LEO has a duty to protect the individual?

[LedJedi]

What are we going to do today Brain?

ok, this has been milling around in my knoggin for a while and I've heard it from several sources lately.

Is it true that a LEO has no obligation to protect me (or anyone else) as an individual?

I've done some additional digging on this, but would really like to hear from a few LEOs here.

Reference:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html

http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection

let the games begin.

[Mithras61]

What are we going to do today Brain?

ok, this has been milling around in my knoggin for a while and I've heard it from several sources lately.

Is it true that a LEO has no obligation to protect me (or anyone else) as an individual?

I've done some additional digging on this, but would really like to hear from a few LEOs here.

Reference:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html

http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection

let the games begin.

Well, I'm not a LEO, but this is what the courts have ruled.

[txinvestigator]

It is true, but perhaps not in the manner you believe.

You report that your spouses ex threatened you. The police take a report and tell you how to follow up. Ex comes back as soon as cops leave and assaults you. You have no case against the police for failing to protect you.

You are in a store where a man comes in and robs the place. (you left your gun in the car). Cops show up, hostage situation ensues and the BG shoots you and several others before the cops act. No case for failing to protect you.

You report a burglary in progress, cops get there too late and a BG hurt you. No case.
Or they respond to the wrong address. You have no cause of action against the police.

Thats why we stress on this board that you get a CHL and learn to protect yourself. even with a perfect police response, you can be dead by the time they arrive.

(last paragraph makes your thread fit the topic)

[graysoncountyffl]

Thats why we stress on this board that you get a CHL and learn to protect yourself. even with a perfect police response, you can be dead by the time they arrive.

Very well put.

I have heard it said that the police have a duty to generally
keep the peace, but not specifically as it applies to you. Sometimes even that may be a far reach...

Think of really nasty situations like the LA riots (remember the truck driver?); recently the NO breakdown

But on a better note, I think that TEXAS has overall better law enforcement than most. I cant really think of a large scale problem in recent times here.

[LedJedi]

Thats why we stress on this board that you get a CHL and learn to protect yourself. even with a perfect police response, you can be dead by the time they arrive.

(last paragraph makes your thread fit the topic)

ya... i figured that was implied.

[flintknapper]

It is true, but perhaps not in the manner you believe.

You report that your spouses ex threatened you. The police take a report and tell you how to follow up. Ex comes back as soon as cops leave and assaults you. You have no case against the police for failing to protect you.

You are in a store where a man comes in and robs the place. (you left your gun in the car). Cops show up, hostage situation ensues and the BG shoots you and several others before the cops act. No case for failing to protect you.

You report a burglary in progress, cops get there too late and a BG hurt you. No case.
Or they respond to the wrong address. You have no cause of action against the police.

Thats why we stress on this board that you get a CHL and learn to protect yourself. even with a perfect police response, you can be dead by the time they arrive.

(last paragraph makes your thread fit the topic)

Excellent answer!

[gregthehand]

Although it may be obvious the reason why the courts have ruled that they don't is because if liability. If the Police had a statuatory duty to act anytime they didn't show up "fast enough" someone could sue. Subsequently the law enforcement systems would be flat broke.

[phddan]

Its because the police are just civilians.
Now for those of us that were/are in the military........

Dan

[ELB]

OK, I am not a LEO, but I have looked into this before for my own interest, and yes, the government, city, state, or federal, does not have a duty to protect you as an individual.

So to pound a few more nails in....

I see you already found the Kasler writings, which list some of the court decisions that emphasize this. Here's another that lists the first (that I know of) instance where the Supreme Court said there is no duty to protect -- in 1856.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

This same link discusses the most recent case I know of as well, Gonzalez vs Castle Rock, where her estranged husband violated a restraining order by taking their children without notice and permission, and the police essentially refused to do anything to get the kids back -- until the husband showed up at the police station and started shooting at the cops! They fired back, killed him, then found the three bodies of the children that he had killed previously. She sued, but ultimately no luck.

A detailed description of the incident can be found here, in the first part of the US Justice Deparmtment's amicus brief -- which supported the Castle Rock police department.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/3m ... r.ami.html

Back in the 90's I took a handgun course from a Los Angeles area policeman who had been on duty during the riots related to the Rodney King business. He told us that the police on the street had been ordered to protect the government buildings - only. They were not allowed to intervene when rioters attacked private property.

Gregthehand is right -- if the government did accept responsibility for keeping each individual safe, it would soon go broke (and our taxes would skyrocket) because it is impossible for the government to be 100% successful. (Far less than 100%, I would bet.)

And yet I see all kinds of rules and laws about where I am not allowed to carry a gun to protect myself, but do not see any requiring anyone to protect me instead. That's why I found the attempt by various cities and counties in Texas to bar CHL holders on city/county property (covered in another thread on this site) to be outrageous -- those governments would bar me from protecting myself, would arrest and fine and imprison me if I did, but if I got whacked on government property - oh well! GRRR!

OK, rant over. But the ultimate responsibility for protecting yourself is yours, no one elses. You will suffer the consequences.

elb

btw, I do not want to inadvertently imply that I think cops are unwilling to try to help -- I know a few, very good guys, and I would bet that most cops would do their best to protect people. I would go so far as to bet that deep down, good cops find the thing that makes their careers worthwhile is having the ability, knowledge, and willingness to take risk to protect others from harm, i.e. I doubt their job satisfaction comes from writing a lot of traffic tickets! But the dynamics of the law, resources, and society mean that their possible actions are limited -- they can't be superman to everybody.

elb

[Renegade]

Is it true that a LEO has no obligation to protect me (or anyone else) as an individual?

Never met an LEO (or firefighter, EMT, doctor, etc), that did not think they had an obligation to protect people. What they did have, was immunity from lawsuit if they failed to protect you.

[LedJedi]

Is it true that a LEO has no obligation to protect me (or anyone else) as an individual?

Never met an LEO (or firefighter, EMT, doctor, etc), that did not think they had an obligation to protect people. What they did have, was immunity from lawsuit if they failed to protect you.

You hit it square on the head there Renegade.

I never in a million years meant to imply in any way that the spirit wasn't there, just wanted to make sure I was understanding the law correctly.

I do find it interesting though that many elected officials say "dont do anything yourself, just call the police." and then several of my LEO buddies will say "Call the cops, but you have every right to defend yourself."

interesting... very interesting.

ok, maybe this is turning political which i really didn't want, but where does one draw the line between law an politics?

maybe this is a candidate for a sticky eh? I'm sure lots of folks need this info.

[srothstein]

Is it true that a LEO has no obligation to protect me (or anyone else) as an individual?

Never met an LEO (or firefighter, EMT, doctor, etc), that did not think they had an obligation to protect people. What they did have, was immunity from lawsuit if they failed to protect you.

Well, you might have just met one. I fully know and understand what my legal obligations are in regards to protecting people. I have no legal obligation to protect any individual that I (or my department) have not made some type of specific contract with. If I am assigned to bodyguard duty, I do have a legal obligation. If I tell someone that they should call us if the ex comes by and we will arrest him, I may have just made a legal contract and have some obligation.

But, if you mean that the average cop, firefighter, EMT, etc. feels a personal sense of duty and moral obligation to protect people to the best of their abilities, then i can agree. I certainly will do my best to remove from law enforcement people who do not feel this personal sense of duty.

[anygunanywhere]

As a rule, we are the ones who understand this fact and take the steps necessary to protect ourselves.

The real problem lies w2ith those who honestly feel (as opposed to think) that their best option is always 911. This fallacy is what drives the same individuals to want to take our RKBA.

Anygun