- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Police are under no obligation to protect you from harm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:01 am to m2pro
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:01 am to m2pro
quote:
It's their job duty, if they like keeping their jobs.
Oh my, local law enforcement is certainly a job you can lose quicker by doing your job than by doing nothing. Trust me on this one.
Just ask Stacy Ettel.
0
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:03 am to weagle99
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:04 am to weagle99
Then why did they throw Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer in jail for not stopping that burglary. They are not even cops.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:05 am to PhillipJFry
Excellent point.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:07 am to weagle99
quote:
some people believe that if a Trump supporter was about get hit by a criminal swinging a bat, it is a legal requirement of the police to physically step in front of the bat and keep the citizen from being injured (simple example). That isn't how it works from my understanding.
you mean if law enforcement witnessed an incident where a citizen was about to be assaulted and law enforcement was in a position to prevent the assault, that they are not obligated to do so?
this is wrong
only in the event that it might mean certain death, or maiming for the law enforcement officer would they not be obligated
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 10:13 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 10:42 am to weagle99
I can't believe this slapfight has gone on for 4 pages because two sides can't agree that the premise matters.
Cops have no obligation to follow you around (or even be in your neighborhood) and protect you from harm if and when it happens.
They absolutely DO have an obligation to step in if assault happens right in front of them, and to deal with the attacker (which, by default, should result in "protection" for the victim).
How is this not clear?
Cops have no obligation to follow you around (or even be in your neighborhood) and protect you from harm if and when it happens.
They absolutely DO have an obligation to step in if assault happens right in front of them, and to deal with the attacker (which, by default, should result in "protection" for the victim).
How is this not clear?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:15 am to weagle99
Weagle. Clearly you don't have a legal background. This is 1L crim law stuff here. You are making a fool of yourself. Just stop.
Also...the case does not even say what you say it does. The case was overturned because the court ruled that for due process clause purposes, plaintiff did not have a property interest in police enforcing a restraining order.
Additionally, the Court relied upon state law to determine if there was a property right. Colorado didn't have one. This isn't a blanket ruling. It is a specific procedural ruling based on state laws in place. This case is in no way applicable to San Jose on so many levels.
Huge swing and miss.
Also...the case does not even say what you say it does. The case was overturned because the court ruled that for due process clause purposes, plaintiff did not have a property interest in police enforcing a restraining order.
Additionally, the Court relied upon state law to determine if there was a property right. Colorado didn't have one. This isn't a blanket ruling. It is a specific procedural ruling based on state laws in place. This case is in no way applicable to San Jose on so many levels.
Huge swing and miss.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 11:21 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:33 am to BBONDS25
Are you saying this is the only case where this topic has been discussed? My understanding is this topic has been covered several times by the Court.
And you are correct, I am not a lawyer. Thankfully.
Police have no duty to protect individuals (several cases cited)
quote:
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
And you are correct, I am not a lawyer. Thankfully.
Police have no duty to protect individuals (several cases cited)
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 11:36 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:38 am to weagle99
Do I really have to go through each one? Crap. Ok. I'm headed to lunch. Check back in a couple of hours.
For he D.C. Case...one distinguishable as the officer never witnessed the crime. 2. Not applicable in California as it is the D.C. Court of Apprals and not the SCOTUS.
I'll go through the rest in a bit.
For he D.C. Case...one distinguishable as the officer never witnessed the crime. 2. Not applicable in California as it is the D.C. Court of Apprals and not the SCOTUS.
I'll go through the rest in a bit.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 11:42 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:53 am to BBONDS25
Don't feel obligated, but I am open to learning if my premise is incorrect. Police not protecting individuals is a major topic of conversation in the self defense community.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 1:04 pm to weagle99
I do believe the premise is incorrect. However, some of the cases you cite do surprise me. I could see how the language could be extrapolated to mean what you say...though I don't think any of the cases cited apply to San Jose. That's the perfect case for the courts to decide, though. Police were present and witnessing attacks. What are their duties in that situation? The 9th circuit and maybe the scotus will weigh in im sure.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 2:30 pm to BBONDS25
Thanks for the reply. 
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News