Things You Should Know: The Police Aren't Obligated to Protect You

Hm, you make your point quite clear, but I'm not sure I completely agree.

What in your mind would be the effect of having a police force where all individual members can be sued for criminal neglect or damages when things go sour? Including that and bad pay, nobody would join.

Incompetence should be dealt with harshly, but as in the army this can only work if it is a closed system i.e. internal police. Otherwise, every time you bring a criminal to justice you can get slapped with a counter suit.

As for gun control, we've had this discussion before. If I remember correctly you called me an @!$%# then. :-) I still feel that in highly populated areas guns do more harm than they save lives, but I agree that you cannot entirely trust on the police to protect you.

It's a tough one. How do you suggest solving this?

Very interesting article indeed! I wonder how many cases there are like this in the entire US?

I have never been in doubt that when the s*** hits the fan, you can only trust yourself. Thus I firmly support the 2nd Amendment when it comes to protecting me and my family.

I wonder if an open investigation into cases like this would move the public and political opinion towards a more positive attitude to gun rights? However, law enforcement is probably the last place to ask for information like that...they seem more and more steadfast in their decision to first disarm citizens in collaboration with more than willing state politicians who will not respect our Constitution - and then taser or shoot us.

Excellent work iarnuocon!

Eff the police.  I have never had anything but bad experiences with them.  Maybe it's the small town thing... they just always seem like they get a real power trip out of their job.  I've never been treated with anything but disrespect by police, presumably because I'm young. Because of past experiences, I have a genuine phobia of these men in uniform.

If their job isn't to protect, I want some tax money back so I can pay for my own forms of protection.  I'm tired of hearing of cops failing in their duty, or worse, going directly against their duty and actually killing or harming innocent people!  They should be paid more and be required to be educated at a level beyond high school.

You should link this back to your article about the 2nd amendment!

There's an old saying, a 9mm in the hand is better than 911 on the phone.  I have slightly mixed feelings, my shotgun and phone can both be reached from the bed.  Part of the mixed feelings on my part are that I don't expect police to try and stop crimes they think might happen, that's why we have laws on probable cause for example and search and seizure.  Cops can't act on their gut except in movies or it'll likely be thrown out of court, if a DA will proceed at all.  On the other hand, the examples above are blatant and should have been acted upon.  By and large the police aren't permitted to act unless a crime has been committed, and cops have been slapped down for exceeding their authority in the past as well.

To protect and to serve is a motto, its not grounds for legal action.  You also can't sue the scout master because he forgot the marshmallows, Be Prepared is also only a motto.

Excellent article.

I have often told folks who advocate restrictive gun laws that they are essentially arguing in favour of robbery, rape, and murder. Law-abiding citizens will respect such laws, but criminals never will - and a disarmed citizen is a sitting duck.

The police are, as you wrote, under no obligation to protect you, and I have found this out to my own personal detriment in the past. For the most part, the police are there to draw a chalk outline around your body (if they can find it, that is), and do their best to justify their pay by spending time investigating crimes.

That's the rub: if the cops actually did prevent crimes, we'd need less of them. It is - horribly enough - in the cops' best interests to have a high crime rate, to justify their existence.

Very interesting to me,  As a doctor if I am negligent I am liable and no courts will challenge that. Whats more interesting was the "no assumed relationship" parts to some of these cases. I am a psychiatrist. I have seen patients in the emergency room. Patients I have never seen before nor probably will see after. Our staff was recently told by risk management that if we evaluate someone there is an "assumed relationship" and we are responsible for that patient until someone else provides care. What that means is that if I see someone in the ER and they are depressed, not suicidal, and I send them home with an antidepressant and a follow up, and they don't keep the follow up get more depressed and kill themselves I would be liable.

Maybe a personal vent, but I get very frustrated at the high standards of care in medicine when other professions equally responsible for life dont have the same.

Articles inspiring the maintenance of our 2nd amendment rights.  According to case law, police officers cannot be sued  for not protecting a citizen.  It is not their responsiblity, despite what most people think, to protect you.  You have an obligation to yourself, to defend yourself.

I'd like to add here that I'm a Canadian. That means I live in a country with insanely restrictive gun laws. There have been cases - yes, multiple - where intruders have broken into people's homes, and the homeowners defended themselves with guns. The homeowners were subsequently charged with firearms offenses.

You see, here in Canada, we're supposed to always have our guns under lock and key. Always. So the reasoning is, that we shouldn't be able to get ahold of a gun to defend ourselves from intruders if such a thing were to (Heaven forbid) actually happen.

As a single Mom with a young child, living disturbingly close to a "correctional" institution that houses - and, more to the point, releases - most of the violent sexual offenders in this country, I'm more than aware of all these facts. I think about what might happen and if I really would be able to defend the two of us.

Feel sorry for us Canucks. Not only will the cops not protect us, but we're not even allowed to protect ourselves. Don't let it happen in America, too.

No. They are NOT obligated to be your bodyguard and they cannot by law do ANYTHING until someone actually commits a crime on you. That's the way the law works. Now if you have a court order against a stalker or your ex, they DO have to arrest them if they come within a certain distance of you. But depending on where your located, all you can do is hope for the best. That's why a gun is soooo handy.

"to protect and serve" - just another in the long line of lies the police tell us every day.

Remember - The police are allowed to and even encouraged to lie to you. It is a crime for you to lie to them.

Remember - If you choose to talk to the police everything you say can and will be used against you. NOTHING you say CAN be used for your defense. It serves no purpose to talk to the police other than to make their job easier. Your cooperation will not even be mentioned much less be used to get a better deal.

Ok ok settle down. Every time I want on a domestic call and there were signs of abuse or assault were noticed by either party, one went to jail. Thats a standard. I was the paramedic, the cops made sure someone went to jail or left the premises

Now what should be done is that anytime there is a domestic problem, the one being abused shoud get an emergency restraining order and a pistol permit. Shot gun works just as well.

Great article that exposes the sorry truth that gun control supporters hate to hear. Worse yet there are the cretins who believe like New York States Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that you have no right to self defense.

Pump up all your muscles, practice martial arts, but it was Colonel Colt who made us all equal!