The myth that police are required to protect you

Let us get rid of the idea that you should rely on police protection when your ass is on the line. First off, the police have no legal duty to protect you. Saying otherwise just proves that you have not read the SCOTUS rulings on this matter. I'll bring up two important cases surrounding this topic. The first is DeShaney v Winnebago:

>Father gets custody of kid
>Winnebago County learns that father might be abusive
>Kid winds up in hospital
>Doctors suspect child abuse
>Kid removed from father temporarily
>County decides not enough evidence to keep kid out of father's custody
>Father beat kid into coma
>Kid suffers traumatic brain injury
>Brain injury so severe that it is expected that he will have to live his life out in an institution
>Mother sues county for knowing father was abusive and not preventing abuse
>SCOTUS says: While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them. That the State once took temporary custody of Joshua does not alter the analysis, for when it returned him to his father's custody, it placed him in no worse position than that in which he would have been had it not acted at all; the State does not become the permanent guarantor of an individual's safety by having once offered him shelter. Under these circumstances, the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua.

Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5543768239799414902&q=deshaney v winnebago&hl=en&as_sdt=6,32&as_vis=1
(cont)

Other urls found in this thread:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&q=castle rock v gonzales&hl=en&as_sdt=6,32&as_vis=1
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The second case is Castle Rock v Gonzalez:
>Woman has restraining order against estranged husband
>Husband only has supervised visitation rights with his children under order
>Children disappear, and woman calls cops
>Cops arrive and say that they can't do anything
>Husband calls woman later, saying that he had the kids with him at an amusement park in Denver
>Woman calls cops and tells them where husband is with kids, in violation of restraining order
>Cops do nothing, tell her to wait until 10PM
>Woman calls cops at 10:10PM
>Cops do nothing, tell her to wait until 12AM
>Woman goes to husband's apartment and finds nothing
>Calls cops at 12:10AM
>Cops say they'll send somebody. They don't.
>Woman goes to police station, files an incident report
>Cop who takes it makes no effort to enforce restraining order. Goes to dinner.
>At 3:20AM, husband shows up at police station and opens fire with handgun. Gets killed by cops.
>Cops find the dead bodies of all three daughters in the cab of his pickup.
(cont)

SCOTUS says:
>"In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police. . . . However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally. . . . [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to . . . make an arrest. As to third parties in these states, the full-enforcement statutes simply have no effect, and their significance is further diminished."
And also:
>Respondent does not specify the precise means of enforcement that the Colorado restraining-order statute assertedly mandated—whether her interest lay in having police arrest her husband, having them seek a warrant for his arrest, or having them "use every reasonable means, up to and including arrest, to enforce the order's terms," Brief for Respondent 29-30.[9] Such indeterminacy is not the hallmark of a duty that is mandatory. Nor can someone be safely deemed "entitled" to something when the identity of the alleged entitlement is vague.
And also:
>Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders "mandatory" because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. Making the actions of government employees obligatory can serve various legitimate ends other than the conferral of a benefit on a specific class of people.
And also:
>We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&q=castle rock v gonzales&hl=en&as_sdt=6,32&as_vis=1

So there you go. Except under very specific circumstances, the police are not required to save your life or prevent you from coming to harm from a non-state actor. But lets look at this from a more pragmatic view:

It only takes an instant for a guy with a gun pointed at you to pull the trigger, and the bullet from a typical handgun might be moving at 1200fps at the muzzle. Most violent encounters of this type in the civilian world happen from a close distance, meaning that the time the bullet takes to get to you is negligable. All in all, a violent encounter where you would be justified in shooting somebody could be over in 5 or 10 seconds, from start to finish. If you don't have a cop right there with you if you get attacked, you had better not be relying on a cop for your safety.

Furthermore, requiring that police protect you will in some instances be requiring police to risk or even lose their lives. Cops have Constitutional rights too, and on top of that, would you really ask a stranger to die for you? IMO, that is unethical.

Anti gun fags BTFO Police are only there for. Police are only there for longer duration crimes, punitive actions against low class citizens and public image. For everything else, you can only rely on yourself/family.

Fun fact:

NYC did not have a police department until the 1840s.

