You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] alele-opathic 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Let's see who you call next time you're in deep shit.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Learn to defend yourself. The only time police should be called is for their documentation skills (insurance reasons or for various legal reasons).

Moreover, they don't exist to protect you, nor have they any mandate to the effect (Warren v. District of Columbia - 2005). Just search that for more - your bubble will pop quickly.

You should never rely on the police for protection.


[–] chirogonemd 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Wrong use of the case law. That decision in essence asserted that it is not the lawful duty of a police force, or individual officer, to protect a citizen from all crime. This does not assert that it isn't an officer's duty to protect citizens at all. What it is saying is that it isn't a legal responsibility to the extent that someone could sue for damages if a cop could not protect them. The purpose of this ruling was a practical one. What it means is that a person cannot recover damages from a department in a civil suit for an officer's inability to prevent a crime or a protect a citizen from one. Think about that. If it were the case the someone could recover damages from this, every victim of crime in a region coud sue the police department and recover damages. Crime is relatively unpredictable by nature. This isn't Minority Report. Every police department in the country would be sued into the ground if every victim could sue them for dereliction of duty to protect them from a crime.

Consider the type of scenario that would warrant such a policy. It would be a police state. Every person would be under constant surveillance with officers deployed to apprehend anyone even remotely considered to be displaying behavior indicative of potential crime - without ever having committed one. Perfect safety destroys perfect liberty. As the level of safety increases, the level of liberties decrease. Living in a free society subjects us to the chaotic nature of individual choice, meaning in a free society a police officer cannot possibly protect an individual from crime as a tennet of their duty. Any cop who failed to do so would be subject for dismissal.

It is the duty of every police officer to be attentive to the job of public service and protection, to respond to calls promptly, and be proactive to stop crime, descalate and protect citizens with which they have formed a relationship in the legal sense. As an example, consider an officer responds to a domestic dispute call. If that officer arrives it is his duty to attempt to restrain the offending party and to protect the individual who made the call. It is his duty to do this within reason of his ability and subject to procedure. If the officer was shot in the leg and the perp proceeds to then batter the victim who made the call, it can't reasonably be argued that the officer was derelict of duty. He'd just been shot in the leg. Now, if said officer just ignored the call, or arrived and did nothing, or even encouraged damage to the victim, well now you have grounds.

As a further example, consider that the officer in the above situation carried out his duty perfectly well, but four houses down the street someone was shot outside of their home. Would this officer have ignored their duty because they weren't able to protect the gunshot victim four houses down? No reasonable person would say that. Warren v DoC prevents someone from legal remedy in that situation. You can't sue a cop or department for not being able to protect you.

An example of a situation where an officer does have the legal duty to protect a citizen, i.e. maintain their physical safety, would be if he/she placed a person in a potentially harmful situation. If an officer impounded someone's vehicle and left them stranded on the side of the road and that person was harmed, they would be legally responsible. If an officer allows an obviously intoxicated person to harm themselves or others by neglect, they can be legally responsible. Note the difference between this idea, and the idea that a cop could be responsible to protect a person from crime. The latter is simply not possible, and would again result in bankrupt agencies across the country.

Standards for efficiency and effectiveness in law enforcement agencies are regulated by the federal and local governments that sponsor the police department. And they are heavy with procedure. There is some accountabilty built into the structure of departments themselves. Local sheriffs are elected positions. Meaning that every sheriff has a major interest in public satisfaction with the job of police, and if they're interested in maintaining it, they lead and administrate their departments accordingly. You won't have a job as sherriff for long if your officers are not interested in protecting the public. Again, this boils down to the fact there are bad cops out there. Like in any human institution anywhere, there are bad/lazy/negligent people. The good outnumber the bad, but when a good cop does a good job, its not as newsworthy as a bad cop doing a bad job. If a cop prevents a crime, it will be lucky to have a sentence devoted to it on a local news station. When a cop does a bad job, it may be national news. The moonlighting effect.


[–] ChallengerReproaches 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Your right, but the original point still stands.

Knowing how to protect yourself and your family is preferable to hoping you can reach the police or they can reach you in time.


[–] matthew-- 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why the fuck is this being down-voated? You have a well laid out and rational argument here. I don't like cops myself because most dealings I've had with them were traffic tickets and they were cunts, but damn.

If it were the case the someone could recover damages from this, every victim of crime in a region coud sue the police department and recover damages.

Fucking this.