|
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."
7/13/05
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE
ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN,
REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
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 police protection even in the presence
of a restraining order.
Sources:
(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)
6/28/05 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.
RETURN
TO ARTICLES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
back
to top
|