dial 911 and die!!!

[Timmy44221]

We have all read articles about the fact that the police/governemt has no responcibility to protect us. If you havent read this one. I found it to be a good one.

The most interesting thing i think, is that in commiefornia. thew article points out: .”[6] As one California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything.”[7]

No duty to do anyhting!?!?! wow. I realy am considering Molon Labe as a reality.

[DoctorDawg]

Man, that is pretty depressing.

Along with merely loadin' up on guns, I'd like to offer a modest suggestion (for discussion): if the police have no affirmative duty to do anything, then why don't we pass some laws to change that? Obviously, you can't require them to do something which might be impossible...like, solving a crime. I ain't no lawyer (thank God), but it seems to me we could pass some laws requiring the police to make 'reasonable effort' to protect individuals whom they know (or should know) are in imminent danger, to make 'reasonable effort' to solve crimes, to apprehend suspects, etc. After all, this is what we pay them for, and why we give them special powers and privileges...seems only fair to require them, in return, to try to do their jobs. Let me hasten to add that I realize a whole lot of LEOs do try, and try hard, at frequent peril to their own lives. But the horror stories in that article really cry out for redress.

Would such laws cause police departments to get sued more often, and thus tie up more resources in defending themselves against sometimes frivolous charges? Sure, yeah. But really, so what? I'm required to do my job to the best professional standard, and I get my @ss sued off if I don't. Works for me. And I would argue that such laws would actually help good cops whose departments don't enable them to do their jobs well...the department, not the individual, should be the one who gets sued, since individual cops have to do, or not do, what their superious tell 'em.

Any thoughts from the LEOs out there?

[Timmy44221]

I can understand the government no wanting to be sued.. But cmon no responcivility. At one point it talk about how the police are there to investigate crimes that have already happened. I honestly would not find this all so horrible, if they would not be so restrictive on firearms laws. I personaly would rather not rely on the police even if they did have a duty to protect.

(By the way I am actualy considering becoming an LEO after i graduate collage.)

[hacker15]

The issue was decided at the US Supreme Court - the police do not have to protect YOU as an individual. The duty of all LEOs is to protect Society in the general sense.

What really chaps my butt is when a state takes away your right to defend yourself, your family, or your possessions. This c**p about a "duty to retreat" and increased anti-gun laws that make if difficult or impossible for the average guy to even get a permit so some type of defense is possible is a real problem.

Up here, the state has made ANY FORM of non-leathel devise illeagel to own for the non LEO. This includes CP spray, stun gun, any form of baton (ASP or of any material), folding knife over 3" in blade length.....and the list will grow if Spitzer and his AG Cuomo is elected. It's a never ending battle - I envy those of you who live in a state that recognizes the Castle Doctrine and the "no duty to retreat" concept.

[beardman2]

Its scary folks but can you imagine if we changed the laws? how many of those 250K calls a day have a happy ending. what if 1 tenth of one percent sued? thats 1800 some lawsuits per state per year.

And those numbers were for 9 years ago.

[SHOOTIST-1]

what the hell happened to protect and serve or has that been nothing but bull****? the shootist-1

[beardman2]

there is no legal ground for a requirement to protect you from crime. If there was you could sue every time your house is broken into.

[hacker15]

Originally Posted by SHOOTIST-1

what the hell happened to protect and serve or has that been nothing but bull****? the shootist-1

Again - the LEO is not OBLIGATED to protect you as an individual citizen. He/she (and the system that employs them) is obligated to protect socity in general. You are responsible for your own personal security, based on the laws of the state/nation you live in. The militery is under the same set of obligations as LE is - protect socity as a whole, not any specific individual member of that socity. "To Protect and Serve" means just that - but it's directed to the community - not specifically you as a member of that community. Hope that clears it up......

[VAXDGUY]

Originally Posted by hacker15

The issue was decided at the US Supreme Court - the police do not have to protect YOU as an individual. The duty of all LEOs is to protect Society in the general sense.

What's society but an aggregation of individuals?

[hacker15]

Originally Posted by VAXDGUY

What's society but an aggregation of individuals?

Yes, but all individuals have a duty to protect themselves. The police, along with the court system, are there to enforce the law. They protect the aggregate - not the individuals who make it up. Subtle, but distinct difference between the two.