 3 days to get this gun...its the law."

      ::Joe and Mark Both Laugh::

      Joe: "Do you have my money?"
      Mark: "Yes." ::hands him money, for gun::

      Oh yeah...Star Trek Voyager was a horrible, horrible show. Especially that Season 6/7 cliffhanger! ;)

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • FrankyZemo:

      Frank,

      Voyager was an intellectual and aesthetic triumph without rival.

      The simple fact is that guns are made to kill. It is much easier to kill yourself or someone else with a gun than anything else.

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • sorry, unimatrix. I'll have to disagree with you here. If someone breaks into your house, say in Washington DC, how long do you think it will take the cops to show up? They'll show up, all right. They'll show up to take pictures of your dead body lying on the floor with a few bullet wounds on it. Those who go to gun shows are sportsmen, collectors....criminals simply don't bother with gun shows- there has never been a crime committed by someone who bought a gun at a gun show. They buy them black market, on the streets...."assault weapons"? that's a scare tactic from the gun banning crowd to describe most of the guns out there- including hunting rifles. Any gun could be classified as an "assault weapon". If I want to take a rifle down to the rifle range at the state park to do some target shooting (I have 20/13 vision) I should have that right. Don't tell me what I can and can't do- Why don't we ban computer expos as lots of crimes are committed using computers? The older I get, I realize my rights are worth fighting for....that's why I joined the NRA......

    • 2 years ago
  • FrankyZemo
    • 0
      FrankyZemo  
    • unclecharlie:

      Actually, I would agree to a 10 day waiting period on purchasing computers at Expos. You know...there could be music pirates trying to buy Dells!

      Sadly, I would wager that the RIAA would support that legislation.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • This is NRA gun lobby propaganda - don't get sucked in by the fear mongering looney toon gun nuts.

      Because you can not sue the police does not mean that they will not help you.

      If you own a gun the chances are much higher that the gun will hurt or kill you or a loved one before it ever hurts or kills the home invader.

      Don't buy the lie - the NRA and the gun lobby spend a great deal of money and energy to deceive and frighten the public.

      Support sensible gun control policies: reinstate the ban on assault weapons, register all guns, background checks for everyone buying a gun - close the gun show loop holes!

    • 2 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
  • FrankyZemo
  • unimatrix0
  • FrankyZemo
  • Milu82
    • 0
      Milu82  

    • Now it makes sense when a cop told me a couple years ago "get a gun and you can protect yourself, you can kill someone who gets into your house"... I was shocked, I thought to myself... Why the heck did I call them for then? I had a stalker that broke down my door but managed to run away just as the cops got to my place.

    • 2 years ago
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • jh64487 you are way off base with your allegations. Don't make this a republican issue. This is an issues that divides statists and those who want individual freedom. WE have an inherent right to self defense that has nothing to do with political affiliation. If it is your intent to infer that the democrats are interested in disarming us and making the government responsible for our safety you need to rethink things. Go ahead and dial 911 when your door gets kicked in (if you have the time) and while you are being hurt or killed you can wonder why, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
      The statement that a person is more likely to hurt themselves than the bad guy is a lie and absurd. It has been debunked so many times that it does not bear mentioning any more. Sounds like more Brady Center lies.If you want to be safe buy a gun and learn to use it. Don't depend on the government.
      Some of the worst shooters I have fired with are police officers. Civilians are generally better than they are. This from an ex-police officer and shooter.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jacques_of_Spades
    • 0
      Jacques_of_Spades  

    • "In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

      I believe I got this from NRA's website a couple months ago.

      I think the reason behind this is so that people cannot sue the government every time a crime is committed.

    • 2 years ago
  • cybexg
    • 0
      cybexg  
    • Jacques_of_Spades:

      no, it is because of limited resources. The argument is that there are only so much police resources, that they need the ability to allocate the resources as is needed. In essence, ones life is not as important as the community's life.

      Note, Prosecutors have a similar ability (called Prosecutorial discretion) (ignore any spelling errors)

    • 2 years ago
  • Wessagusset_Oracle
  • akamaial
  • Wessagusset_Oracle
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  

    • as calgar said, cops are meant to enforce the laws as given by the legislature. they aren't even meant to enforce the constitution I don't think. that's the judicial branch (too bad court costs are now so expensive).

      getting a gun isn't the way. you really are more likely to kill yourself or someone you know unless you're well trained and experienced. look at the gun violence in america and mexico today. directly caused by the incompetence of republicans in both letting gun control die and screwing our economy and gov over. way to go champs. you'd do a lot better and be a lot safer by taking an active role in making sure your community as a whole was safe and making sure the gov was acting responsibly than you would holing up in your house. one way leads to safe and prosperous nation, the other to a violent shootout with the police.

      just a thought.

    • 2 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • jh64487:

      More likely to kill yourself or a loved one than what? Than not? You mean than kill someone who poses a threat, I'm assuming. But that hardly takes into account the deterrent aspect, that is, not having to kill anyone at all. It also assumes that we, the readers, are as stupid and irresponsible as the most stupid and irresponsible gun owners.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • jh64487:

      naturally i was talking about killing an armed intruder. and no I'm not against owning weapons but i think its rather foolish for every white conservative suburbian to be running to get his automatic assault weapon. in fact its stupid. deterrent wise you are making an assumption yourself. that people want to come into your home specifically to kill you. that's...rather silly. the majority of break ins have no interest in killing others, they want to steal your stuff to make a quick buck and they'd very much like it if you weren't home. a MUCH BETTER DETERRENT IS A BIG DOG. THIS IS PROVEN. especially if the dog has a loud bark.

      and at least half of america doesn't understand or credit the theory of evolution over the gospel of creationism. so yes most american's who are going to go get a gun right now are stupid.about as stupid and illogical as you can be in the modern world.

      note the violence exploding across america and mexico currently.

    • 2 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • jh64487:

      That violence has more to do with economic pressure than anything. But many of those committing the violence use the law to their advantage, since they're willing to break it and most others aren't. People that want to commit a massacre do so as an expression of power over others because they feel otherwise powerless. But because they know that it's very unlikely that anyone else in the vicinity will be armed, they get to benefit by that sense of superiority.

      And the Mexican violence is obviously related to drugs and economics. The violence grows the more we try to forcibly suppress it.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
    • 0
      CalgarC  

    • when they say protect and serve, they mean the law and government. they didn't mention anything about us broke people

    • 2 years ago
  • FrankyZemo
more from Community:
from the community

top videos