It's amazing how no one cares about this. I usually just get blank looks followed by mention of how things would fall into anarchy if the police didn't exist.

I don't think that most people really understand what it means. If they did, they'd be a lot more like me and carry a gun and pepper spray everywhere.

I think it has to do with how tremendously out of touch most people are with reality. Somewhere along the line they embodied the false idea that the world is a just, fair, and decent place. This coupled with the common american idea that we aren't actually responsible for our own lives leaves many unable to comprehend the truth.

tl;dr most americans have no sense of personal responsibility.

>not enough evidence to keep kid out of father's custody
Yea, we should lock up people and split up families based on fe-fes

There was a case in NYC where some druggy attacked a guy on the subway, there were 2 cops inside the operators room and watched as the guy got repeatedly stabbed as he pleaded for help. The guy, despite being stabbed like a dozen times, managed to fend off the attacker until the subway stopped and other cops got involved. He sued the department because the two cops, who watched the attack, did not help him. After years in court the court decided that the police were under no legal obligation to help the man because the scene wasn't "secure."

That, and the "It can't happen to me, only other people" attitude of people who have never been in a potentially lethal encounter. I think that their ability to evaluate risk is skewed.

I used to be their mailman back in college. I remember this day well

Then what the fuck do I pay those fat bastards to do?

Enforce laws at their discretion, write speeding tickets and clean up the aftermath when major crimes happen.

What's going to happen to the leftists that don't own guns when society collapses under itself and the police leave their post to protect themselves and their families?

>protip: They're going to be robbed, raped, murdered, turned into slaves and be cannibalized

confiscate people's drugs and prostitutes money so the cops can enjoy em later

Shoot black people so other black people can riot and destroy shit, so the police can say "SEE, THIS IS WHY WE NEED MORE FUNDING!" so you wind up paying them even more.

Informarrive posts, OP.

Unfortunately all of that is too complicated for most of the users of this board.

If it's not all caps HAPPENING nobody cares

It's directly applicable to some of the 2nd Amendment threads when people talk about calling the cops. Use the sources.

This isn't that far from the truth. Whenever a public union gets involved the entire mission changes. The organization becomes a self serving system that benefits the government employee while serving the public takes a back seat. Public unions are fucking cancer.

In a society without law and order there can be no progress as every man, woman and child have to protect and take care of them selfs. So every family have to protect their home, they have to put out fire if said home is in flames, have to take care of the sick, have to get water, hunt for food etc. You basicly have no time to do anything beside takeing care of the basics,

Todays modern society used complex social structures to give its citizens free time to explore and develop the world around them. When you dont have to be afraid that somebody will rob your home, kill your family, that your house will burn down, that you wont have anything to eat, that is when people can further its society and accomplish things.

...

>Then what the fuck do I pay
You don't pay them. They just take your money.
Maybe if you had a choice to buy their services or not buy their services you could describe it as you 'paying' them, but as it stands PAY UP OR GET SHOT SENPAI.

>Let us get rid of the idea that you should rely on police protection when your ass is on the line.
tl;dr

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Black and white thinking is the cancer of intelligent discussion.

>If the cops sometimes screw up their job, they NEVER do their job right! Get rid of cops!

The worst part is that some people actually think this way, not just bait posters.

*The cops are not obligated to protect you*.
*The cops job is not to protect you*.
*The cops job is to enforce laws and punish people who break laws*.
k y s

Yeah, but that decision does not apply outside of the District of Colombia. The two that I posted are SCOTUS decisions, and thus apply to the entire nation.

>DAAA NOBODY EVER HAS MADE A PENNY IN SUING ANY GOOBERMINT AGENCY OR REPRESENTATIVE

Dats a good mee mee

Well, think about it this way for a moment. What does it mean to protect somebody? It means to prevent them from being attacked, being killed, being raped, being stolen from, etc. And it's true, the only absolutely duty of local law enforcement is to prevent crime. Coincidentally, all of the things I just mentioned are crimes. If the cop's job is to prevent crimes, then it goes to reason that the cops' job, among other things, is to prevent citizens from being attacked, killed, raped, robbed, and so on. They implicitly have a duty to protect citizens since they have a duty to stop violent crimes.

Cops protect the public order but are not culpable when failing to protect a particular individual.

