So who's gonna protect you?

[Der Wulf]

How about your country, do your policeman have an obligation to protect you ?

“...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)

“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

[lady cop]

so are those cites the current holding citations? have they been superseded? and they are not federal opinions, which is all that matters, those are regional. it is true, however, that i cannot stand by and protect an individual from something that might happen...i can only intercede when a law has been broken. which is as it should be, or it is a police state.

[catwoman_51]

I'm just thankful that we have police !

[Der Wulf]

Originally Posted by lady cop

so are those cites the current holding citations? have they been superseded? and they are not federal opinions, which is all that matters, those are regional. it is true, however, that i cannot stand by and protect an individual from something that might happen...i can only intercede when a law has been broken. which is as it should be, or it is a police state.

These are current cite's, and there are more. They have stood up to appeal and are now of course used as precedent.
the Federal cite is: Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)
I think however that you are missing the point, this has nothing to do with when or how the police may intervene, it holds that the police are not obligated to protect any individual. As an example, if I report that I'm being stabbed, and you choose to help a little old lady cross the street instead of saving my life, the "government" including you as an officer, have no blame for my death because you are not obligated to protect any individual. (check it out with your legal rep)
Now before I go further this is not a criticism of the police, most would risk their life to save mine. As a matter of fact, most officers are totally unaware and would strongly object.
html http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot is a s ingle page dissertation, or google to find lots more.
My purpose for posting is twofold:
1] When considering your security options, you need to be aware that as an individual, the police do not have a legal responsibility to protect you. I'm aware of how difficult it is to accept this, but you owe it to yourself and your family to check it out
2] I am curious about the status of this situation in countries other than the U.S.

BTW: Lady Cop, sounds like you are returning to "fight mode", good on ya
.

[lady cop]

when i am back at fighting weight so to speak i will look into the federal cite and read it. i do see your point now. however, in your scenario , after you are stabbed and bleeding in the street and i do nothing, you are going to get a lawyer and OWN my county sheriff dept. i am not certain the cite can overcome what we are SWORN to do and the mandate of the community. i will have to read up. i still believe we have an obligation, if not a legal one, according to your research, a moral one certainly. thanks for the good on 'ya! i am doing better.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by lady cop

when i am back at fighting weight so to speak i will look into the federal cite and read it. i do see your point now. however, in your scenario , after you are stabbed and bleeding in the street and i do nothing, you are going to get a lawyer and OWN my county sheriff dept. i am not certain the cite can overcome what we are SWORN to do and the mandate of the community. i will have to read up. i still believe we have an obligation, if not a legal one, according to your research, a moral one certainly. thanks for the good on 'ya! i am doing better.

actually, in the scenario above, i can certainly get a lawyer, and sue until i'm blue in the face - but it will be dismissed on the precedents cited. that's principally where those precedents came from - citizens suing their local law enforcement or other govt agency for not protecting them, and the suits being tossed because of the lack of obligation on the part of the police to protect us.

as others have said, i'm *very* glad we have police, but unfortunately, people are routinely given incredibly bad advice in that regard - *depend* on the police to save your life when it is threatened, and you are ceding your right to defend yourself. too many people die patiently waiting on 911, rather than taking affirmative action to save their own hide.

[lady cop]

unless new precedents are set, and new case law created. the law is not immutable. and i support every citizen's right to self defense, it can take time for a police officer to arrive. and i know the horror stories about people being sued successfully by their assailants. i really look forward to telling my compatriots we are not required to protect the public, thay will be astounded!

[Der Wulf]

Originally Posted by lady cop

i really look forward to telling my compatriots we are not required to protect the public, thay will be astounded!

You are still just a tad off point, you are required to protect "the public", but not an individual. I know, its lawerspeak, but it gets worse, if we have a "special relationship" (like if you arrest me, and put me in cuffs), then you may be required to protect me.

The sad thing, as I'm sure you know, is how many people foolishly put themselves in danger because they simply refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own safety.

[lady cop]

Originally Posted by Der Wulf

You are still just a tad off point, you are required to protect "the public", but not an individual. I know, its lawerspeak, but it gets worse, if we have a "special relationship" (like if you arrest me, and put me in cuffs), then you may be required to protect me.

The sad thing, as I'm sure you know, is how many people foolishly put themselves in danger because they simply refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own safety.

that is true...once i take you into my custody and cuff you i am responsible for you. i am very mindful of that. i guess i am having difficulty comprehending this case law since i feel mandated to protect the individual who calls upon me. i cannot wrap my cop brain around this, and let me say...i used to TEACH law! i understand its vagaries. but this has yet to be tested in my venue, and i'd like to do it. i am also going to write a memo to our legal dept. for their opinion and holding florida cites. this is perfect time with new sheriff coming in jan. 1....further note, in re: personal safety...not everyone is competent to handle it. nobody should have a gun who is not prepared to use it, and nobody should have a gun if it is likely to be taken from them and used against them.

[Der Wulf]

"further note, in re: personal safety...not everyone is competent to handle it. nobody should have a gun who is not prepared to use it, and nobody should have a gun if it is likely to be taken from them and used against them."

Actually, although I support gun use for self defense, I was hoping to keep that issue from this thread, to prevent the anti gun folks from turning this into a pro/anti gun argument. As a defensive shooting instructor, I totally agree about incompetence.
What I meant about personal responsability was first, acknowledging danger, understanding vulnerability, and minimizing risks. Simple stuff like places not to go, were to park, how to unlock your car, keys as weapon, maintaining your "security" space, "sensing" danger -not paranoia, but excercising intelligent options and vigilance.