|
POLICE
RESPONSIBILITY IN PROTECTING CIVILIANS
Police
have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the
victim.There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court
cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court
STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of
your family and loved ones is "You, and
only you, are responsible for your security and the security of
your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme
Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police
do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect
society as a whole."
"It
is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal
duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the
citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently
failed to provide protection."
7/13/05
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK,
COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES,
KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme
Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional
right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining
order.
Sources:
(1)
Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911
and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2)
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee,
533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686
F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department
of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5)
Ford v. Town of Grafton,
693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6)
Warren v. District of Columbia,
444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...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)
(7)
"What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand
is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did
not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter
irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of
NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22
N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8)
"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)
6/28/05
New
York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty
to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued
protective order against a violent husband making an arrest
mandatory for a violation.
|