How does this relate to places that have laws that have those good Samaritan laws? I know nothing about the law but they do seem kind of related to me

Except that they're allowed to do it by letting somebody kill you, then arresting the perp at their convenience.

Wrong. Fucking wrong. Fucking wrong. Fucking wrong. Muh warrants muh mirandae muh discrimination muh brutality muh planting evidence muh corruption muh muh muh muh

No. There's no getting around the *FACT* that a cop's *JOB* is not to fucking protect *ANYONE*.
Over 99% of crimes are not "caught in the act". Hardly *ANYONE* is protected by cops. Criminals maybe around 50% of the time if you're *EXTREMELY* generous get punished *AFTER* the fact, but fucking no one is protected by cops.

COPS LITERALLY NEVER SAVE LIVES BRO

LOOK AT THESE TWO INCIDENTS IN A COUNTRY OF MILLIONS OF POLICE INTERACTIONS DAILY

BRO THEY'RE JUST THERE TO WRITE ME TICKETS WTF!!! FUCKING PIRATES AND THUGGERY! MUH TAXES PAY THEIR SALARY

FUCKING PIGS FUCKING BOITLICKERS FUCKING AUTHORITY

Sounds like a bunch of pussy ass 60% bullshit to me

I haven't looked into those laws too much. I know that I'm allowed to shoot somebody if they are putting another innocent person in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, but I get the impression that you are asking about something broader. Also, self defense laws vary from state to state, so just because I can doesn't mean that you can.

Another issue, and again, this is going to be dependent on the state, is that I can place somebody under citizen's arrest if they commit a felony in my presence. I don't know if that counts for misdemeanors, and quite frankly, it would have to be some serious shit before I did so, because there are more than just physical risks involved in doing something like that. If something goes wrong, it's a legal minefield.

No shit, Sherlock. Police exist to uphold the law.

Laws don't matter. We have common law. Ill give you an example related to your question. You ask about GS laws. Well. Up here there might even be exemptions if you are employed in the course of an activity or have onus. In other words every day every single citizen can bring "new" precendents before the court. Overrule the written laws. Pay big money to lie better than the other guy. Tell the jury what to do. And what the judge now thinks, applies to every single person now and fuck the legislature. Oh well. In civil law systems they laugh at all this. They write down EVERYTHING and nonlawyer magistrates review rights and apply LAWS to cases. They don't care what their buddies have said and nothing is new. That way it's cheap and just and you know everything going in. There are NO plea bargains and NO disclosure among the parties. You apply for evidence before the trial

So this doesn't become your streets

The world isn't so simple on that

Why would anyone think the cops are there to protect them? The cops are there to enforce the law and have no obligation to endanger themselves to do so. Protection might happen but only as a side effect of their job.

This. The argument wasn't about incompetence, but police obligations

No they interpret the laws and are men who are like any other in the broader society. Natural law is also garbage

I don't know exactly what is involved in those good Samaritan laws, they seem really sketchy to me since I feel like in most situations you would be putting yourself in danger. Like saving a drowning person or something.

YEAH BRO?
SO COPS CATCH PEOPLE IN THE ACT OF A CRIME IN A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SCENARIOS? REALLY LEAF?
WANNA SUBSTANTIATE THAT SO WE HAVE A MORE "SIMPLE" PICTURE BRUH?

Don't think like that. Punishing one for helping another needs a period and disgust after that.

Apparently, you haven't heard our gun grabbers talk about how the police are there to keep us safe. To be fair, there are a good number of cops out there who would risk themselves to save lives, but my point is that you should not depend on one of those cops being on hand when shit goes down.

To be fair the French cops keep catching the terrorists in the act. It's almost like they are being told where is at risk by the UK and then ignoring 98% of the information.

I remember you the mouthy tripfag. You're so negative. Commission of crime means diddly shit in the communist communal law system. They act on suspicions and blow out your asshole sometimes. Deal

OK I'm retarded I must be thinking of another law or something. Good Samaritan laws are literally the opposite of what I was saying. It's a law exactly designed for what I was sketchy about

>You're so negative
I'm sorry facts trigger you.

So they don't beat you when you stop paying taxes? Ideal business model.

>they interpret the laws
Ohh, so close. That's actually the supreme court that interprets laws.

