Are Californians Dreaming? There’s no Duty to protect — see Appellate Decisions..
Writing the Luzerne, PA post brought this home (not to mention all the blood on the streets and in the home after protection from abuse orders get issued.”
Ignorance is not bliss. People were told recently that Knowledge is power to Demand Change.
I have recently acquired (belatedly) some knowledge, on which basis I SUGGEST that people thinking police have a duty to enforce anything or protect (though often they do, we are speaking legally, if they don’t). …Can you slap ’em with a lawsuit and demand consequences?
I doubt it. This post came up “automatically generated” —
Suggested reading! Think about Castle Rock v. Gonzales (plus hosts of Family Law cases — Dawn Axsom, in AZ, Joyce Murphy, etc.
“CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it”. -Daniel Webster
Note: [Many thanks to the great website OUTLAW’S LEGAL, which sadly now appears to be defunct. I saved this information from them several years ago.]
CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm
“Do you believe that law enforcement officers have a duty to protect you from harm?” Ask yourself that question, and, your answer is . . . . ?
That is a question I have frequently asked. The overwhelming majority of answers have been affirmative; ranging from “Yes.” to “That’s what they are paid to do!” The next logical question is “How can we be certain we know the correct answer?”
The correct answer is found in appellate court decisions. The following summaries of a few appellate court decisions will provide some insight into this area of the law. These example cases are from California – but understand that the police are not responsible for your individual safety in any state.”
“The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5”
“California Penal Code, section 693 provides:
Resistance to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured: 1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or some member thereof. 2. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in his lawful possession. (Enacted in 1872.)
California Penal Code, section 694 provides:
Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent that offense. (Enacted in 1872.)
Civil Code section 50, and Penal Code sections 692, 693 and 694 as quoted above are still in effect. I find those code sections, enacted in the early 1870′s, to be straight forward and easy to understand. They recognize the realities of life. Not all people are law abiding; and, law abiding people have the right to protect themselves and their property, and to come to the aid of others in need of assistance and protection from individuals committing the public offenses.
Today, unfortunately, that is not the current state of the law. Thousands of laws have been enacted since 1872 that have effectively denied any truly effective means of exercising the “inalienable rights” recognized in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California, outside of the persons home, with only a few exceptions. The identified “need” for those laws has been “crime control”, but we have a much larger percentage of our population in jails and prisons now than ever before. A vastly larger percentage than in 1872, which is evidence that as government makes it more difficult for the law abiding individuals to protect themselves, they become victims of crime.
There are some people who are unwilling to accept the responsibility for protecting themselves from harm or injury, and advocate the philosophy of pacifism. However. pacifism has never been shown to deter crime. Exercise of your inalienable rights in Article I, Section 1, is not mandatory. You may refuse to defend yourself and exercise your right to be a victim.
I believe the correct answer to my original question is: Law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect an individual from harm. That raises more questions that should be considered.
Why is the public so misinformed about such a fundamental issue involving public safety? What can be done to educate the public to the true facts on this issue to enable them to make informed decisions about their personal protection?
OUTLAWS LEGAL SERVICE invites ideas regarding solving this problem”
(I have no idea who they are)…
GET THIS ONE from DC:
“Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. ” “The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services”
Per ALL these and MANY, MANY articles agrees with that LEO’s does NOT have to play nice and ALL your $$$ goes to Expensive Donuts.