Gun Control & RKBA

DonP

(6,185 posts)

24. One more time: It is not the police's responsibility to protect you

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:19 PM

Sep 2012

There's a shitload of case law including Castle Rock v. Gonzalez et. al., up to and including several SCOTUS decisions over the last 20+ years affirming that, unless you are in police custody, they have no legal responsibility to protect you and are in no way responsible for your safety.

That's your job, handle it as you will, since you are obviously so much smarter than the rest of us.

Moral obligation for the cops, maybe? But you can't sue them for not protecting you. That's why when some irate ex ignores a restraining order and kills his ex, the cops only investigate and arrest, after the fact.

But you go on and keep thinking they'll be there when you need them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should businesses that forbid the carrying of guns have any responsibility to protect patrons? [View all] TPaine7 Sep 2012 OP

No. tk2kewl Sep 2012 #1

Right. Thanks, tk2kewl. elleng Sep 2012 #3

Actually, if you read the claim, the problem being cited is that they failed to alarm the door, TPaine7 Sep 2012 #5

And the police were there to prevent this... right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #25

No. Foolish premise. elleng Sep 2012 #2

The real foolish premise is that TPaine7 Sep 2012 #7

The Police are under no obligation to protect you and can't Missycim Sep 2012 #16

While LEOs may TRY to "protect the public," it is not their legal charge... Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #20

One more time: It is not the police's responsibility to protect you DonP Sep 2012 #24

"It is the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public." PavePusher Sep 2012 #26

actually the opposite should be true bowens43 Sep 2012 #4

This is a clownishly silly argument. Anyone who is fooled by it deserves to be. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #10

You forgot the sarcasm tag, right? PavePusher Sep 2012 #28

I carry a concelled weapon Berserker Sep 2012 #34

Open bigotry and accusation of criminal intent. Stay classy, O.K.? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #65

We have this public service called "the police" that we pay taxes for that provides this service Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #6

What service is that, exactly? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #8

Then by your logic, everyone who isn't armed is legally responsible for not protecting everyone else MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #11

?????! TPaine7 Sep 2012 #14

I would not rely on that logic in a court of law. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #23

12 year olds w/ guns? Cool straw man, bro. nt rDigital Sep 2012 #37

In a world full of armed adults, a child would be caught in the cross-fire all too often. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #54

What was called into question was 12 yos with guns; that's the strawman. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #64

Sovereign immunity might be an issue. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #38

exactly!! ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #31

You people really won't stop until EVERYONE is FORCED to be armed, will you? MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #9

You simply shoehorn your pre-existing beliefs into whatever you read that isn't anti-gun, don't you? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #15

"You people..." Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #21

Citation to your Strawman(tm), please? n/t PavePusher Sep 2012 #32

Not true. We don't want criminals, the young, the mentally unstable or "you people" to be armed DonP Sep 2012 #40

you will not stop until you diss every group on du. good little.... seabeyond Sep 2012 #51

It's all about making lawyers happy... ileus Sep 2012 #12

absolutely not.... mike_c Sep 2012 #13

I don't walk in constant fear Berserker Sep 2012 #36

therefore all gun owners should be repsonsible for all gun crime then nt msongs Sep 2012 #17

you're funny discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #53

Not at all. It's the business owner's freedom, and the customers' choice. Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #18

Ok, I respect most of that view. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #19

Fair enough, that was a bit hyperbolic Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #22

Should the gun manufacturer be liable? Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #27

I think that's why we have Police and Security Guards, no? ~nt 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #29

And they did a wonderful job in this case, no? No one was hurt. Oh, wait... n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #39

Where does it say that the Cinemark theater in question had a sign? 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #50

It didn't that I noticed. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #57

So the "problem" is merely an imaginary one. 99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #61

No it is clearly the policy of Cinemark to forbid concealed guns (or any guns) at their theaters. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #62

Snipers posted at the football stadium? JohnnyRingo Sep 2012 #30

The people bringing suit in the OPs case had a few simple issues. TPaine7 Sep 2012 #42

Forbidding guns IS protecting their patrons! I will never let a gun into my business. robinlynne Sep 2012 #33

Really? So the suing people weren't actually hurt and no one was killed? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #41

no diea what you are talking about. the question is: Should guns be allowed in businesses. If not, robinlynne Sep 2012 #43

... TPaine7 Sep 2012 #44

the problme in thsat case was a LACK OF GUN CONTROL in this country! That is why people were killed robinlynne Sep 2012 #49

But,... but... they had the protective sign! Aren't signs a form of gun control? n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #59

Yes I do Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #35

People who don't disarm the NRA should all be blamed for any gun killing graham4anything Sep 2012 #45

Which Constitutional right is that, now? n/t Glaug-Eldare Sep 2012 #46

Perhaps you would like to cite that right? glacierbay Sep 2012 #55

No quakerboy Sep 2012 #47

Does the same apply in the reverse case--in an establishment that does not forbid carry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #48

Probably quakerboy Sep 2012 #63

Reverse brush Sep 2012 #52

Why would they worry? TPaine7 Sep 2012 #58

Exactamondo brush Sep 2012 #66

I say "No" in both directions - a private property owner should be able to bar petronius Sep 2012 #56

Good points, especially Starbucks. Thanks. n/t TPaine7 Sep 2012 #60

If you're not required to be there rrneck Sep 2012 #67

It is not the business owner's responsibility to protect patrons from crazies. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #68

Well Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #70

Not sure what you mean by disarm. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #71

NO!!! None At All. DWC Sep 2012 #69