You've find the lion and the witch lemme know once you've gotten a hold of your fabulous fucking wardrobe

Anecdotal evidence OP

Yeah cops are incentivized to minimize liability, not protect, but it's a necessary illusion to keep niggers from going totally crazy.

so it's the mafia

yet as a bartender if you serve someone a single beer and they get in an accident killing a family of four, you can be held responsible

If you stop paying your taxes here, they lock you up or just kill you. Don't know about your Stranaaaaa.

I'm fucking beautiful.
I'm also exponentially more moral than a bootlicking FUCKING LEAF!

They also make laws. In commission of their duties; you; i; and they, have potential to make laws. Think about it. If "new" things happen you mean to tell me the highest courts have a role AND it is also to make law? Therefore if anybody fucks up in new ways they're fucked. Innocence guilt and 5th amendment type stuff. Police are like judges here. And judges not only think they were there to see everything but as soon as they come up with more magicians' potions everybody loses their mind

>Keep us safe.
>With a minimum deployment time of ~15 minutes if you live right next to the station.
Load up an FPS with anyone you have heard say this in your community. Put 5 guys on his team who have to sit half the map away while the original guy walks around the map. Tell him to call the police when you open fire on him.

The police are nice for vengeance but at the end of the day if you die in the first second of a crime then it doesn't matter what the police were doing.

It is mafia's final form.

We got rid of that for some reason. Made too much sense. Was too left leaning

Those aren't anecdotes. They're from Supreme Court rulings. They are the law of the land.

Just thd other day I caught a native in the back of my pickup truck trying to steal shit. What did I do? I grabbed a 2x4 and chased him down the street.

Fuck calling the Police. Wtf are they going to do?

>incentives

Saw a normie get pulled over.
Laughed

>he will have to live his life out in an institution
problem solved.

Funny isn't it?

You know what sucks? Talking about law and crime. Nobody does this in civil law lands.

I think you misunderstood him

Heyyy you're catching on

Yes, that is what a government and their police are.

Don't tread on my roads

My first experience with the police was sitting on the back of my friend's bike. Which is apparently illegal in Denmark. A police officer got our of his car to stop us, scold us, and threaten with a fine.

Basically an adult man harassing two school kids on a bike and trying to scare us to behave.
I could see his colleague in the police car yawning and expressing "not this shit again, don't we have better things to do".

At least the fine was never sent to us though.

Are you ignoring that getting caught after the fact still serves to dissuade future criminals?

I like to think back on how mafias and stuff like that actually formed. It's basically how I Imagine the first governments forming. A bunch of tough guys roll in and say they will protect the weak farmers and what not, for a little tax. They expand their influence, and bam you have a small civilization/empire.

If I'm going to murder a degenerate like you I don't really care what other people do at that point ;)

Now that I actually looked it up I found the laws I were refering too. They are Duty To Rescue laws.

Although it looks like here in the US they basically just require you to call the cops if you see something fucked up happening. Not actually save the person. And at least from the wikipedia page it looks like the law isn't enforced too much. Maybe it is in other countries more, I haven't checked

>common american idea that we aren't actually responsible for our own lives
I don't know if I've been reading too many old books and other "outdated" pieces of media, but I was under the impression that your country was one of the few where the opposite of this is true

...

You see problem is, while many cops will willingly put themselves in harms way to protect others, it's physically impossible to be everywhere. There's plenty of instances where cops roll across a crime in progress and intercept, but cops, unless they are deployed to every street like big brother, cannot be everywhere. I fully support concealed carry and the right to defend yourself, but I can't blame cops for not always being there. But honestly America should see themselves lucky, your response times are way better than Ireland. They're abysmal here and that's of no fault to the cops

LAW.

AND

ORDER.

>Anonymous
>47:00
HEADSHOT

On paper, yes. The "American Way" is to forge your own path, go about business in the way that you see fit, with minimal interference from those with the power to do you harm. Even more so, if those who suppose themselves in power try to go and suppress you, you have a duty to fight back and end their threat.

In the modern day, however, that entails a lot of responsibility that most people have never had to handle in their lives. As such, many Americans today would rather give up their autonomy for perceived safety by a third party, i.e. the police.