This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.
The police are not there to protect you.
Now, at first glance, the notion seems preposterous. These fine men and women put their lives on the line to protect us, right? Certainly one would think so if you follow the principles of Bastiat that says; law is a common force and a substitution of individual force, and the common force can only do what the individual force can naturally and lawfully do (meaning no one is above the law and no one can legally do what another cannot, regardless of position). Is it not noble for one to take on the thankless job of being the “mediator” of disputes and defender of liberties?
Many of those who say the police provide a role in protecting the people, are those who are either living off the government paycheck. There are also those who have yet come to realize that this formerly noble profession, is now no longer required to do the job we entrust and fund them to do. The blind ignorance can be equally attributed to Hollywood and prime-time TV, who glamorize those in uniform and yet turn a blind eye to the fundamental errors of the modern-day law enforcement as compared to their role not too long ago.
If we look at a few court opinions, we can see that the premise of what we know as the police’s function in society has seriously eroded from what it was originally intended for. For example, the recent SCOTUS case, Kentucky vs. King, ruling allows police to break into your home if they “think” you are destroying or hiding evidence, of course, without a warrant. The vague, looseness of this ruling sets the legal precedence for police to gain entry to your home by force, violate your Fourth Amendment right, and search your premises and detain you with no warrant.
Question: If the police can circumvent your Constitutional right because they “think” something might be happening, then what is the point of the Fourth Amendment? What is the point of the Constitution if your rights are easily trampled on by the police at their whim?
A quick look into Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), we see that the Appeals Court stated that, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.” This calls into question a few general points.
If the police are not liable or can not be held responsible for a lack of duty or not providing protection, then who is responsible to provide protection?
If it is their job to “serve and protect”, why are the courts saying that they are not responsible for protection of the citizenry, in as much as not being held responsible for failing to provide protection?
It is with this ruling, the argument, “to serve and protect”, is made null and void. In the real world if a doctor fails to render aid to someone in need of care, they can be charged with criminal neglect and loose their license and career; however, in law enforcement there is no level of repercussions that come from a failure to do one’s job or uphold an oath once taken. Nice work if this makes sense to you.
Another look into another court opinion, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968), brings forth a major question in regards to the police and their ability to be held responsible for neglectful actions.
“Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection? ”
Of course, the courts stated “No” and upheld the appeals court ruling on the matter. Here we can see, that again the courts affirmed, that the people have no “right” to be protected. The dissenting opinion on this case brought up a very valid point that, “…officials can either improve public administration or accept the cost of paying damages to injured people”. However, the courts ruled against this concept, thus allowing ineptitude of public officials to be able to exist unchecked in a court of law. In essence, the police can fail to protect you and continue to fail with no repercussions.
It is also fair to note that both the Warren and Riss cases took place in municipalities that prohibit or restrict handgun ownership. So this then draws into question another point, made by the dissenting justice in the Riss v. NYC case:
“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 (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her. “
Here we see that even the judge noticed the fallacy and breakdown of a government responsibility that prevents her from possessing a weapon for self-defense, yet isn’t responsible to provide her protection. This only provides more proof that there is a massive misappropriation of power the “state” has taken from the individual.
Lastly, we look at the horrendous case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). I end on this because the case involved a law abiding citizen doing as the court ordered her to do; call the police when there was a violation of a restraining order by her abusive ex-husband. Because of police lack of action and refusal to uphold the court order for protection, the ex-husband kidnapped their three children, murdered them, and commenced to have a shoot out with police when he walked into the police station. (If there has ever been a more tragic case involving police neglect and apathy, I have not seen it.)
Here, the SCOTUS upheld the original dismissal of the case, thus overturning the appeals court ruling. In this event, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect your right to due process (Fifth Amendment) by enforcing existing restraining orders and that the court order did not provide her special treatment under the law. This premises states that only people in custody of the government or in mental institutions are afforded unquestionable protection from law enforcement personnel.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that the police officers that did not provide her court ordered protection were protected from prosecution for violating her Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine that removes personal liability of government officials for violations of other’s Constitutional rights.
Let me state this again.
The police officers could not be individually prosecuted under civil or criminal law because police officers are given immunity from acts that violate one’s Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine.
Time after time, the state and federal courts have ruled in favor of the police and have allowed law enforcement agencies a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when it comes to being responsible for the protection of the citizenry. Be it the badge, or the car, or the trite oaths taken “To Serve And Protect”, we see that these are just words with no apparent legal meaning.
So, if the police, that we entrust for our protection of body and property, are no longer responsible for protecting us, we must question their purpose and role in our society. What purpose do they serve on the backs of the tax payer? What has once be heralded as a truly selfless calling, has been trivialized to simple thuggery protected by the legislation and the courts. Now we have seen an evolution from selfless service to what they are now; a revenue stream for local, state, and federal governments. It is now safe to dispose of, “To Serve and Protect”, and call it what it really is.
“To Enforce and Collect” seems much more fitting.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php/116-Riss-v.-City-of-New-York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
Luke K
The better case and the one that actually proves the government has no obligation or duty to protect is DeShaney v. Winnebago County of Social Services. A case where the department knew the child was being abused, promised to protect him, sent him back home where he was then beaten and hospitalized.
Outstanding article! One in which I agree with however sometimes it is necessary or better to reach the last spark of humanity that may exist in them. This is why I wrote the following article: “An open letter to police officers and our heroes in the military.” Please have a look at it. Thank you.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-los-angeles/an-open-letter-to-police-officers-and-our-heroes-the-military
ZERO TOLERANCE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT>>>>>
REMOVE OFFICERS FROM THE FORCE STARTING WITH THE SUPERVISORS REPLACE THEM WITH WAR VETERANS. REPLACE THEM WITH MEN AND WOMEN WHO KNOW THE DIFFERRENCE BETWEEN HONORABLE AND DISHONORABLE
WRITE TO [email protected] TELL the US Dept Of Justice..there will be no MORE BRUTALITY WILL BE TOLERATED
As a “Former;” multi jurisdictional, Law Enforcement Officer/Public Servant,-Servant; to The FATHER/MASTER CREATOR, may We humbly suggest the following:
As the purported: Legal Communinty/Communist, Ashkharnazi, Satanic, Racketeering, Monopolistic CONspirit-cy has: ensnared Their contumacious demonic selves, in a bona fide Hazardous/Dangerous, Legal conundrum, by inculcations, substantively connected, by lexus nexus; devolved from their Satanic Schemes: insidiously extending the “Trading With Enemys Act,” and dubious pretense of Unlawful abuse, of the “Felonious Conversion,” of: “Executive Privilege,” in wanton, malicious, ad infintum, extensions to: “The Emergency War Powers Act,” and it’ corralary dolus malus nexus,thru unlawfully: labelling: “ALL Americans,” as: “U.S. citizens,” to demonically fabricate, a chaotic, Lawless controversy, as a “Secret Undeclared” Silent WAR /jus “fetiale,”/”fetial law,’ [See: "Black's Law Dictionary," 7th edition, abridged,pg.:503,]employing the “Rothschild, [a.k.a.: Mayer Amschel Bayer's; in fact, in law] Technocratic; modus operandi,” surreptitiously termed, to deceive as:
“SILENT WEAPONS for QUIET WARS,” employed; ThroughOUT Military{overt and covert,} as: “Operations Research Technical Manual #TW-SW7905.1″:[See: @www.lawfulpath.com.]
This egregious, abominational, abrogation and perversion, of: “The WAR CLAUSE;” U.S. Constitution art. I, sec.8, cls.11-14, a.k.a. “WAR POWER,” ARTfully CONverted; to transmute and transfigure American Citizens, [specifically NOT: Incorporate U.S. citizens /persons, GOYIM] to: “Enemies,” of the “Private, Foreign, Enemy Owned, Incorporate United States of America. Inc.” has manifested: the time honered, historically proofed; “Doctrine of: Un-inteded Consequences,” to a codition of a: “Mixed, Civil WAR,” praesenting a bona fide manifest: “Clear and Present DANGER,” to ALL: Citizens, Non-Resident Alien U.S. Nationals, Individuals, and Others, dis-advataged by: CONtrived Communist Deceptions, devolved upon VICTIMS, of the Central, Federal CONtrolled, Department of “Education” [Propagandized; De-Education/Reprogramming, RE-visionist History, Indoctrinations, by Academic, Maniacal Socialist Schemes, to: Destroy the American Republic and "WE The People," whom: "The Legal Illuminati," CONspire to assume to pre-sume, as: The Ignorant Massess, of GOYIM, Infidels, Gentiles, Heathens, Savages, or Indigenous Human {Monster} Resources, as Economic SLAVES, on the G over Men T [Satan over men, by the Power of: the "T"-Sword of Ha Shatan] on the communist government slave plantation!
This DESTRUCTION, of: the common, natural rule of LAW, MUST: “Cease and Desist,” to preserve: the Public Safety, restore Peace and harmony, to preclude: the imminent: VIOLENT REVOLUTION, that the Law Merchant mercenaries, seem to insatiably covet lust for; evidenced by their, insatiable; avarice, cupidity, and carnal lusts!
May god/YAH/L: “SAVE AMERICA,” from: the perils of WAR, connived by Satanists, posed as “public servants?” AHleleuYAH! [Praise Be UNTO YAH!, over 5000 Years Old, and virtually Un-Changed!
Uttered specifically pursuant to: “Doctrine of Private Attorneys General,” in express Private Eye of the Law to the absolute interest of the bona fide lawful; “American Public Safety, in homage to the CREATOR FATHER source of TRUE LAW! U.C.C.1-308 without prejudice
the first case only holds true pending that the police had enough to establish probable cause to get a search warrant to begin with…. yeah it involves drugs, but would we be having this conversation if the rape suspect was bleaching and burning all the evidence?
2nd.. protecting. Cities average about 1 cop per 1-5k people.. TOTAL department size. On duty at any one time is anywhere from 1 cop for every 2-10k people. At my department we average about 1 per 3k people.. 1 cop to “protect” 3 thousand people. HOW THE FUCK do you think any department can “protect”….. btw, protect and serve was a BS slogan created by a department decades ago. Not a legal law..
@PSOSGT,nobody ever said “protect and serve” was a law. but they have drilled it into America’s heads that that is their job, made people think that the police are here to protect us, so that they can justify taking rights away. Do you think ANYONE would have voted for any kind of gun control law, EVER, if they knew the police had no obligation to protect them? NO, and thats why they have mislead the entire country into believing that lie, is so they could attempt to disarm us. Look how many cities in the US now have ordinances against open carry. the ONLY reason anyone in ANY city voted for that shit was because they were under the impression they didnt NEED guns, because the police are SUPPOSEDLY here to protect them. but then you find out that since you are a law-abiding citizen, you left your gun at home, while the criminal who CARES NOT what the law says, still has his gun, sticks it in your face and shoots you dead, for the meager $5 in your wallet. think about that the next time you walk outside unarmed…CRIMINALS DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE LAW. CRIMINALS WILL STILL HAVE GUNS. and if the cops refuse to stop a criminal from killing you, you will be dead and NO ONE will be responsible for your death but YOU, for not taking responsibility for your own LIFE sooner!
AND FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP TROLLING, i see you on the comments of every single post with some shitty remark…get a fucking life, or a hobby, and leave people alone. JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT FREEDOM, doesnt mean others don’t. If you like living in a fascist/communist society, then move to one of those countries and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Meanwhile, we, here in the land of the FREE, will enjoy our freedom without you, and yours, too, for that matter.
The POLICe exist to serve and protect the POLIS’ (city-State’s or civilization’s) property values.
Protect and serve was and still is emblazoned on out tax payer funded badges and police cars. While it may not be law, it has proven that it is simply a slogan to increase good PR, not a code of ethics.
“the first case only holds true pending that the police had enough to establish probable cause to get a search warrant to begin with…. yeah it involves drugs, but would we be having this conversation if the rape suspect was bleaching and burning all the evidence?”
Probable cause is a joke, easily fabricated, and rarely is it ever used in the manner it was conceived to be used. It is a “back door” around the State’s requirement to produce a warrant based upon due diligence to collect evidence. You can call it whatever you’d like, but it is nothing more than legal laziness. Rape…drugs… terrorist plot… the burden is on the State to get the warrant, not use subjective best judgement.
Firstly, a law enforcement officer cannot be held liable for failing to protect because simply, they can’t be everywhere. In 1999, there were roughly 40,000 police officers in New York City, with a population of almost 8 million people. Even if every police officer worked 24 hours a day, it would be impossible to protect everyone simultaneously.
And as for the “qualified immunity”, this is not all encompassing. I am currently in the police academy. They have drilled this into our heads. If you get in a dispute or get sued, if you were within all department policies then the department will back you up and you cannot be charged individually. The court case will be with the department. But if you acted even slightly outside policy, you are on your own. They will not help an officer that did not follow policies and in my opinion, this officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
There are situations in which a department and/or individual officers failed to respond readily to a call and in these situations, they are at fault. In the Castle Rock v. Gonzales case, it was probably within policy for the police to wait a few hours. This does not mean they ignored her. They probably had a notice out to look for the ex-husband. But yes, they should have done more to actively look for him. They had no knowledge that he planned on killing the children, otherwise it would have ended differently.
Lastly, please please please, do not confuse the courts with the police. The courts can rule some of the stupidest things. Trust me on this, the law enforcement community gets frustrated with the courts much more than the average citizen does. Officers often are at odds with judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc. Officers do not always agree with what the courts say and so please do not lump the two into the same group. The police enforce what laws are in place and pass them into the hands of the courts. Everything after the arrest is out of the officer’s hands.
There is a police code of ethics that must be sworn to upon becoming an officer. It is true that some officers violate that and it is my opinion that those that do should be and are often de-certified and cannot ever return to law enforcement. As with any occupation, there is a percentage of it’s population that acts shamefully and makes the entire profession look bad. There are thousands of good and honorable actors but the few messed up ones give the whole profession a bad reputation. There are many good lawyers but the bad few have given the entire profession a horrible horrible reputation. So it is with police officers. Do not judge the many on the acts of the few.
@Eric – if they can’t handle the work, they shouldn’t be paid. If they can’t be everywhere, and can’t respond to my call, then I shouldn’t have to pay them. For instance, can you imagine if I paid for home security, and they failed to respond? I would at the very least get a refund, if not damages for the costs incurred for failure to respond. Or take an insurance company for example – they are not so much preventative, as compensatory, but if I paid monthly for insurance, and the insurance company failed to pay for my damaged car/burglary/burned house, I could rightly sue for breach of contract. Now let’s take the police – I am forced to pay them whether I like their services or not, I am forced to pay for them to bust prostitutes, gamblers, drug dealers, weed smokers, jaywalkers, loiterers, underage drinkers, speeders, and all kinds of other shit I have zero problem with – and then when I really need them, they don’t have to come. Why the FUCK should it work that way? So no – it’s not a problem with a few officers here and there. It’s a problem with the whole damn system. You get a bunch of cops who get endless taxpayer money to enforce stupid shit, because people are forced to pay them no matter how many stupid crimes they enforce, and how many actually important calls they fail to respond to, and then aren’t held liable when they don’t respond to real crimes. And people sit and wonder why service is so poor.
Exactly George. The is a massive lack of prioritization in regards to the actual purpose of the police and the LEO community. More time and dollars are wasted tackling “moral” crimes and revenue generating actions like speed traps than anything else. You remove the wasted resources and redirect the police to handle real crimes against people and property, you will see a shift in the attitudes of police and the citizenry.
To say that the police can not possibly protect everyone, yet have hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on sting operations and “checkpoints” sounds more like an excuse than a justifiable argument.