No Legal Duty To Protect Citizens

[RobertNashville]

This is almost unbelievable; but not quite....

 

 

A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice ruled Thursday that the City of New York has no legal duty to protect citizens, even if armed police officers are nearby, see a violent crime in progress, and choose to hide in order to save their own skins instead of responding,

 

I will admit that this is not a new concept; but it's still a very disappointing one and most especially so when it's in a city like NYC where it is virtually impossible to have a firearm for your own protection and now, as a matter of law, have no reason to expect that armed police will protect you either EVEN IF THEY ARE STANDING THERE watching you get stabbed (or shot, or beaten).

 

 

LINK: http://www.examiner.com/article/ruling-on-subway-stabbing-victim-highlights-gun-control-catch-22

Edited August 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest dieselshadow]

All the more reason not to live in that rat infested butthole of a city... Edited August 1, 2013 by dieselshadow

[E4 No More]

Yes, this is a well-established legal precedent albeit a disturbing one - even as a former LEO myself. It makes me chuckle every time I see something like "To serve and to protect" written on police cars and the like. I like to think that I'd have never stood by and watched while someone was injured/killed when I was a LEO, but I somewhat understand the ruling as well. Charging in blindly without the force necessary to accomplish the mission isn't too smart either, and I can see why they wouldn't legally require someone to do so, but on they same token the military is expected to do so.

[TMF]

Cops stood by during the LA riots as they watched people being murdered and brutally assaulted and did nothing. This is why I'll never understand liberals when they say you don't need a gun because that's what police are for. Obviously it isn't.

[gun sane]

This earth is rapidly becoming square.

[Guest nra37922]

But he COULDN'T have a gun as guns are outlawed in NYC

[LagerHead]

All the more reason not to live in that rat infested butthole of a city...

 

This has been decided at the national level too. In no way is this policy unique. 

[Guest nra37922]

I think way too many people think that the police are there to protect them as an individual.  The old line 'I'll call the police' may work and scare the thug off but if it doesn't you may be dead by the time the police get there.

[Worriedman]

This earth is rapidly becoming square.

 

It really is not. This has been the rule since constabulary was set in the US. People just believe that the government is there to protect them, it never said it was.

[RobertNashville]

It really is not. This has been the rule since constabulary was set in the US. People just believe that the government is there to protect them, it never said it was.

But most police, regardless of the "requirement" would not stand and watch someone get attacked and possibly killed...at least most say they would not.

 

More importantly, in a place like NYC where it's virtually impossible to legally even own, much less carry a firearm for protection; there ought to BE a duty to protect. The government (city) should not be allowed to have it both ways...denying people their best tools for protection while concurrently maintaining that they (the city) has no obligation to protect citizens seems to me to be, on its face, a violation of at least the 14thA.

[Worriedman]

But most police, regardless of the "requirement" would not stand and watch someone get attacked and possibly killed...at least most say they would not.

 

More importantly, in a place like NYC where it's virtually impossible to legally even own, much less carry a firearm for protection; there ought to BE a duty to protect. The government (city) should not be allowed to have it both ways...denying people their best tools for protection while concurrently maintaining that they (the city) has no obligation to protect citizens seems to me to be, on its face, a violation of at least the 14thA.

There are lots of fine, dedicated LEO's out there, and there are many who would take a bullet for the People, but, it is because of individual effort and backbone, not because the law would hold them to that effort. They are only charged with the investigation of crime, not its prevention, and certainly not protecting the average Citizen.

Too many instances of this going to high courts, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they have said that no governmental agency can be responsible for the production of safety and protection of individuals.  What if the action occurs where there are no Police?  As the average, as I have been told lately is one Officer to 7500 citizens, what are the chances that one will be in the parking lot, the alley or your back yard where a criminal is plying their trade?  The answer is 0% and as such, the municipalities and the States and the Federal Government can not be held liable. 
 

Anyone who does not understand that is blind or a fool, or both.

 

 

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..."
 

 

 "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)

"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).

Edited August 1, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest The Itis]

I think way too many people think that the police are there to protect them as an individual.  The old line 'I'll call the police' may work and scare the thug off but if it doesn't you may be dead by the time the police get there.

I remember a saying that goes, "When it's a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away"

[Guest The Itis]

But of course in this case, the police are seconds away but running away :rofl:

[RobertNashville]

There are lots of fine, dedicated LEO's out there, and there are many who would take a bullet for the People, but, it is because of individual effort and backbone, not because the law would hold them to that effort. They are only charged with the investigation of crime, not its prevention, and certainly not protecting the average Citizen.

Too many instances of this going to high courts, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they have said that no governmental agency can be responsible for the production of safety and protection of individuals.  What if the action occurs where there are no Police?  As the average, as I have been told lately is one Officer to 7500 citizens, what are the chances that one will be int he parking lot, or the alley or your back yard where a criminal is plying their trade?  The answer is 0% and as such, the municipalities and the States and the Federal Government can not be held liable. 
 

Anyone who does not understand that is blind or a fool, or both.
 

I fully understand the job of the police; I don't expect or rely on them to protect me (although I suspect most would do so if they were there at the time).  My point is that if the "government' (as does the city of NYC) make it impossible for a citizen to avail him/herself of the best tool available to provide for their own protection then it seems to me that the city (i.e. police) then should have a duty to protect. 

 

I know it will never happen...just railing at the obvious inequity of the situation for the people of NYC.

[EMB145]

No requirement to protect, but at the same time, you cannot carry a firearm and protect yourself.  Stupidity. I do not promote breaking the law, but I will and do carry. I don't care what the sign says. If I am wrong, then we can work it out in court. Point is, I will still be here to appear in court over the issue.

[Worriedman]

I fully understand the job of the police; I don't expect or rely on them to protect me (although I suspect most would do so if they were there at the time).  My point is that if the "government' (as does the city of NYC) make it impossible for a citizen to avail him/herself of the best tool available to provide for their own protection then it seems to me that the city (i.e. police) then should have a duty to protect. 

 

I know it will never happen...just railing at the obvious inequity of the situation for the people of NYC.

 

I agree with you 100%.  But, it is not just New York, and, it will be here if we are not active.

 

Our State Constitution says, (and holds our legislators to this under their oath or obligation to protect and defend it), that "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." 

We do not require that they, (the legislature) abide by that edict, why should we expect them to be concerned with our security and safety?

Edited August 1, 2013 by Worriedman

[Raoul]

Gives a whole new meaning to "To Serve and Protect".

[NRA]

But of course in this case, the police are seconds away but running away :rofl:

troll

[RED333]

I would bet my last dollar 99% of LEOs would step up and protect someone if needed.

The LA LEO watching is something else, I do not have an answer as to why it happened.

[Guest The Itis]

In all seriousness, there are scenarios when an officer should not intervene, such as being outnumbered. You don't expect a poor swimmer to jump into the water to try to save someone else, so you don't expect an officer to risk his life against bad odds either. Waiting for backup is not a new concept, people are just too quick to jump to conclusions when they see an officer observing an incident and not go in guns blazing.

[TMF]

I would bet my last dollar 99% of LEOs would step up and protect someone if needed.
The LA LEO watching is something else, I do not have an answer as to why it happened.

I could be wrong, but my impression of LEOs in the NE, specifically NYC, NJ and Massachusetts is very different than my impression of LEOs I've encountered in the south. For example, all the LEOs I'm friends with are very pro-2A, pro-citizen and pro-self defense. I think if I lived in NYC it would be the exact opposite, so I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think they are the same species as LE I'm used to.