- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

Free Republic

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


Posted on 2/26/2008, 4:14:25 AM by NewJerseyJoe

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."



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 individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(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)

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.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events

KEYWORDS: banglist; brittanyzimmerman; dial911anddie; police; rkba; ussc

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.

first 1-2021-32 next last

The website ( is no longer updated, but this page is still listed there. I thought it might be a handy reference.
1 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:14:29 AM by NewJerseyJoe

To: NewJerseyJoe

It’s true.

The police cannot protect every citizen. and it’s not their job, anyway. The police’s job is retribution. That’s all.

They find the bad guy and get him before he hurts someone else.

We’re each responsible for our own safety.


2 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:19:28 AM by Santiago de la Vega (El hijo del Zorro)

To: Santiago de la Vega

How many times and how many ways can this be stated. In a free nation you have personal responsibility. The government is not the answer to all your problems.

The job of the police is to introduce the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. The outcome of that introduction is not within their control. The responsibility for your individual safety, begins and ends with you. Second Amendment anyone?

3 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:26:02 AM by Steamburg (Your wallet speaks the only language most politicians understand.)

To: NewJerseyJoe

Remember, when every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

4 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:29:38 AM by NurdlyPeon (New tag line in progress.)

To: NewJerseyJoe

And we have the obligation to protect ourselves and our families. Therefore any attempt by a fascist government to take away this right must be resisted.

5 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:30:58 AM by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (over my cold dead hands)

To: Santiago de la Vega
With all these court cases establishing the FACT that the individual is on his or her own despite an expensive police force, it only seems logical that the 2nd Amendment should be greatly EXPANDED to enumerate the right to self-protection!
6 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:34:56 AM by Ken522

To: NewJerseyJoe
Great. Let's leave the borders open.

7 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:38:34 AM by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)

To: NewJerseyJoe
But yet, the gun-grabbers argue that no one needs to own a firearm since the police will always be there to protect you. If you do shoot an intruder in your home, or fire in self-defense elsewhere, they want YOU prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since you did no wait for the cops to respond. Idiots, all of them.
8 posted on 2/26/2008, 4:56:25 AM by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)

To: NewJerseyJoe

The reason every citizen concerned about protecting themselves and their family should be allowed to own and carry firearms. The police are no longer required to do their job (ok - so it is no longer their job - so what is? Writing tickets? OOoooo I feel so much safer now...).

What ever happend to that motto I still see on many police cars? You know - the one that says:

“To protect, and to serve”.

What does that mean? To protect their own butts, and to serve each other donuts?

9 posted on 2/26/2008, 5:58:20 AM by TheBattman (LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)

To: NurdlyPeon

Yep, they have to have time either to (1) gulp down their donuts and coffee, (2) start up the engine and crawl out from behind the bushes or roadsigns where they’ve been hiding to find folks going three miles over the speed limit (or, in Maryland, running the windshield wipers without turning on the lights — yes, a moving offense), or (3) profiling white motorists for any one of a million minor infractions so that they (the cops) don’t have to go down to the “hood’s” open air drug markets and fight real crime.

I’m sorry. I know there are a lot of great cops. But, by and large, that industry has become a repository for a bunch of power-hungry thugs who like to lord it over cowed perpetrators of the most minor of misdemeanors.

10 posted on 2/26/2008, 6:13:41 AM by lapster

To: lapster
1. Cops are the legal gangs in many locales.

2. Cops are there to do the paperwork and to try and find the perp until distracted by something else.

3. Cops have a closure rate of about 40% on murders.

4. It is better to have a gun in hand than a cop on the phone.

5. If you are an attractive woman - especially blond - you get to meet many cops in your life.

11 posted on 2/26/2008, 6:18:52 AM by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate?

To: NewJerseyJoe

I’m ready, abled, and licensed to protect whatever I feel needs protecting.

12 posted on 2/26/2008, 6:21:14 AM by G Larry (HILLARY CARE = DYING IN LINE!)

To: Santiago de la Vega

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victimThe Police have, what is known as, indemnification.