HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "the court said ther...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:09 PM

"the court said there is no individual right to police protection"

Not sure how one would interpret that...


But the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit found otherwise last week, relying on the Supreme Court's handling of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. In that controversial 1989 case, which involved a 4-year-old boy, Joshua DeShaney, beaten to the point of severe mental retardation by his father, the court said there is no individual right to police protection.

"Seeking to avail themselves of the DeShaney special relationship exception, the Cantrells argue that, like individuals who are in foster care or who are otherwise in the custody of the state, Matthew had a special relationship with the officers," Stewart wrote. "According to the Cantrells, this special relationship, along with a corresponding duty of care and protection, was created when the officers took 'custody' of Matthew by physically separating him from his mother. The officers breached this duty, the Cantrells contend, when the officers failed to administer aid and delayed treatment from paramedics"

But the three-judge panel took a different view. "This line of cases is materially indistinguishable, and therefore could not have provided reasonable officials in the officers' position with notice that they had an affirmative constitutional duty to provide medical care and protection to Matthew," Judge Carl Stewart wrote for the court.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/13/43035.htm

24 replies, 2583 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply "the court said there is no individual right to police protection" (Original post)
The Straight Story Jan 2012 OP
X_Digger Jan 2012 #1
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #2
Hoyt Jan 2012 #5
X_Digger Jan 2012 #6
Hoyt Jan 2012 #7
X_Digger Jan 2012 #8
shadowrider Jan 2012 #9
X_Digger Jan 2012 #10
shadowrider Jan 2012 #11
E6-B Jan 2012 #13
ellisonz Jan 2012 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #15
ellisonz Jan 2012 #16
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #17
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #20
SteveW Jan 2012 #24
pipoman Jan 2012 #3
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #18
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #4
Euromutt Jan 2012 #23
oneshooter Jan 2012 #12
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #19
oneshooter Jan 2012 #21
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #22

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 03:11 PM

1. There's a long line of cases with similar results.

It surprises some people who take the 'to protect and serve' painted on the cars as gospel, but police have no legal duty to protect you unless you are in custody (or other circumstances that meet the 'special relationship' criteria.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:39 PM

2. That slogan is incomplete. Guess they couldn't afford more paint...

It's really "To Protect and Serve Rich White People's Property".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:49 PM

5. Yet, they do it thousands of times each day.


These cases simply mean that it is difficult to prevail in a court action against the police. It does not mean most police aren't going to help anyway they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:02 PM

6. Not 'difficult'- the police are under no obligation to protect you, the individual..

absent special circumstances.

It's just that simple, Hoyt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:05 PM

7. Actually, it is not. Few policeman will remain employed if they refuse to respond.


Like most legal cases, you guys take everything out of context to rationalize your gun agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:11 PM

8. Find a single case, Hoyt. A single case.

I'll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

9. You are confusing two concepts

1) To protect implies they will be there to protect you from criminal activity. They are under NO obligation to do so.

2) To respond - They are REQUIRED, simply by their job, to respond to reports of a crime, draw a chalk outline around your dead body and to find the perpetrator of the crime. They were under NO obligation to prevent the crime from happening to you in the first place (To protect).

Therefore, when seconds are needed, the police are minutes away. I prefer to have the ability to protect myself until the police arrive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:22 PM

10. Even 'respond' isn't a legal obligation.

Warren v District of Columbia is the example of that-

Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a.m. call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:00 AM

11. I stand corrected n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 01:29 PM

13. Yet they fail to stop crime thousands of times each day.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to E6-B (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 04:17 PM

14. And that is why you need a 30 round magazine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 04:22 PM

15. The reason...

...you need a 30 round mag is...


Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice, twice more if it returns fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 04:34 PM

16. See this why I don't take...

...your Constitutional arguments seriously as anything other than nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 05:56 PM

17. No...

...I don't see. The collectivist argument is fraught with nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:44 PM

20. Oh btw...

..."granting forgiveness is only possible if you're still alive." - d_i_s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:54 PM

24. You need 30 magazines and the smallest room in your house. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:43 AM

3. K&R

If for no other reason, concealed carry (or some form of carry) and liberal latitude in defense of home/vehicle/business must be upheld at every challenge in the courts. Those places which do not allow or make ownership of firearms too difficult, should be held to a much higher standard regarding a responsibility to defend and protect. For instance, in DC the police should be required to respond to any call within 5 minutes and to engage immediately rather than waiting around for backup, or be held civilly responsible for any harm done by their failure to respond and act very quickly. In these shrinking enclaves of authoritarianism law enforcement should have a responsibility to protect everyone...we would see how fast MAG and professional police politicians change their position on private ownership if this burden was shifted to their budgets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:28 PM

18. a lot can happen in 5 minutes. but, yeah, I get the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:51 PM

4. Gonzales vs. City of Castle Rock.

Gonzales vs. City of Bozeman.

Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:16 AM

23. Riss v. City of New York, Warren v. District of Columbia...

It's quite a lengthy list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:28 AM

12. I see that our local"They HAVE to help me. I am part of the public"

Has decided to ignore this thread.

I wonder why?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:30 PM

19. if you are being held in custody or, if you are a witness in certain trials, one can expect the

police to, at least, TRY to protect you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:49 PM

21. If you are in the custody of law enforcement

They are required to protect you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:50 PM

22. required to do their best but, you and I both know that where there is a will there is a way.

very few absolutes in this world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread