Are the Police Responsible for our protection?

[SubHntr]

Have you ever wondered whether the police are there to protect you? If you say "Yes, That's what they're for." then maybe you need to read this. You may want to pass it around to your friends that think along this line as well. I use it with the GC crowd and it seems to stop them cold.


Link Removed

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
—Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989

“...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...”
—Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


Jim

 

[Scarecrow]

all the more reason to live in a state where you have rights to bare arms and protect yourself.

 

[HK4U]

all the more reason to live in a state where you have rights to bare arms and protect yourself.

Exactly. What is really bad is the states and cities that infringe on our 2nd amendment rights are most of the time the ones that have the worst crime and you are at the mercy of the criminals. So the police have no responsibility to protect you and you have no right to protect yourself.

 

[whiskey]

Are the police responsible for our protection?

NO. They are not.

 

[mom of 3 angels]

Very good read, thank you. I absolutely agree, cops are too heavy to carry around with me anyway and then I'd have to get a bigger car, feed them, etc. Much better to carry a firearm and take care of myself as much as possible.

In all seriousness, these cases show the fallacy in the entitlement way of thinking. I deserve protection, but it is not my responsibility to protect myself. I deserve food shelter etc, but it is not my responsibility to do my best to provide for myself. I'm fine having others provide for me, but will be certain to complain of the injustices when it's not being done how I think it should be done.
"How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?"

 

[HK4U]

Very good read, thank you. I absolutely agree, cops are too heavy to carry around with me anyway and then I'd have to get a bigger car, feed them, etc. Much better to carry a firearm and take care of myself as much as possible.

In all seriousness, these cases show the fallacy in the entitlement way of thinking. I deserve protection, but it is not my responsibility to protect myself. I deserve food shelter etc, but it is not my responsibility to do my best to provide for myself. I'm fine having others provide for me, but will be certain to complain of the injustices when it's not being done how I think it should be done.
"How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?"

+1. Very good points mom. Thanks for posting.:joia:

 

[NDS]

Are the Police Responsible...

they are irresponsible


Police are something a sane society cannot afford.

 

[Hoplites1234]

[b]no![/b]

The Po-lice are only responsible for keeping the donut shops in business.

 

[kwo51]

Supreme court rule years ago that they were hear to clean up.In the case of where I live it would take 10 to 15 min. to respond. better to call fire dept. responce time 5 min. Hell I'm not running to a gun fight either. Damn sure will run from one.

 

[toreskha]

Well...sort of - but mostly not. :hmhm:

Law enforcement is a human institution, and police are only human, so they're not going to perform miracles. Obviously there's so much going on at any one time that there's not enough police to handle it all, without having a police state (which is the manifestation of an attempt to stop all social disorder). The cops are reasonably ok at stopping crime that they witness, and at providing a certain degree of "law abiding" mindset among those who might break the law if it weren't for the possibility of a LEO around. That's more of a psychological thing than anything else, but it's fairly effective. Also, they tend to be very good at creating a somewhat formalized framework for handling stuff, which prevents vigilantism and lessens the severity of feuds. Citizen activism is great, but mob justice is awful.

As far as actual crime goes, the thing police are probably most effective at handling three general types of situations:

- Instances where members of a public have witnessed a crime and the criminal is either still there, or is still committing the act. This is domestic violence, random drunken brawls, and so on. They mostly do this, and tend to engage in a certain amount of mediation to keep things from getting too heated.

- Acting as the direct enforcement hammer of the state, cracking down on crimes that run contrary to government policy. This means stopping riots, ending hostage situations, busting crack houses, etc. Also, solving serious crimes such as murders and bank robberies, which tend to be high-profile and erode confidence in society.

- Making sure things don't explode during large-scale emergencies; directing traffic during power outages, arresting looters, etc.

Police will not guarantee your personal protection, as they're not your private security detail. That's your own job, unless you can afford to hire someone.

 

[come-and-take-it-FL]

Independence and self-reliance is a practice, much like common sense, that liberals would rather see altogether be made extinct!

Link Removed
by Peter Kasler

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten-class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."

 

[gdcleanfun]

Independence and self-reliance is a practice, much like common sense, that liberals would rather see altogether be made extinct!

You really mean to say the anti-2A people, right?

 

[ga.glockdog63]

All I have to say is that when you really need them their not there. I have been in my car countless times when some idiot decides to do something stupid and where are the police at??? No where to be seen. So as said before........carry and protect you and your own because no one else will do it for ya.

 

[come-and-take-it-FL]

... You really mean to say the anti-2A people, right?

I guess IT DOES depend on the definition of liberal. My use of the term was not to be confused with the definition of 200 years ago that would have reflected the views of men like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton… views that resulted in the American revolution and the birth of this great Nation.

The modern use of the word “liberal” has been hijacked by folks whose policies and ideas almost always result in restricting American liberties and freedoms—including the attempt to limit (and ultimately revoke) the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

Folks like the 8 Republicans who helped pass the colossally ignorant Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey) legislation through the House on Friday! The same 8 who consistently vote for a liberal agenda—the aim of which is never about protecting liberty or defending the constitution they all swore an oath to defend!

 

[mungo]

I wish I could remember where I read it. It's good and the author does deserve credit.

Police are out for Justice. They access situations after the fact. They are not there to protect you, but they are their to (try) to bring the ones responsible for committing a crime to justice. Therefore their act is by default "vengeance". So no - they are not there to protect you. They can't be.

Self defense is the responsibility of the citizen.

But then, when the LEOs do take a criminal into arrest, you then have to worry about the judicial system setting them free.

 

[mot mayhem]

If you would care for an eye opening read about what the police really are there for, read "Dial 911 & Die" by Richard W. Stevens. It cites laws for each state and gives examples of true situations. In short, the police have no duty to protect you. It is up to yourself, which we already know.

 

[HiCarry]

The fact that the police are NOT there to protect you is settled law, having been decided in almost every state and up to the Supreme Court.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, 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.

A California case even went so far as to say that a municipality was under no legal obligation to even provide police services.

Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)

Kansas law prevents a citizen from suing the government for negligently failing to provide either police or fire protection.

"As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (Bowers v. DeVito, 686F. 2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982))

 

[KimberPB]

A retired cop once told me this:

Police = Armed Historian

Atleast that's how he felt a lot of the time. He said the vast majority of the time he showed up AFTER the crime had been committed and the perp was gone. He'd take a report and then try to find said perp.

The police have a tough job and can not be everywhere all the time. I know several and they work hard but there is only one person I know will be there 100% of the time..... Me.

 

[AZSATT]

Though the letters on the car may read "to serve and protect" - the police don't have that obligation, in part because it's impossible and also for the liability/law suit reasons. (This country is already broke!) I see the police - at least in a general sense, and not specific incidents of rogue cops tasering grandma's and pastors, or choking out EMT's etc etc. - as "avengers" and not "protectors." Ideally, they'd be objective and fair and wise in their capacity. Reality is what it is.

However, in light of this fact of American law, the true horror of socialists like our president and his administration is revealed. They will insist the 2nd amendment is an out-dated concept, no longer necessary and never intended to apply to the individual. Yet, the federal courts maintain again and again the state has NO DUTY to protect citizens - which means excatly what the founding father's intended: the PEOPLE must maintain the right and ability to do for themselves what the gov't cannot.

WHY do these fools insist on disarming the American people, while smiling and declaring their intentions are for the good of all... kinda like Hilter and the 'camps.' Scary stuff man. Scary stuff.

 

[Austin]

Those of you that take this time to hate on cops, next time you need help you should call a crackhead.