Police, no affirmative duty to protect us (examples)
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Points: 8,297, Level: 61
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    justme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    337
    Glock Armorer?
    One day.
    Glocks Owned
    G23 Gen 3. Within the family; G19 Gen 2, G26 Gen 3.
    Rep Power
    5

    Police, no affirmative duty to protect us (examples)

    I thought this was an interesting and informative read. Examples of incidents where the high courts basically ruled LLE is NOT responsible for protecting us. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families primarily and third parties secondarily if needed instead of expecting LLE to protect us. All due respect to LEOs that do bust their hump to "try" to balance protection with enforcement but some are out only to enforce (Police Officer not Peace Officer). Now to get the Admiralty Law U.S. Flags out of the court rooms, you know, the ones with the pretty gold fringe and replace with our U.S. Flag showing a Common Law Court.
    Link

    Name:  2mchni0.png
Views: 916
Size:  75.7 KB

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Points: 26,085, Level: 96
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 265
    Overall activity: 0%
    ParabellumJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Posts
    1,135
    Glocks Owned
    Gen 4 19, Gen 4 26
    Rep Power
    6
    It is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect citizens. It is their responsibility to enforce the law, thus Law Enforcement Officer. It is your own responsibility to protect yourself.
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Molon Labe

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Points: 21,258, Level: 91
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 92
    Overall activity: 0%
    Medic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    121
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Rep Power
    4
    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that [in effect] the state owes no duty to protect citizens from each other.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    Glock.pro
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Points: 8,297, Level: 61
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    justme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    337
    Glock Armorer?
    One day.
    Glocks Owned
    G23 Gen 3. Within the family; G19 Gen 2, G26 Gen 3.
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ParabellumJ View Post
    It is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect citizens. It is their responsibility to enforce the law, thus Law Enforcement Officer. It is your own responsibility to protect yourself.
    Exactly why I started this thread. Most U.S. Citizens do not know. Take it easy bro.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Points: 21,258, Level: 91
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 92
    Overall activity: 0%
    Medic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    121
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Rep Power
    4
    There are many other examples:

    In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `… courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.' (Well, except for politicians whom receive taxpayer-financed bodyguards.)

    The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
    95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.
    75% of protective/restraining orders are violated and police often won't enforce them unless they witness the violation.

    From Guy Smith's "Gun Facts"

    Yes, the guns that the police carry are for their protection, not yours.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Points: 609,476, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.4%
    Otintx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South of Texas
    Posts
    5,008
    Glock Armorer?
    No
    Glocks Owned
    Several
    Rep Power
    13
    What ever the reason one has for "carrying" is their own and a good one I am sure. We do not need to convince these people, it is the clueless and the "that is what the po po is for", that need the awakening ...




    Josey Wales: When I get to likin' someone, they ain't around long.
    Lone Watie: I notice when you get to DISlikin' someone they ain't around for long neither.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Modifying duty weapon
    By vector16 in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-28-2016, 08:37 PM
  2. WTS Level 3 Safariland duty holster for Glock 17, 22, and 31
    By Diesel44 in forum Pistol Classifieds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 10:04 PM
  3. Reflex Holsters for desk, court or off duty...
    By ConquestN98858 in forum Carry Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-25-2013, 07:39 PM
  4. Call of Duty: Black Ops
    By Rob in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 12:38 PM
  5. Anyone getting Call of Duty Black OPS?
    By TheLaw in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 08:59 PM

Search tags for this page

officer of the court warren v district of columbia

,

us police have no duty to protect you