Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
... On another note, I've heard quite a bit recently that officers do not need to engage or "protect" citizens. I can't remember the exact wording on why this is. Of course there are the heros that do.
This is actually easy to answer:
Per SCOTUS, LE agencies have no "duty" to protect.
Google this: "no duty to protect" or other similar phrases
The SCOTUS decisions on this topic are essentially centered around Warren V DC and some others.
The government has no duty to protect an individual at all. If that were to be held true, we'd all have armed escorts everywhere we go. Obviously this is both fiscally and physically impossible. So LEOs are not required to protect anyone. Ever. We can, if we are present, do what we can to stop a threat, but we're not required to do so under SC case law.
http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-an...-duty-doctrine/
The only time an agency has a duty to protect and care for someone is once they are in custody; because the person no longer has control over their surroundings.
I am accountable for protecting a criminal I arrest because I take away his freedom and ability to protect himself.
I am not accountable for protecting the general public, because they have the ability to protect themselves. (Ironically, not in a "gun free zone" where only the victims are "gun free".)
The more you read, the more you understand.
This is why, in a nutshell, pro-gun people are adamantly against giving up their guns. Criminals will only be relieved of their guns if caught and arrested. So if the government has no duty to protect individuals, and we "legislate" guns away from potential victims, the obvious result is pretty darn self-evident.
Take away the sheepdog from the sheep, and the wolves have free reign.
This post is very informative and appreciated...my eyes have been opened much wider than before.
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
... On another note, I've heard quite a bit recently that officers do not need to engage or "protect" citizens. I can't remember the exact wording on why this is. Of course there are the heros that do.
This is actually easy to answer:
Per SCOTUS, LE agencies have no "duty" to protect.
Google this: "no duty to protect" or other similar phrases
The SCOTUS decisions on this topic are essentially centered around Warren V DC and some others.
The government has no duty to protect an individual at all. If that were to be held true, we'd all have armed escorts everywhere we go. Obviously this is both fiscally and physically impossible. So LEOs are not required to protect anyone. Ever. We can, if we are present, do what we can to stop a threat, but we're not required to do so under SC case law.
http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-an...-duty-doctrine/
The only time an agency has a duty to protect and care for someone is once they are in custody; because the person no longer has control over their surroundings.
I am accountable for protecting a criminal I arrest because I take away his freedom and ability to protect himself.
I am not accountable for protecting the general public, because they have the ability to protect themselves. (Ironically, not in a "gun free zone" where only the victims are "gun free".)
The more you read, the more you understand.
This is why, in a nutshell, pro-gun people are adamantly against giving up their guns. Criminals will only be relieved of their guns if caught and arrested. So if the government has no duty to protect individuals, and we "legislate" guns away from potential victims, the obvious result is pretty darn self-evident.
Take away the sheepdog from the sheep, and the wolves have free reign.
This post is very informative and appreciated...my eyes have been opened much wider than before.
Last edited: