Police Have No Duty to Protect You

Reactive, not proactive NYPD employees, transport Maksim Gelman

If you pay for a good or service, don’t you expect some benefit in return?

If you walked into a McDonald’s, ordered a burger, saw it rang-up on the register, and gave them your money, you’d expect within a minute or two to have a burger, right? If five-minutes went by you might point-out to an employee that your order had yet to be filled, right? If a longer-than-average time went by you may even be comped some extra food as a way to lessen any ill-will that may have developed from the lackluster service.

Such deliverables – the supply of a good or service paid for, or even adequate customer service, are entirely void from policing as it’s currently structured.

Not only are police “customers” told to pay “or else” (talk about perverse incentives), but courts (proving just who they serve) have ruled that police employees have no obligation to provide you, as an individual, any good or service.

But aren’t police are here to protect us!?

Not so much. A situation in NYC, in which a non-badge wearing man subdued a knife-wielding killer, while badge-wearing individuals looked on, underscores this fact.

From the article City Argues NYPD Had No “Special Duty” To Protect Subway Hero From Madman’s Rampage, reposted below in its entirety:

“When the news was brought to my attention that police had an opportunity to intervene and maybe prevent the whole incident, and it was explained to me they chose to stay in the motorman’s compartment instead of coming out, I was very upset.”

Lozito sued for negligence, but city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day—there’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.

This is but one of the more-recent examples where those in legal land have stated that so-claimed “authorities” have no duty to protect the individual. A handful of others include:

  • Castle Rock v. Gonzales, which found police employees had “qualified immunity” (legal land language that purports to shield individuals from personal responsibility) and thus could not be sued, after three kids were killed by the husband of a woman who’d three weeks prior gotten a restraining order that stipulated that he be at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time.  This, despite four calls made by the woman to police, after the kids were snatched-up, including one in which she informed them of the location of the husband and their children.
  • Warren v. District of Columbia, in which two women heard their roommate being attacked downstairs by intruders called the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After their roommate’s screams stopped 30 minutes later they assumed the police were present and went downstairs, only to themselves be held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers, for the next 14-hours. The “officials” in legal land claimed that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection. See related 3min video on this case
  • Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, in which legal land “authorities” stated that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime, after a woman, who’d filed numerous complaints and had gotten restraining order, was continually harassed and had her property vandalized by her ex-husband.
  • DeShaney v. Winnebago County, which found that those who purport the right to steal money from others in the area to protect kids were not culpable after releasing a boy, into his father’s custody despite repeated evidence of abuse, including one bout that left him “profoundly retarded” and likely to spend the rest of his life institutionalized.

But should one really be too surprised? After all, police, and the courts that claim to administer justice, are coercive monopolies. Its actors claim a right to steal your money.

Things won’t change for the better by sitting idly by. In fact, once such a double-standard is allowed-for, it will only grow and become more tyrannical. Is that the world you want to live in, or that you want to leave for future generations?

Consider a better alternative. Check out CopBlock.org/Knowledge, watch this video, think for yourself, then act accordingly!


City Argues NYPD Had No “Special Duty” To Protect Subway Hero From Madman’s Rampage
by Ben Yakas in Gothomist.com on Jan. 27th, 2013

Joseph Lozito, better than a cop

Back in February 2011, a 24-year-old Brooklyn man went on a 28-hour stabbing rampage across Brooklyn and Manhattan, killing four people and injuring four others. An unremorseful Maksim Gelman later admitted to the deaths and was sentenced to 200 years-to-life in prison. His last victim, straphanger Joseph Lozito, later sued the police for not doing more to prevent the madman’s actions and not coming to his aid in a timely fashion. And now, city lawyers are arguing that the NYPD had no “special duty” to protect him during the attack, despite the fact that cops were on the train at the time and may have been too scared to engage with Gelman.

Lozito was taking the subway from Penn Station to West 66th Street to go to his job at the Alice Tully Hall box office when he was confronted by Gelman on February 12, 2011. Lozito said that Gelman was wildly pounding on the motorman’s door, pretending to be a cop, when he turned to him and said, “You are going to die.” Gelman lunged at the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito with a knife, stabbing him multiple times in the head. But Lozito was able to use some MMA moves to pin him to the ground. Afterwards, officer Terrance Howell tapped him on the shoulder and said he could get up: “By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.

It later turned out that Howell and fellow officer Tamara Taylor, who were part of the manhunt looking for Gelman, had locked themselves in the front room with the conductor because they thought Gelman had a gun. Lozito told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “When the news was brought to my attention that police had an opportunity to intervene and maybe prevent the whole incident, and it was explained to me they chose to stay in the motorman’s compartment instead of coming out, I was very upset.”

Lozito sued for negligence, but city lawyers say his demand for unspecified money damages should be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day—there’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring cops to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights. According to the official NYPD account and Howell’s affidavit, Howell was the one who tackled and subdued Gelman.

Suffice to say, Lozito thinks it’s bullshit: “If the cop is on the train, and I get robbed by a stranger, of course, the cop can’t be clairvoyant,” Lozito told The Post. “But when they’re looking for Maksim Gelman, and Maksim Gelman bangs on the door and says, ‘Let me in, I’m a cop’ and all you say is: ‘No, you’re not?’ ”


Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre is co-founder of CopBlock.org. As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, he seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability.

Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation.

In 2009 he left the belly of the beast and hit the road with Motorhome Diaries and later co-founded Liberty On Tour. He spent time in New Hampshire home, and was involved with Free Keene, the Free State Project and The Daily Decrypt.

  • Pingback: Police Have No Duty to Protect You - Unofficial Network()

  • t.

    Wow. Pete you got it the closet anyone has ever come (on this site) on this topic. Your concepts are still way off, but you got it closer than anyone else.

    Let’s just look at your Castle Rock example (as the rest of your cases, and many others, follow the same logic). Now this is a topic where YOU and those that believe as you do, want / demand a double standard and you speak out of both sides of your face. @Jean on another thread was recently going on and on about domestic violence mandatory arrests and CPS in child abuse cases. Jean’s point was that the police should stay out of intimate relationships, marriage and families. And YOU frequently talk about ending the _police state”. But look at the case you chose to start your argument with. In using Castle Rock as your chosen example, you are wanting both…you are wanting the police involved in an intimate relationship and (by writing the article at all) you are wanting an increase in the police state. (Now my example here isn’t whathappened in that case, but I use it as illistration.). Let’s say Gonzales calls me and says her husband had just been knocking on her door….a clear violation of the restraining order. I then go to the court to get an arrest warrant for him and then go to his house looking for him to arrest. Now that takes time…and there is some distance involved. IfiI’m working in an average US police department (like 85% of all US police departments have 15 officer or less) there may only be me and maybe 1 other officer on duty. So I go off and looking for the bad guy. Well, unbeknownst to me,…he was hiding down the street from her house and he went back as some as I left. Now, by your logic as you wrote about above….I’m responsible for what happens after I left to go and try to find him. Is that about right? So I quests you are therefore ado acting for a huge increase in the police / nanny state in that you want me to move in with Gonzales so that I’m there all the time to “protect her”. That’s what you’re saying in your article.

    As you correctly stated, this is an area the “qualified immunity” really does exists and is used. Why? Your mom is driving home and gets plowed by a drunk driver. Should you then be able to sue every officer on duty for not having stopped the drunk? When you expand out every case you mentioned above….that’s what you’re talking about. Again, what is your solution? Massive checkpoints? Stop every car? Outlaw driving? Maybe just outlaw driving for moms?

    So Pete I ask, what is your solution? More “volunteerism” crap? You know, private security where only those with the means to buy a private army can be safe? Or an increase in the “police state?”. Which do you want?

  • William

    What you are failing to realize is that there are things being forced on everyone (like police) and when they are THERE ALREADY to witness a legitimate crime (not the usual BS that passes for something worth an officer’s time)they do nothing, claiming it’s not their job.
    If it is not the job of police to stop violent criminals in the act, then what is the job description? Revenue generation? Feel good “security”?

    All this wouldn’t be an issue if people weren’t FORCED to pay for it, just to be harassed by the same people who, supposedly, have actual baddies to catch.

    Not to mention, try to stand up against them when they do legitimate wrong? BAM! You end up in a jail cell because some court said that you are not allowed to question the power structure.

  • Dan Sayers

    I protect myself. Nobody cares about a specific individual more than that individual himself. Anybody who relies on other people for their safety has already shown a profound lack of judgement in protecting themselves.

    The real question here though is one of morality. How morally bankrupt would a person have to be, regardless of their profession, to sit by while evil unfolds?

  • phillipk

    Alameda drowning lawsuit is dismissed
    Henry K. Lee

    Updated 9:18 pm, Monday, February 11, 2013

    A judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed against the city of Alameda by the family of an apparently suicidal man who died off a beach on Memorial Day, saying the firefighters who watched the tragedy unfold weren’t negligent.

    Raymond Zack, 52, waded fully clothed about 150 yards from the shore of Robert Crown Memorial State Beach on May 30, 2011.

    Police and firefighters watched from shore as Zack stood neck-deep in 54-degree water for 31 minutes until a bystander retrieved his motionless body. He died of hypothermia, his family said.

    Zack’s brother, Robert Zack, and sister, Bernice Jolliff, filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court against the city, saying firefighters had a legal duty to rescue Zack. Fire officials also made the situation worse by clearing the beach and instructing civilians not to enter the water, leaving Zack “in greater peril,” the siblings said.

    But in a five-page ruling, Judge George Hernandez Jr. said the siblings had failed to show that rescue personnel “assumed any duty of care to Mr. Zack or undertook any affirmative acts that increased the risk of harm to him.”

    The judge added, “The court finds that under the circumstances presented, there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of responding officers and firefighters.”

    Public safety personnel shouldn’t be liable in such a way that they are deterred from helping those in emergency situations and “rendering assistance in the type of highly volatile and unpredictable situations faced by the officers and firefighters here,” he wrote.

    Fire officials have said firefighters couldn’t save Zack because the department’s water-rescue program had been defunded. The city has since restored funding and purchased boats for water rescues.

    “It is unfortunate that Mr. Zack was so distraught that he took his own life,” said Alameda City Attorney Janet Kern. “However, the ruling amounts to a finding that the responding police officers and firefighters acted reasonably and diligently in what was undeniably a very difficult situation.”

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-drowning-lawsuit-is-dismissed-4269947.php#ixzz2KiwNeYpV

  • t.

    @sayers: way to miss the entire point.

  • Daniel

    The point is that you must protect yourselves because the police can’t be present all of the time and they often arrive at the scene of the crime too late. Since the police are not required to protect you (and are often part of the problem when they do arrive), the government needs to quit trying to ban “evil looking” and other firearms.

  • t.

    Daniel: Closer. I’m all for you and any one protecting themselves. If that’s what is really happening. Unfortunately far to many folks want to escalate anything and introduce a firearm in a situation that doesn’t necessitate one.

  • 2minutes

    Yeah, folks want to escalate things, unlike the police who, oh, shoot a truck carrying 2 women delivering papers while mistaking them for a single 275 lb man. Oops, wait – it looks like cops do the same things after all. If those women had returned fire and wounded or killed the cops shooting at them, would you be all for that, t?

  • t.

    Dude, no one said that incidents was right. Why do you keep bringing it up like I did? Expand your limited thinking.

  • In my personal case I was told that there is nothing a cop can do until after the event has taken place. Funny situation this, since during my screams for assistance in front of 1/2 cops and even more civilans as bystanders and not to mention the numerous requests for assistance from emergency services switchboard during and MANY times after these on going assaults and now suffering greatly with life threatening injuries … no one appears interested now that these events have taken place. If this is the world in which we are supposed to live and love then leave me out of it I say!

  • when injustice becomes law then rebellion becomes our duty….. remember this folks!

  • Common Sesne

    Once again, CB’ers fail to understand basic legal principles…

  • Common Sense

    As per usual, there are 3 sides to this incident. Lizito’s, Howell’s (NYPD) and then the truth.

    1. How long did the attack last? One report says 60 seconds, another 120, and still another reads ‘less then 10.’

    2. I read about Lozito’s plan to sue last year, so this isn’t some shocking news.

    3. One report said Gelman pounded on the conductor’s door, then turn ‘immedately’ and attacked Lozito who was within arms reach sitting down.

    4. Lozito has no idea who Gelman was, he was from Philly, not NYC. Gelman’s rampage has only begun the night before.

    5. NYPD were at all subways stations as other NY’ers has seen him on a different train.

    6. Another report said Lozito knocked on the conductor door to get the police attention after ID’ing the wanted person, Lozito however didn’t mention that until his suit, months afterward.

    7. Lozito’s “MMA” move wasn’t anything more then a leg sweep.

    8. Lozito’s attorney states police didn’t exit ‘immediately’ when Gelman knocked on the conductor’s door, but said after the knock, Gelman ‘immediately’ attacked his client. The police state once they observed a knife, they exited and rushed Gelman (not firing a dozen rounds mind you) as well as an off-duty detective who also aided in the capture. Were they surprised at the door slamming, then turned only to see the back of Gelman’s head, whom they didn’t recognize because they didn’t have “Faceback” app – then saw the knife? Action is faster than reaction.

    9. The motorman on a subway (having in in NYC for years) opens outward (due to fire code) and sits to either the left or right. NYPD states it was Gelman who ‘slammed’ the motorman/conductor’s cabin door shut, then attacked Lozito. They must have been in a different model, as the motorman’s cabin is typically built for one person.

    10. It takes a matter of seconds, not minutes stab someone 6 times.

    I’d have to read the testimony and see some photos.

  • t.

    Pete: I really was asking. What is your solution?

  • Pingback: NYPD: Officers Not Liable for Failure to Act in Subway Stabbing Spree | Silver Circle Underground()

  • 2minutes

    “Dude, no one said that incidents was right. Why do you keep bringing it up like I did? Expand your limited thinking.’

    Says the man with the most black and white thought processes I have ever come across. With you its cop = right and not cop = wrong, period.

    Your statement here just serves to prove the point: mention firearms and you immediately come out with how too many folks can’t be trusted with them, yet you take offense when I point out that cops seem to have the same issues, using just the latest example of cops using deadly force on innocent people to drive home my point. it’s funny, but I don’t seem to be able to find where you make a similar comment about how the cops can’t be trusted after incidents such as these. No, apparently you’re OK with it when a cop escalates things and introduces a firearm into a situation that doesn’t necessitate one. You just perceive a problem when it’s ordinary “folks”.

    So, I suggest you expand your self-centered, myopic, egocentric point of view just a bit, and understand that while you’re finding problems with ordinary “folk”, ordinary “folk” are finding problems with you.

  • t.

    2: Guy… … … … imdont even know what to say to you. Your desire to quarrel is just… … …I don’t know even know. I write a reply directed at the article Pete wrote, pointing out some seriously inconsistent points in said article, and ask him for what his solution is. You bring up a horrible and regrettable incident that just happened and has nothing to do with the articleor my comment. I clearly say the the incident you mention is bad….and you still keep bring it up. No one claims pperfection, well no one but the Cop Blockers that is. I’ve never said I don’t want people to defend themselves or be armed. The problem is, as I showed you many times now with very simple math (the huge numbers…staggeringly huge number of police contacts each year), and that the police who are interjected into many more highly heated and dangerous situations than the average Joe, that there are statistically nearly no incidents ( as we know, statistics lie…as there clearly are force incidents with the police). When many people introduce firearms…they do it to intimidate…to place fear into others…to be the bully. Its not a defensive action, its offensive. And often, those people are correctly arrested because that offensive action…is frequently illegal.

    Yours is an almost child-like understanding and approach. I can almost here you saying ” no, no, no…the police shot at these innocent woman so they are all bad and evil”. Let’s ignore the other 2,999,999 other none shooting incidents that the police had that day. In your child-like way….all you can see is the one thing.

    But I’ll ask you the same thing I masked Pete. What is your solution? Keep in mind the point of his article and the case he used to illustrate his point. Heck, throw in phillipk’s comment about trying to sue the firemen. What’s your solution there smart guy? I’m all ears, waiting on your brilliance.

  • Pete Malloy

    @t clearly if we abolish the police as an institution we will be free to live in a volunteer society where everyone hugs out their differences. Geez dude, how do you not get that? Now I’m going to have to take my government hand out and spend it on gas so I can drive around the country preaching to small meaningless groups about how everything is the police officers fault! Seriously how do you not know that everything wrong is someone elses fault. Cops r sooo dumb

  • Pete Malloy


  • 2minutes

    Stop trying the change the issue. My response was to your statement about firearms. You immediately dismiss the stated reason and try to make it into something else; making a case for that “folks” can’t be trusted with firearms (” If that’s what is really happening. Unfortunately far to many folks want to escalate anything and introduce a firearm in a situation that doesn’t necessitate one.”). I respond with a case that points out that cops are just as likely to be irresponsible with those firearms, shooting innocent people without sufficient justification – it happened, whether you like it or not – and you got to insults about limited thinking, as if your thinking is so crystal clear and you know all. You start the insults, fine, I’ll play – no problem there. But quit pretending that your right, and have all the answers, and everyone just needs to agree with you – that’s just narcissistic.

    As far as this: ” ” no, no, no…the police shot at these innocent woman so they are all bad and evil”. Let’s ignore the other 2,999,999 other none shooting incidents that the police had that day. In your child-like way….all you can see is the one thing.”
    Well, nice try, but its pure sophistry. First, your math – you keep
    estimating (and expanding) the encounters – its not real math, just
    your version of it. And your version goes like this:” well, I’ve had
    several encounters with ‘folks’ today, so no one should mind if I open fire on one of em, the ratio is pretty good, mathematically, so I’m good to go”. You know the old saying “2 wrongs don’t make a right”? Well, you are trying to flip that to read “2,999,999 rights excuse any wrong”. They don’t. Ever. Talk about simplistic reasoning:
    t, meet t.

    Oh, and this: ” When many people introduce firearms…they do it to intimidate…to place fear into others…to be the bully.” – Hmmmm, I can think of one group of people that his applies to – I’ll give you a hint – think law enforcement..

  • Common Sense


    that’s some funny shit.

  • t.

    2: I didn’t avoid, duck, or change anything. If you look at the seond sentence of my last post you can clearly see that I adress you. Heck, in your last comment you even quote me severaltime…aabout very subject you say I’m changing. What are you taking? But, yet again, to the incident to which you kept referring. As that incident jus occurred, exactly what happened isn’t really clear. As for ramifications for the officers involved, I’m sure there are HV been some and there will be more. Does that help you any? Probably not. So go on and rant about it some more.

    Sorry you don’t like my math. If that somehow changes your limited view of what the police do, or how much they do….well, I guess that’s just to bad. BTW I was directing traffic yesterday at a major intersection…..impacting thousands of more people. Thousands on 1 call alone. How does that skew your little mind?

  • t.

    2: BTW there tough guy. Talk about changing the subject and ignoring things. I asked you the same question as I asked Pete (who also didn’t answer…hmmm). About this article….what’s your solution? Or can you only cast stone at those that are actually in the arena? Just enjoying the view from the cheap seatih nothing offer. What’s your brilliant ideas?

  • 2minutes

    “Your desire to quarrel is just… … …I don’t know even know.” There’s your second sentence, and your change of subject, from firearms to personal attack. As for the “incident” (nice sanitizing language, by the way, really downplays an attempted murder), so far its just excuses. No ramifications; a.k.a. business as usual.

    It’s not that I don’t like your math, it’s that it isn’t math. it’s simply an attempt at justification. Of mistakes. Of assault. Of attempted murder. And it’s bullshit. As I pointed out in my version of your “math”, if that’s what you want to call it, you’re trying hard to say that if an officer does some good, then it’s o.k. if he does some bad, too. Talk about simplistic reasoning. Too simplistic,
    and unacceptable, given the potential for harm that exists with such faulty logic.

    Directing traffic at a major intersection…impacting thousands of people? Really? Bwahahahahaha – that’s how you impact thousands of people? That’s your math? Well, then, you should see the multitudes I interact with – hundreds on the road each day, at least, hundreds more in the workplace, more in stores, at the gym, you name it, pretty much everywhere. I daresay I, and most everyone, interact with as many people, given your criteria, as cops do. And guess what?
    I haven’t yet opened fire on an innocent person! Not once! How does that affect your math? How much harm does that simple truth do to your little mind?

  • t.

    So…again, you can’t answer the question. Duck, duck duck.

  • 2minutes

    “So…again, you can’t answer the question. Duck, duck duck.”

    Well, t, it’s a tactic I learned from you – so, congrats, you have taught something, which I guess means you are not completely useless after all. Note that I asked you a question on my first post in this thread; one that you avoided -duck,duck,duck! – and this is not the first time that I’ve seen you dodge a question you don’t want to answer. But it’s not surprising, it’s your standard tactic – accuse everyone else of doing the things you do. Avoid answering questions while demanding answers from others. View everything with tunnel vision while accusing others of being narrow-minded. Make excuses for bad behaviors while demanding that everyone else be held accountable. Imply limited vision while demonstrating an inability to view anything outside the box you’ve shut yourself in. I could go on, but you get the point. Or perhaps not; it’s not within your sphere of recognition, after all. I wonder: do you actually read and process these words, or are you fundamentally unable to even acknowledge a viewpoint that is different from your own?

  • Wicked Vet

    I have never known the cops to protect and serve, they have always caused more trouble then they were worth calling for. Cops and CPS as some of the commentors here mention tend to take good people away and are blinded by the truly bad situations with a nothing more we can do type of attitude. The case mentioned in this article Warren vs. DC police says it all.

  • t.

    So I looked back at your “question”. I addressed you in my very next comment after that. Now I know its not what you wanted…but I was and am trying to stay on topic.

    But again, I see YOU can’t stay join topic and answer the question. Duck duck duck.

  • 2minutes

    So, I looked at your ‘very next comment”, and nowhere in that comment did you answer, or even address (those are two different things, by the way) my question. Talk about not being able to stay on topic, or even understand what that topic is, exactly – you seem to be having a hard time staying focused. I begin to suspect a reading comprehension issue, it would explain so much – your aggression when someone posts something you don’t like, or completely understand (or just because they dared to confront you, for that matter); the way you pick and choose what parts of posts to respond to, while ignoring other salient points; how you miss the point completely sometimes; and most interestingly, how you claim to have answered a question that you have not, then point to a previous post that does not, in fact, have written there the things you claim it does.

    Of course, it could just be because you’re a cop, since that could all be just lying and evasive maneuvering, something that’s SOP with cops.

  • 2minutes

    As far as your question, I don’t claim to have all the answers, but a good start would be the rescinding of qualified immunity for cops (and total immunity for prosecutors). That way, the next time a cop breaks into the wrong home and shoots or kills the homeowner, they could actually be held responsible. The next time a cop shoots up a vehicle that doesn’t have their manhunt suspect in it, but a couple of innocent people, they could be held responsible. The next time a cop assaults someone, and lies about the circumstances, both in the report and in court, they could be held responsible. And I mean responsible to the same degree that the average person would be – criminal charges, not a paid vacation to allow the incident to recede from the public conscious, then business as usual. if it’s
    a crime for the average person to shoot at another person absent
    cause (such as self-defense), then it should be the same for a cop.
    With the same penalties. Currently it’s not, cops enjoy too great a leeway in that regard.

    As far as your earlier example; no one can be held responsible for not being present, so in your example of obtaining a warrant while
    the suspect returns – if you are not on scene, you are not responsible, since you cannot engage in an activity that could alter the outcome. That’s simple logic. The cops on the subway were present, however, so it becomes a matter of timing. Did they respond as soon as they were aware of the problem? I don’t know, that’s for
    courts to decide.

    Now, all of that leads to this: if police have “no constitutional duty to protect people from crime”, if police “owe no duty to victims of criminal acts”, if police have “qualified immunity” for
    failing to act after “four calls made by the woman to police, after the kids were snatched-up, including one in which she informed them of the location of the husband and their children” which resulted in the deaths of the children, all while a restraining order was in place (and this case neatly sums up the uselessness of obtaining a restraining order); if police can release an abused child back to the custody of his abuser, so that he can be beaten into a brain-damaged state – well, what he hell good are the police? Of what possible use are they? The only thing they seem to be good at is maybe traffic violations, funny how the things they excel at are the things that generate revenue. Ticket-writing. Checkpoints. Disturbing the peace citations. Mostly insignificant infractions.
    And why? If cops can look the other way when a major crime is occurring, why bother with the petty stuff? Because it pays their salaries? Have the police become nothing more than a self-sustaining parasite, only interested in maintaining their status quo, even to the detriment of their host organism? Given the facts, it certainly seems so.

  • t.

    Well….now we know you just aren’t that bright. REZD the above article. Stay ON TARGET with what that article is about. Those case are just as I say. Castle Rock…his very first example is exactly what I said. She wanted to hold the police responsible for the actions of another. It is sadly an accurate view into our society. Its always someone else’s fault. This site blazes with examples…and you are a frequent provocateur. I have brought it up many times in the past…and even had to educate the higher ups in my own department….its about relationships. Those cases speak of “special relationships” and if they are established. In the case listed above and the others that get referenced…the reality is that in all of those cases, while the term “qualified immunity” gets thrown around, it doesn’t really even get into that. For just as I described….I not at fault for not arresting a person that I haven’t had reason to encounter when that person then does something bad to you.

    This is why I throw at you, and rightly so, that all you want to do is stand back and sneer at those that stand in the arena. You don’t do anything but bitch. Bitch if the police do something, bitch if they don’t. You can add nothing. And that’s OK. But don’t look to be respected when that’s all the depth there is to you.

    And as for your continued rant that I haven’t answered you. Again, look back. You may not like the attention I give your question, so be it. I don’t know enough about the situation to address it one way or the other. If you have bunches of info….post it up. Just do so from a legitamte source…not some of @Carlos’s be websites.

    Oh, and you really need to research qualified immunity before you throw the term around. Believe me, you’re getting it very wrong. Officers who do criminal all acts, or do so etching “off of the reservation”, don’t get it. Kinda like you.

  • Common Sense

    ..sometimes they just don’t understand. Maybe if you used sock puppets and a dry erase board.

  • Wicked Vet

    t……. Must be short for typical cop… The mother in Castle rock expected the police to save her children, this isn’t an involvement in a special relationship because the father killed it. This woman now is enlightened that the cops can’t even help us when we do all the work for them. The Warren case those women expected the cops to have a quicker response time then 15 hours. Deshaney the cops couldn’t save that little boy when the evidence was a clear as day. This is why we don’t need cops, they involve themselves when not needed and stay out of things when they clearly are needed.

  • 2minutes

    And we have known all along that you are a moron. So what? According to the courts, it’s ok to hire morons for policing; after
    all, we wouldn’t want them to be too bright, would we? They might start to think for themselves..Something that you clearly don’t do.

    So, point by point: you did not, in any way, answer my first question. You continue to ignore it, while complaining that others ignore yours. How….typically cop-like. Here it is again: “If those women had returned fire and wounded or killed the cops shooting at them, would you be all for that, t?”. This in regard to the incident in California wherein cops shot two paper delivery women, apparently mistaking then for Christopher Dorner, and your statement, repeated here: “. I’m all for you and any one protecting themselves. If that’s what is really happening.” Where did you answer that question?

    I said rescinding qualified immunity is a good start, not the end all and be all solution. Really, get some reading comprehension. I know what qualified immunity is, and its wrong. Period. It allows a cop to commit wrongs and get away with them as long as he thought he was in the right. He doesn’t have to know the law, just think he knows the law. Qualified immunity hinges on clearly established law, yet time and again we see cops violate clearly established law and get away with it. The New York times just ran a piece on why so many cops are perjuring themselves and lying on arrest reports – something so common that it’s become anecdotal -and the conclusion was because they can. Now, that’s clearly established law, yet cops still violate it. because they are so used to getting away with it. And, they receive the protection of qualified immunity, even in those incidents. So, it’s like a gateway drug, receiving immunity from questionable violations leads to greater and greater violations.

    The cases listed above have one element in common: they establish the uselessness of the police. As I asked before: if police have
    “no constitutional duty to protect people from crime”, “owe no duty to victims of criminal acts”, and “have qualified immunity for
    failing to act”, then what good are they? What do they do, exactly?
    (I know, another question you’re not going to answer…)According to these rulings, the police don’t owe a duty, don’t have to act, and are immune from prosecution for quite a litany of improper actions – so what is the point of the police? They don’t, according to the courts, have to do anything.

    You state “I not at fault for not arresting a person that I haven’t had reason to encounter when that person then does something bad to you.” I never said you were. Again with the reading comprehension – you really need to get a tutor or something – I clearly stated ” if you are not on scene, you are not responsible, since you cannot engage in an activity that could alter the outcome” – that’s a direct quote, by the way. Try to keep up, and understand what’s being said.

    So, given these rulings, it appears that its the police that add nothing, since nothing is required or even expected from them. Yet
    the average person can attest to the fact that its frequently the cops that are standing back and sneering – standing back because they have no duty to actually do anything, and sneering because they
    don’t have to play by the same rules that they expect everyone else to play by. After all, if the average person were to break the law,
    citing ignorance of the law would not be an acceptable excuse. it is
    if a cop does it, though. Why is that?

    Oh, and “stand in the arena”? What do you think this is, Gladiator?
    Maybe Spartacus: Blood and Sand? Please. In both of those situations, the main characters had no choice but to stand and fight. According to these rulings, you guys can just watch from the sidelines. So, to throw your words back at you: ” don’t look to be respected when that’s all the depth there is to you”. And with that, I’m being generous.

  • t.

    “She expected..”. That doesn’t mean the police did anything wrong. We aren’t clairvoyant. Like I asked Pete (who still hasn’t responded…hmmm), are you advocating for an increase in the police state? You you want an officer for every person in the country? There own personal officer? Or would you rather I trample on peoples rights and arrest / detain people just because I think they might do something wrong? Like the example I gave at the top….if he violates the restraining order….and I drive away to go find and arrest him, and he sneaks back….am I still to blame in your eyes? That’s what those cases are all about. Each of them. And that’s why the police won in each instance. In a lucky jurisdiction, there is 1 officer for every 1000 people. And they aren’t all working at the same time, 24 hours a day. So the real ratio is closer to 1 for (I think the last I saw) 7000. That’s not many of us. And what if I’m camped out at the Gonzales house protecting her….and some one attacked ms. Smith elsewhere on my beat? Am I still at fault? Again….it is the direct two-faced / double standard iinconsistency the oozes from every pore around here. “I don’t want government, but I want the government to do everything for me and give me everything”.

  • Wicked Vet

    So right typical cop silly of her to expect cops to do their jobs and go save lives. Just because they had the time, the location and could have saved three kids why should they have to ife is hard and donuts are easy. Of course I am not advocating for a police state, I am advocating for the removal of police as they can not do what they were intended to do. It is clear by those cases the cops are not here to serve and protect, thus they are not needed. Cops already arrest good people for doing nothing while letting bad people get away with doing bad things because that would require actual work. Is it unreasonable to believe that cops with 15 hours notice actually show up at the house and protect women from being abused after being called and told a crime is in progress? Are you saying that the cops had no reason to believe that crimes were in progress in anyone of the cases mentioned in this article? Of course if while you were out looking for the criminal and he manages to back track and kill the victim it isn’t persay your fault, you would have done the best you know how. However, if she calls you and says he is in her home and it takes you 15 hours to show up knowing that her life is in jeopardy then yes it is your fault. So you are claiming that the cops didn’t take 15 hours to show up in the case where the women called the police? It amazing how few cops there are out there but when it comes to minor violations I can see 15 cop cars show up in 15 minutes to harrass someone who highlights their incompetance. If cops can not learn to prioritize and actually do good then why do we need them? To run useless check points? To harrass good citizens who are speeding or talking on the phone while driving? We don’t need government to save us, we should learn to do that for ourselves. Those who would give up a little bit of freedom for security deserve neither and shall lose both.

  • t.

    But my job isn’t just to her. Its to everyone. Her rights / needs / wants aren’t any more important than anyone else’s. That the point you all miss. You it all the time….but you don’t get what your saying. Just like Pete didn’t get it when he wrote the article.

  • Wicked Vet

    Yep typical… your duty isn’t to any of us, it is only for you. What have you done for everyone let alone anyone? Police are not here to protect and serve but to enforce and imprison. Keep doing your job but lets not lie about what that is.

  • jayduba

    Notice how Common excuses bad police behavior by inferring there’s a lawsuit, so anything cops do is okay? Also, T is legendary for changing the subject and putting words into peoples mouths. on another point , T , how is expecting cops to do their jobs correctly a demand for an expansion of the police state?

  • jayduba

    Refer to your first entry, T.

  • t.

    Duba: Again….your arugement defies logic and any common sense. Castle Rock, Pete’s first example (but any off them will work) is still the clear and perfect example. “She expected” that the police would protect her and arrest him. OK. How do we do that? Like I asked earlier, do I camp out at her house and move in around the clock? Do I leave and go look for him? And while doing either of those…do I ignore your call because I have too “protect her”? You are asking first for clairvoyance, and seconfpd for a drastic expansion of your dreaded “police state”. Lots of people make lots of threats about lots of things. Are you now wanting me to be everywhere? All the time? Stopping everyone?about everything?

    In none of this cases, or any others that I know of (although its a really big country) did the police just stand there an knowinl lloomeoob harmed. In that kind of situation, the police would be liable…if they could have done something and didn’t react. Heck,the way you lunactics think, if the officer had intercepted him, we would have been violating his rights…and not protecting anyone just…what was Wicked Vet’s nonsensical and not well thought out line…to enforce and imprison? (BTW there Wicked….”enforcing” the restraining order and “imprisoning” him is what she wanted…douche).

  • jayduba

    HOW…DOES…THIS…DEMAND..AN…EXPANSION…OF…THE…POLICE…STATE…? Stop changing the subject and answer this question, not things I didn’t ask. Capitalized and spaced so you low IQ cop types can read it slow.

  • t.

    NOT CHANGING THE SUBJECT. You just keep wanting to ignore reality. When I go to work today there will be roughly 1 officer for every 5200 residents. The number doesn’t take I to account people who have left town for work or people have come to town for work or shopping. Rough number. What you are expecting is that I am everywhere…all the time. Maybe you need to read more of the cases than just what Pete posted, although his is a pretty good synopsis. Its really not that hard dude….you either get assloads more cops to narrow down that ratio…or you understand that the police aren’t and can’t be everywhere.

    Guy, you may not like it…but ithe real world is just like I describe. People have tried to sue thepolice because they ddidn’t stop some drunk that killed there mom. And because there house got broken into. 1 for every 5200. And I get pulled away to deal with crashes, and lost kids, and loud parties, and domestics, and breakins. 1 / 5200. And as soon as I arrest someone…and take the 1.5 hours to process them…that’s increases the negative ratio. In a situation such as those discussed above, me leaving because another emergency call comes n isn’t me not doing my job, its your very limited understanding. Or me leaving you house after some threat has come in to go look for the suspect….isn’t me not doing my job. Cause guess what….big brother really doesn’t exist. We aren’t listening to your phone calls. We don’t have real time access to every surveillance camera in town, nor GPS locations on your phone and car. And last I knew….we haven’t lojacked anyone. So I don’t know where you are unless I look and find you.

    You really need to realize that you are speaking out of both faces on this topic.

  • Wicked Vet

    Hey typical cop it is pretty clear that you have not read the case regarding Gonzalez vs. castle rock, you may want to read it, maybe you could, as a cop, see what a cop could have done to avoid a shoot out at the police station…just saying. In no way is this asking for a police state, there were officers available to go to the amusement park and possible save the children. What are the odds that all the cops were occupied in life saving cases already? Considering the officers were at the police station after the kids were killed and the father started a shoot out with them. They basically set a precedence that a restraining order is something that can be ignored by police thus making it pointless to go get one. She should have just got a gun and went to the park and shot him, she’d be in jail because you guys would be there to arrest her, but her kids would be alive.

    Douche…lol. Really show who you are in that one. They could have done something it is clear by the case file that they choose to ignore her and her plead for help. Did you read any of the cases or just what was provided in this article? Warren cases is said and shows police incompetance and the fact that they were allowed to not follow proper protocal because they lacked a “special relationship” with them is ridiculous. The DeShaney case though was clearly DSS’ fault. I mean really a man is already breaking an agreement with them by abusing his sign and they allow him to say the boy is to ill to see them, the DSS worker was an incompetant idiot but government protects government. After all just look how many cops could be there to kill Dorner because that was a very special relationship.

  • Wicked Vet

    Oh just saw your next comment where you claim that you read them and cops can’t be every where. Not sure how you read that the cops were busy, in Castle rock they clearly say they ignored her and in Warren they showed up but when no one answered the door they left without even checking the back door or calling the home. It clearly says in Warren case that two cop cars were dispatched to the house and one to a suspects house, how on earth they thought they knew who it was is suprising. In both cases cops were available but failed to act. Dispatch miscatagorized the first call and failed to dispatch on the second call. They may have been found not guilty but all I read is incompetance.

    In no way do I want more cops so that 15 of you can harrass a cop blocker while none of you protect citizens from real crimes. You guys only have each others backs which is evident by these cases and by Dorner’s case. I say these cases call for less cops not more cops, they have failed to do what they were intended to do and thus they are not needed at all. These cases are also proof of why we need guns in the hands of good citizens so that we may protect ourselves when the police fail to. I would rather call you and tell you two men are dead because they broke into my house then have you tell me that it’s not your fault I was raped for 15 hours after I called for help.

  • t.

    Interesting take you have there. Amazing the the courts saw it very differently. But you know all.

  • Wicked Vet

    It’s not amazing the courts saw it differently. Government is set up to protect government. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • t.

    K. So I take you, like @2 have nothing to add other than just throwing stones at those actually in the arena? Bet not.

  • Wicked Vet

    Sorry typical, have no idea what you are trying to say.

  • t.

    Read Pete’s article. Share with us all your brilliant ideas… Give us your REAL solutions. Clearly “volunteerism” doesn’t work. And you claim you don’t want an increase in the “police state” (although so far that exactly what people are inadvertently demanding). Share with us your brilliant “Wicked” ideas. I’m sure ill be enlightened.

  • Wicked Vet

    I don’t see how people saying that the police aren’t meeting the minimum requirements that most think a police officer should be able to do, so we don’t need them anymore is saying we want a police state. Could you explain? I highly doubt anything could enlighten you.

  • Roger

    Fact is officers are required to perform their duties under their department’s policies and performance requirements. But over and over the courts have ruled there isn’t a duty to act….. why? Because you can’t legally compel someone to risk their life for you. What would you have to pay some one if you forced them to risk their life for you? What would you owe the families of fallen officers. Officers do so out of a sense of duty and for every story about a failure to act there are a thousand where they did. Over 100 officers die every year protecting the public, not because they are legally bound to do so. Every second of every day there’s an officer somewhere putting himself in danger for a member of there community with no legal obligation to do so. That is heroism.

    Why else aren’t they? Because you are afforded the right to protect yourself under the second amendment. You have the right to be armed with contemporary weaponry to defend yourself and you and you alone are responsible for your protection.

  • t.

    And you didnt disappoint. Didn’t think you’d have any idea, and you dont

  • Wicked Vet

    Ideas on what? This article? Pretty simple get off your you know whats and pretend the citizens being killed and raped are a cop or your family member and do what you would do if that were the case. If a woman calls you multiple times and tells you where her kids are and that they are endanger send a cop to get them before the dad kills them. If women call and tell you there room-mate is getting attacked, check all the doors and make sure everyone is safe before you leave. If there is a crazy man stabbing people on a train risk your life to stop him the way average joe citizen does and take it all because that is the job. If you can’t do that get out of the police force and find a new line of business you can handle. Personally I don’t think we need government cops, I will settle for private security that cares about customer service.

  • Taz

    ITT: Little cops with ego problems that are butthurt when their us against them mentality is exposed. It’s kinda funny really to read all these articles on here as an observer and then read the discussions afterwards. You can always tell who the cops or cop brown-nosers are. Any rational citizen of the US or even someone from another country looking in that can think for themselves and keeps informed outside of the BS MSM can tell that the police in this country are completely out of control. This country IS in a police state. There is no denying that. Cops use intimidation methods regularly. They militarize themselves at the tax payers expense and give themselves laughable military type titles. They take military weapons and vehicles from the feds 1033 program that they don’t even need and then use taxpayers money for their upkeep. Cops make up charges regularly on people and then lie in court knowing that the judge will take the cops word almost 100% of the time. Every time a cop does something illegal they are looked into by internal affairs lol. Cuz we know how well it works when an organization polices itself.
    This comment is not about this article. It’s just some facts pointed out. No need to reply because I will not come back here to read it anyway. Just know this cops, more and more people are getting sick of your bullshit and there WILL be a point when people start fighting back. Believe me, you will be outnumbered.

  • t.

    Again, you don’t disappoint.

  • Wicked Vet

    Again you do.

  • t.

    Vet: I’d also like to take a second to point out your February 17 @9:19 contribution. Read that….look at what you say the police’s only desire is….and then look at everything else you and the others have said. “enforc and imprison”. You say that’s all we want to do…but yet somehow when given a chance, we decide not to. Hmm. A Cop Blocker with 2 faces. How NOT surprising. That inconsistency follows you from thread to thread, as it permiates your thinking. Only wanting what you want and you care not for others. The typical “the police are hyper vigilant” in one case when it suits you, but “sloth” when that fits your point. Inconsistencies borne out in your own comments. But, around here….you have lots of company. Inconsistent thinking and clouded judgment…the Cop Blocker calling card.

  • Wicked Vet

    OMG typical you mean I want you to protect and serve the innocent and imprison the bad guy, and not the other way around? I want you to arrest the bad guy, but not beat the crap out of them for your own personal enjoyment?Since you can’t understand that your job isn’t to make people fear you and act like you are above the law maybe you should find a new line of work. Clearly you will never understand.

  • jayduba

    Speaking out of both faces? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you reading someone else’s posts? I asked one Question and like a typical cop, you can’t understand English. Fucktard!

  • t.

    Duba: Last time answering the same thing. All of these cases, and so many others that get thrown around on this site, have you bemoaning how the police only arrive “after the fact.”. So many here (not nessecarily you) don’t want me stopping the speeder (“I can drive as fast as I want, its not a crime until I hit someone” logic). Or the drunk. Nor do you want me to stop and speak with the guy armed to the teeth prowling the streets. @jean just ranted to the point of an explosion over how bad it is for CPS to investigated a tip about abuse…and about how wrong it is for the police to arrest people for domestic violence. SO here, in these cases…you now demand of me that I enforce every available law…imprison ever person I can…and baby sit everyone who has a problem (like a restraining order). At work, my sector of the city has roughly 40,000 people. Yesterday we ended up with only 4 guys (including me). So it ended up far worse than I had thought and the ratio was 1/10,000. Not an uncommon thing. Your demand that I (the police) do all that plus the other things that we have to do…AS EXAMPLE….last night I had an officer help me find a 14 year old runaway, out in freezing temperatures. Now, if in that time someone calls up saying that their ex is calling and threatening them. Which is more important? I had very finite resources available. Your demand….that we be everywhere to cover every possible contingency….requires a HUGE increase in the numbers if police. Its not that hard to follow. You demand more….that means there has to be more. Duh.

    @Vet: See the above. Duh.

  • jayduba

    Never made a demand that you be everywhere and cover every contingency. I am, however, guilty of practicing insanity. You know, asking the exact same question and expecting a different result, like you answering it without putting new words in my mouth. Your the type of cop who sits at a donut shop ignoring calls, or the type who decides they will no longer enforce burglary or robbery calls cause ‘ the force is stretched to thin’, meaning your guys didn’t get a raise. Not that kind of cop? Well, how’s it feel when someone puts words in your mouth or infers you said or asked something you actually didn’t? At least Common knows when to shut up.

  • Wicked Vet

    I am starting to doubt you’re a cop and think you’re a troll? Four cops for your entire town on patrol last night? What happened everyone get the flu or do you live in Mayberry? So you had two calls one of a teen runaway in freezing temperture, who was probably hanging out with friends somewhere warm and a woman whose exhubby is calling to threaten her life…. decisions. Let’s face it we don’t need you. The parents of the teen girl and all of their friends should have been out looking for the kid, going house to house, or whatever it took. The woman should have a big gun and call all of her friends over for added protection and then when he called threatening her she could say want to come over and try. Those two options in my opinion would solve the problem before you and your three buddies would.

    However, since you didn’t say that you solved either case and there were at least two of you to take on each case… I am sure the people of your town realized they need to take care of themselves because the police aren’t capable, but they were the ones who thought you should, could… wrong. Don’t know what PPA is figures. Citizens can cite more legal stuff then cops can.

  • t.

    Vet: You have got some serious comprehension issues. I said my sector of the city. There are 8 slots but we currently only have 7 guys. 2 I knew would be out and a3rd called in sick. 4. Not city wide. Just that sector. And the family was out looking for her, but couldn’t find her. And I did find her. But if you would look at what I wrote…you would see the word “if”. I did t say that someone called in about a restraining order. It was a thinking example and you failed.

    Duba: I can’t answer it any clearer. You want us to handle the calls you want. But so does everyone else. To handle them all, and provide complete protection for everyone, would require a huge enlargement. Of the police, and hence the police state you so dred. Duh again

  • Jean

    What bugs me is:
    1. SCOTUS says that police have no duty to protect us.
    2. POTUS & Congress try to deny US the capacity to protect OURSELVES.
    3. Police et al insist they will protect us and there’s no reson for us to be armed (mostly in cities, though we’re seeing some reports form rural areas, too.)
    4. There are multiple examples where a LEO (or Alphabet) acts carelessly or negligently, and innocents get hurt. There is zero accountability quite often.
    5. If a citizen defends themselves, they can (will) be arrested and their porperty (weapons) be confiscated, sometimes permanently (NYC loses lots of legal firearms, to the point it’s no secret.)
    6. Stories like this (and others, this isn’t the best example) show that police won’t act even when present.
    6a. Takes several seconds to respond to something, expecially is you can’t see/hear/smell. Figure, there’s a fire, but you can’t smell it, you just have an alarm going off, but you fell asleep in front of the TV – so the alarm wakes you, yes, but slowly.
    6b. Been witness to “people” behaving badly; police no-show. OTOH, park in a space without feeding the meter, come back out in < 10 minutes: ticket, maybe a tow ready to go. (QV "Parking Wars", though also not a good example.) Many other examples, takes too long to list, but makes police look more like revenue agents than law enforcers, let alone peace officers.
    6c. From 6b: People waving knives, making threats, etc. I left, wasn't party to the problem. Cop can't be there lickety-split, even in NYC, but chances are…? No cops showed. Not waiting around to find out.
    6. If the public has such a bad image of the police, it's probably for a reason. (see above points.) Maybe it's time the Police change their methods? For example, if t were targeted on his shift, where he states he was 1 of 4 (IIRC), with a ratio of 10,000 to 1? That's a BAD set of odds for finding a cop killer, if said killer learned to STFU. And that's assuming it's a person THERE. If it's an outsider? Migrant, vagrant, etc? No real motive other than PO'ed? Cop odds are bad. Might be better to prevent the risk by NOT PO'ing the populace.
    For example: I'm in NJ. I drive to DC. While walking, I kill a cop on one of their lightly-staffed nights. I'm black, it's the NE quadrant, 10 PM. I walk back to my car, go to my hotel. The residential area has few if any cameras, so no one gets a plate.
    Any guesses on how that investigation goes? Unless dumb@$$ nigga brags 'bout how he dun shot a pig…. (And if that happens, doesn't amtter where he is, he'll be caught.) If he stays silent, he has "avenged" himself (or his brotha, sista, momma, or the Black Race) on "The Man." His actions coming and going are known, but he had no motive per se: it was a crime of opportunity. Born of Rage. Rage imbued with "righteous wrath" because the cops back home shot his son / brother / mother / next door neighbor / drug dealer / pimp back home. He figures, they fired 200 shots at this person, hit that person 27 times – even if the cop gets off a shot, odds are in his favor. And since he's going to commit a crime, he doesn't use a registered weapon. OR, he was in chinatown, bought a chain or blade, or went to a sporting goods store and got some good fishline, or the hardware store with steel wire, or, or or…
    Odds of being caught, if "cops" are the enemy? nil.
    Odds of being caught, if "cops" are the GOOD GUY? Well, they improve a lot. ;-)

    But every no-knock warrant to innocent citizens makes for bad blood. Every child (meaning, those obviously under 10) who is shot in the projects makes for motive. Every innocent youngster (10-18) shot for no reason makes for motive. Every granny or momma or man or child stopped and frisked "just because"? Every wrong raid, even if no one is injured? And the ones where someone is killed? then what? Motive, justification, eventually it's seen as heroic and/or god-like. And for those who have a good sense of right and wrong, they may err on the side of "overall good," but a man can only take so much.
    And when the system eats itself? (Rodney King comes to mind – double jeopardy should've applied, doing an end-run around the protections is no more right than shooting innocents in the back)

    Well, we like to point and laugh, and we debate whether or not "they" learn their lesson. Invariably, they do: They apply MORE force, use a BIGGER hammer. (The lesson was supposed to be, don't break the law.)

    So we "civilians," white or black or asian, start to think it's worth it to protect ourselves, and enforce punishment on those who would do evil. And after enough incidents are reported on the "good guy" police, we do it with a clear conscience. We're no longer acting outside the law, if we have chosen to act; we are, rather, punishing the guilty, those who broke the social contract in the first place. Wearing a blue (black) uniform with a badge? Just means, "Insert bullet here." Means you're a uniformed member of a gang. Same type of gang we'd punish (kill) for pushing junk on our streets, same type of gang we'd punish for running "protection," same gang we'd punish for turning our daughters into whores.

    Just because the devil wears a different face doesn't mean you don't fight him.

  • Wicked Vet

    Of course you found her… Yep sounds right. In a “sector” with 40,000 people in freezing tempertures and you were able to find her before her family who knows her. As I recall don’t cops usually urge the parents to stay home in case the child returns? You got me I missed your in case someone had called in. But if someone had called in and the wife was saying that her ex was calling and threatening to kill her, what would you have done? Luckily, in your sector of 40,000 with only 4 cops on duty all you had to worry about was a runaway, aka kid who didn’t come home at scheduled time. Since the cops don’t usually do anything unless they are missing for at least 24 hours, must have been a slow night mr. hero.

  • t.

    Vet: (which I highly doubt). Her family consisted of just mom and dad. They knew only a very few of her friends. Took me about 1 hour 10 minuets Multiple phone calls and a jumped fence later and there she was. Of course now she faces breaking and entering charges….but hey. BTW, dad was out looking, mom was at home

    What would I have done? We’d of looked for the runaway first. Known and real danger faced by her. He adult female who was threatened….was just that. Threatened. I’d have sent her to swear out the warrant (after all, I don’t have any PC that a threat was made,she has to swear to it, I can’t). Once the warrant is available, I would have my guys BOLO for the suspect. But I can’t guarantee that a) we could find him or b) that I can stay there until he’s caught. When “in progress” calls come up, they clearly take precedent And eventually, so do “passed occurred” calls. I can’t be everywhere, and do everything. And that’s what these cases clearly point to. The out one of the incidents that Pete wrote about are horribly tragic. But so are lot of other things. But your thinking that the police were wrong in not knowing the unknown is just stupid.

    In my city the population is exploding. Far faster than we can hire and traing officers (takes a year from starting the academy through completion of field training). In a department of over 1000, people retire, transfer inter departmentaly, quit or move. On any given day there are officers in training, court, on vacation or sick. Patrol…in every department I have ever heard of…is always the shortest division. I’m supposed to have 8. I’ve got 7 on the perfect day. Hardly the police state he you think exists.

  • Wicked Vet

    Typical… you are hysterical… of course you are cop of the year aren’t you. One hour and ten minutes of making multiple phone calls (to who her friends) you found her before her clueless parents could and you jumped a fence to find her breaking into a house? So clearly she wasn’t in known and present danger she was the danger. Good thing you could find her and charge her, I am sure her parents are so glad they called you. I bet you also caught all of her friends so you got some hefty numbers in for your nights arrest.

    I love how you can find a teenager in a little over an hour but you doubt you could find a man making threatening phone calls. That you say a woman whose life is threated isn’t PC but a junkie saying grandparents are hiding an arsenal of weapons is. That a girl who ran away from her clueless parents is the one in clear and present danger. That the cops who received a call that a home is in the process of being burglarized and knocking on the door and leaving is them “not knowing the unknown”.

    You never fail in making me laugh. I don’t think it’s a police state, I think its way. I think the police have poor judgement and a lack of self control. I think police think they deserve respect and certain “professional courtesy” to break laws that they are not deserving of. After all you spent last night saving a girl by charging her with a crime and you clearly are good with that.

  • t.

    Not officer of the year. Just everyday work guy. We all do it…all the time. You only know such a small speck of what we do. It’s not like tv guy…and while you will deny it, that’s clearly what you think it is. As for the runaway….I didn’t know how it would turn out there ass. Just like the cases above. Not clairvoyant. As for her arrest, so I should ignore the property owners rights?? More double speak from you? Now that really is typical.

    As for finding the man with the threats. Big difference between a 14 year old who can’t drive and an adult male with a vehicle, mobile phone, and a desire to get away.

    And as you have shown a COMPLETE lack of knowledge….allow me: You saying something happened, doesn’t mean it did. Without any evidence that I crime occurred….you just telling me doesn’t give ME any PC to believe it did. RS maybe, but not PC. When looking at things that are “spoken”….such as a threat over the phone….only she heard it. SHE can go swear to it…I can’t. Now, in a different scenerio, like the one I used before (because it is a very real world scenerio)….lets say I get a call to an assault In progress. I pull up and see an adult male, disheveled clothing and bleeding from his nose. I ask way at happened and he e plains that Vet did it, he jumped me and punched me in the face, and took off down the street wearing a rd hat and black jacket. I get him EMS and go off looking for whoever “Vet” is. A block away I see the subject in the red hat and black jacket walking briskly away. RS to stop him? Easily. I do and start asking him questions. Ah, but he’s a Cop Blocker so he goes into the mantra about not answering and “am I being detained”. Yes, you are. As I look I see a bruise on his hand and blood on his shirt. So what do I have ( that’s different from your threat scenario). I still got some one telling me something happened. But now the is evidence that something really occurred. Now we can dicker about should you be arrested at that point (you would be BTW), but there are huge differences.

    So now, after your short lesson, dumbed down for ya, did you learn anything?

    As for your last paragraph….I ask again, should I ignore the property owners rights? You gonna go double standard on that one to? You are consistently inconsistent after all?

  • Wicked Vet

    Why were the parents claiming their child ranaway credible? Why are they more credible then the woman that called and said she was threatened? Where is the PC there? Maybe the parents kicked the child out and then claimed she ran away to cover their butts on the fact they kicked her out on a night below freezing? Was the runaway alone breaking into a vacant house looking for warmth? Was she with a group of kids looking at burglarizing the house or throwing a party?

    You could create a million scenario’s that could make you right or them wrong. What you can’t answer is why cops could show up without checking a back door to see that it had been broken into, knock on a door and after no response leave. How could you justify to yourself that your failure to follow procedure had three women and a child tortured? How can a system not admit fault or failure to this? How can you? You can insult me all you want, but that doesn’t matter, I don’t care about your opinion of me.

  • t.

    Wow. You really are dumb. PC is for arrest. But why did I believe them? The fact that there daughter wasn’t there was a big clue (dude…yours is grisly one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard…and there are a lot of really dumb arguments tossed around by cop blockers. As for for the runaway, she went to meet her boyfriend…he was there and faces charges too. Remarkable ( not really) you seem to have failed to answer about the property owners rights. Wonder why (no I don’t).

    Dude, we get calls about everything under the sun, everyday. Again, not clairvoyant nor omniscient. People love to call in and not leave their name or number…calling but not wanting to get involved. If I knock on the door, and there’s no answer…..how long should I stay? All night? Through the end of the week? Again, and there is where @2 couldn’t catch up, for me to do that would require that either I ignore everyone else OR a huge increase in the number of officers.

    Dude, as I have said to others, I love a good honest debate and exchange of ideas. @poppa and Yankee Fan leap to mind. Unfortunately you want to hang on the fringes like @certian who has no reasonableness associated with him. And that’s ok. But don’t expect to be taken very seriously. I (and no one else) has ever claimed police perfection. But in the short time you have been posting here, you have fallen into the double speak trap multiple times. You may not like the police or care about what I say…but I speak from a very experienced point if view. Just like a I’ve how you thought it wrong of me to look at charging the runaway…you overlook and ignore the property rights of the owner. You want it both ways, when it fits you. I don’t get that luxury.

    BTW, as for insults, as the saying goes. “Doctor health thyself”.

  • Wicked Vet

    It is but a waste on you… dude.

  • t.

    Ok then

  • Common Sense


    Its always interesting on how little people know about how a police department/sheriff’s office actually works.

    How it actually functions.

    The different levels of PC vs RS vs BRD. Uses of force, manpower, internal policies etc. vary from state to state and county to county. Some PDs you can PITT, some you can’t. Some you can fire on a moving vehicle, some you can’t. Some carry tasers, some don’t. Some carry ASPs some carry nothing. Some PDs allow you to pursue, some have a ‘no chase’ policy and some only if the officer, ‘observes a violent felony.’ Some PDs have body cams, some don’t even have dash cams. Some, criminal complaints must be signed by the complainant before a case can proceed. That ‘immunity’ is actually ‘qualified immunity’ and the police have to submit for it, for it to be granted, and its ‘limited’ immunity. That many police departments have insurance companies to pay lawsuits. Ah, such is life.

  • t.


  • YankeeFan

    Last comment Common was well put. Thats why the courts are there to determine if the police did have PC to execute that search warrant or if RS was even present as in…”a reasonable officer would not have”….It is true as stated by you that it is not what I think is right or what even a police officer thinks is right. It is what the courts think and sometimes they get it right and sometimes they make bad rulings


    First time I seen you smile on here.

  • t.

    Nah, I laugh at it all the time.

  • YankeeFan


    To be honest, in spite of my commentaries where we sometimes disagree, I do to!

  • t.

    I complimented you around here somewhere the other day. I enjoy an enlightened adult conversation. I think back to the “damning” photo the Davy V.posted of the Rochester officers in the goofy pose down. There is so much seriousness…that everybody needs to blow off steam. Me and my guys cut up like crazy when its just us. As we should. Coworkers everywhere do the same, as they should too.

  • YankeeFan

    I did not have an issue with the photo you reference either. I did the same in my military days. I remember on christmas day in the desert when my Major, the S-2, made all officers pull shifts for 2 days and all enlisted were given down time and we had a tackle football game. Was a welcome reliefe to not care for 48 hrs. Also, if someone has a well reasoned “take” as jime rome says, then im ok, disagree or not.

  • Pingback: No More Police Socialism()

  • Pingback: No More Police Socialism » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • Pingback: Henry Folsom - Weinhaus shooter - Shot/Killed Another Man 12yrs Ago | Cop Block()

  • Howdy! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My site looks weird when viewing from my iphone 4. I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to resolve this problem.
    If you have any suggestions, please share. Thank you!

  • Out of these registrants, you could then select a main winner who
    will get a computer pad with a picture of his or her choice.

    “I keep the clover in a book and I use that as a mouse pad when I play bingo online. Reference price: 23,999 yuan There is no doubt Intel The Core i7 is the world’s most powerful processor performance, but their impact will be Intel Intelligent trend over time in the future the concept of the main push.

  • kamiko60

    If that was a cop begging for help, 20 officers would have flooded that car and poured 1000 bullets in the attacker. but since it is ordinary folk, they dont give a crap, just another piece of scum to them. the same security they give themselves they get paid to give to us. if not, fire their asses and get someone in there who will actually do the job they get paid to do.

  • This guy

    @Jean: Most valid point, and was completely ignored.

    @t: Although I do understand your arguments, you must admit that the media does point out shortcomings far too often. With that said, though, I do disagree that the average citizen should not be allowed to own firearms and protect themselves. Law Enforcement Officers have that title for a reason, and as you admitted yourself are not omniscient or omnipresent. For those reasons, it is as unreasonable to expect the police to be responsible for any one person’s well being as it is fir the police to expect people to not want to take responsibility for their own personal safety and arm themselves. Is there a possibility that people will abuse others by threatening them unnecessarily with their firearm? Yes. Does that mean that everyone will? No.

    @Everyone else stating police are useless: Get real. They serve a purpose: Enforcement of the laws. Personal body guard is not in that description. At the end of the day, we are all solely responsible for our personal safety. With that, when you get mugged, car-jacked, assaulted, critically (but not mortally) wounded, etc, feel free to investigate the case, collect and analyze the data, present

  • This guy

    *legally collect and present the data, and present it to a DA to have your case taken to court on your own, since you don’t need any stinking pigs to do it for you.

  • jabailo

    Recently my downstairs neighbor was running his dryer with a really foul smelling scent. Now this is normal, but it went on all Labor Day weekend. I was at home, indoors for most of it in my apartment, but over the three days I was starting to feel very sick. I contacted the apartment management and there was no resolution, so I finally called the cops (I told them that maybe they were making drugs and were covering it up — there were also some other chemical smells). When the cop arrived he basically said, he couldn’t smell any drugs. I asked him if he could smell the very heavy smell in my living room and he said it smelled like Downy. I said, yes, but who does laundry for 72 hours straight, and even if it’s Downy it’s making me sick! He said he couldn’t do anything about that. I said, so, if someone were emitting poison gas from his apartment, and it was coming in my window he couldn’t do anything about it. He then said, no, what about when driving in your car…you’re emitting poisonous gas and cops can’t do anything about that.

    Wow…that actually was a stunning statement. Indeed, what if you could “arrest” or ticket someone for putting out the basic noxious fumes in your car. Why not?

  • Trish Duffey

    So, if they don’t have a duty to protect us, why are we paying their salaries? So they can kick down our doors in the middle of the night, shoot our dogs and beat us into submission based on only a hunch? Glad the police departments saved all that money by not putting “To serve and protect” on their vehicles.

  • Mike Bob

    This is the United States, and apparently anyone under the payroll of our taxes you can expect to do a shit job. Our public education is a joke since teachers are paid less than our garbage truck drivers and our congress has a 5% approval rating. Cops are of course no different, especially the cops in the big cities.

  • Robert Spurgeon Sr.

    Thats obamas LAW, Hide until the Danger is Over !!.

  • Andrew

    police are paid to ENFORCE the law not provide protection. there is a difference. personal safety is up to the individual. nowhere in the constitution does it say police have to protect anyone. in fact the concept of municipal police came about 100 years after the constitution was written. the first police force came about in the 1860’s in London, England. in the united states it wasn’t until the 1890’s in new york city. In America we have the 2nd amendment, that allows me to protect myself as well, if not better, than any police department.

  • Andrew

    if anyone paid attention in 5th grade when they taught this maybe you idiots would know this

  • Michael Paul Yacovone

    This is so sad What ever happened too Protect and server? I am just disgusted with NYPD. Police Officers are trained to handle this kind of problem. The Man who stopped this wacko wound up with some serious staples in this head and on the back of the head and some on the neck. This man had no weapon to defend the other people. But the Police officer inside the train in the motor compartment had a gun Nightstick taser plus back up!

  • NotAndrew

    If anyone paid attention in the 1st grade then maybe they would know that the beginning letter of a statement or sentence is capitalized. P.S. your a moron

  • Alex Sawyer

    The irony of calling someone a moron when you don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re.”

  • Suzannah Troy

    Just a reminder I am suing the NYPD and in my lawsuit I ask they remove “protect and serve” from everything because they don’t and are not obligated. They are represented by a corp counsel and they are falsely advertising.

    I am suing because I was savagely assaulted at Dr Andrew Fagelman’s and than threatened by the NYPD COERCED — coercion is a crime not a policing tool and than I went to Internal Affairs who I am also suing…..http://youtu.be/dh9TedhfthE My attacker lied and stated I attacked her. It took almost 1 year and 1 honest cop to get the complaint number and FYI the corrupt cops sealed her false cross complaint against me in under one year with their crime of coercion. It is still an open case although I have audio of IAB Sgt mary o’donnell stating case closed posted on YouTube. She promised to mail me back my notes I accidentally gave her and she either lied or suffered amnesia. Maybe she didn’t want me to have my notes because she knew I had misspelled Detective Andy Dwyer “drier” and she mislead me and did not correct me. It took me quite a while and a lot of effort to get the correct spelling of his name since he helped fix the assault for my attacker. Det. Andy Dwyer never contacted me because he was in on fixing this. Both sets of the NYPD met with my attacker not me.


  • don hunt

    no duty to protect means no individual duty to obey police orders.

  • Svein Randen

    You said it, Sir. Exactly my thoughts. As a non-american (I’m norwegian so pardon my english), I can speak for most of the population here when I say this. The american police system, or what you call it, is a complete joke. This is like a wow-factor, “Are the actually allowed to do such things?” “Why the fuck ain’t nobody stopping this?” But the worst thing about it all is that police here is starting to act more the same as in the states, and that’s scary. They actually think it’s the way to do things, since they are so americanized=brainwashed … But as they say, rather live in the middle east, than in the states. Guess it’s true after all.

  • Svein Randen

    Well, America is a built up from criminals and blood money, what to expect, really.

  • Alex

    The person writing this and the comments here are so ignorant. A serial killer is most likely going to be armed, why would 2 or 3 police officers even attempt to detain him? People talk so much shit about the Police but I’d love to see what would happen if there was no police force, and you get robbed.

  • Ian

    Apparently they don’t have a duty to “protect” you, it’s only once an offense is commited and reported that they need to do anything. Now if it was a bank or a Wall Street institution being attacked that would be different and you could expect several SWAT teams.

  • Ji

    The cops locked themselves in the conductor’s room because they were afraid the guy had a gun? Then what about the rest of the citizens on the subway? They’re just going to let all those people get shot and gunned down? What the heck?

    But I feel I must say that there ARE good cops out there. There are cops that do their job, put their lives at risk, and protect the public. It’s a shame that these bad cops ruin the name of the entire police force.

  • Ji

    It’s in their badge. They’re supposed to “protect and serve”. It’s part of their oath: “I will never betray my badge,
    my integrity, my character,
    or the public trust.” They aren’t supposed to betray their badge or the public trust. The public trusts them to protect citizens. The badge states that they’re here to protect and serve. Don’t go around calling people idiots just because they have a different point of view. They’re job is to protect the city AND enforce the law, but in the process of doing both those things, they’re supposed to protect the citizens as well.

  • Magnus Atheos

    All this and left wing gun control too!! Isn’t it exciting! Such a safe future for our kids, elderly, and otherwise weaker than than the average psychopath.

  • Wesley

    Mate, that’s the entire point of this bloody article. There were 2 cops there WITH guns who are TRAINED and paid to “protect and serve”
    Yet all they did was watch this guy get attacked? Lucky he is a big guy and subdued his attacker, otherwise yes, he would be fucking dead right now.
    I fail to understand how you’re actually defending the actions of cops in situations like this. Talking about “you’d love to see if there was no police force, we’d all get robbed.”
    Yeah and people would be forced to take the law into their own hands.
    WHICH IS WHAT JUST HAPPENED YOU BLOODY DICKHEAD, except someone got stabbed fucking 7 times and fought off the attacker, while the cops watched – huddled scared in a room with the bloody train conductor.
    They are pathetic and a disgrace to all police who uphold their duty.

  • kuttor

    Alex — bahahaha! As I was reading this conversation thread, that was my exact thought… you beat me to it though.

  • Magus

    bettcha “Alex” is a cop

  • Joseph Kendall

    So can I file a suit against the police departments that put “To protect and serve” on their cruisers for false advertisement?

  • John Mark

    You are frustrated, sad and lonely, and sometimes you feel nobody cares. If you feel you are stuck in the wilderness in a situation that appears hopeless in your relationship,you should know that you’re not the only person this has happened to. And there is something you can do about it! Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and it appears whatever they do, they can’t get out of the quagmire. If this describes you, don’t give up. The situation is not hopeless. The in ex back spells therapist can turn things around for you,be it lost love, make someone sexually attracted to you,alter your future to bring forth happiness and success. Email him today for a better life on relationship success at winexbackspell@gmail.com i have use his spell and i find out he is the best.

  • michael m k gabriel

    the constitution of the united states allows a citizen to perform a citizens arrest for a felony that is being committed in front of them. some states allow the citizen to arrest for a lesser crime… exercise your constitutional right people… use videos to prove it

  • michael m k gabriel

    exercise your constitutional rights…. use the powers of arrest citizen. if a citizen witness’ a felony crime the citizen has the right to arrest. have video proof… have witness’ bring back law and order citizens it is your right.

  • michael m k gabriel

    the constitution of the u.s. allows a citizen arrest in the case of a felony… some states allow a citizen arrest for a lesser crime… exercise your rights citizens

  • Jake McCoy

    “Protect and serve” means protect and serve the community as a whole, not individuals. Feguson, Missouri is a textbook example of this concept.

  • Jake McCoy

    “Protect and serve” means protect and serve the community as a whole,
    not an individual. Read the Supreme Court cases, such as Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Update your knowledge of the law to what the law actually is, not to what you think the law should be.

  • Jake McCoy

    You’re still wrong. Read the Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Update your knowledge of the law to what the law actually is, not to what you think the law should be. “Protect and serve” means protect and serve the community as a whole, not an individual. Did you read the case yet (or at least a summary)? If not, then don’t reply.

  • Jake McCoy

    “Protect and serve” means protect and serve the community as a whole, not an individual. Read the Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (or at least a summary of the case). Update your knowledge of the law to what the law actually is, not to what you think the law should be. Did you read the case yet (or at least a summary)? If not, then don’t reply.

  • Jake McCoy

    There are “good” cops out there, but there is no express duty to be “good”. A cop can watch you die without consequence. “Protect and serve” means protect and serve the community as a whole, not an individual. Read the Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (or at least a summary of the case).

  • Guest

    can you say anything else or just spout the same fucking think

  • Of course. Meanwhile, your GOP heroes are taking away voter rights in various states under the lie of “voter fraud” which is statistically negligible, making harder for you to sue corporations because they are people, my friend. But please, insist on how *EVERYTHING* is Obama’s fault, including the Patriot Act and the biggest expansion of government EVER. And keep advising us to “hide” while you post stuff on the Internet. Then look up the word “irony.”.

  • You know, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so what’s with the smug holier-than-thou attitude? Why don’t you actually persuade people than copy and pasting the pithy “..not what you think the law should be.” Perhaps you can get off your high horse and help people understand where does individual end and “the community” begin?

  • Jake McCoy

    I’ll figure out a way to explain it on one of your reality TV shows. That’s the only way you’ll receive the information. Obviously, you refuse to read the case.

  • whocares

    Quote: “..can watch you die without consequence..” wow, then those who have that mindset should not be cops. There would be no reason to call the police during a home invasion or attack..if, after all, the cop can just stand with all his weaponry and neutrally watch me die.

  • Jake McCoy

    I agree. However, if you really think about it, cops watch people die quite often. Think about the Brown case. Brown got shot. Nobody checked his pulse. Nobody called an ambulance. The cops knew there was no duty to do so. Brown laid there for hours. Essentially, the cops watched Brown die.

  • Mo Reno

    If the law states that attacking someone with a knife is illegal (which you know it does) then enforcing that law requires them to stop an attack.

  • Tobias P McSnerd

    Stabbing a guy in the head is not illegal? Not a law the cops have a duty to enforce?

  • Tobias P McSnerd

    And somehow you don’t know that stabbing a guy in the head is illegal, and a law the cops have a duty to enforce…

  • Jason Abaddon

    ever hear of protect and serve? that is exactly what they are paid to do. you see all cops say that they became a cop to help people, are you a cop trying to make excuses?

  • thatsjustcrazy

    I believe police are necessary so don’t take this the wrong way. But are they or are they not public servants, ya know something like a librarian? But I haven’t seen any librarians carrying metal book marks whacking people for talking while burning books out back. These rogue officers need to remember their place. Protect and serve what happened to that?. Last thing and it goes both ways. It’s disappointing that the police catch this bad wrap for a few of their members being inhumane, self-righteous, and totally ignorant. Also on their end when they pull somebody over and unstrap their weapon and are “resting” their hand on it as they say do you know why I pulled u over? Totally aggressive before it even starts. And you better not get nervous or you will be suspected of being on drugs or who knows what. It’s getting ridiculous out there.

  • Jake McCoy

    Why are you getting mad at me? If you read the cases that are in this article for you to read, then you will see that the current legal answer is no the cops do not have a special duty to protect you.

  • wolfmunjack

    People need to understand why cops do what they do, everyone needs to thank the justice system for allowing cops to be so powerful and above the law…

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police
    officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to
    provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals,
    Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen” also in 1999, (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) the police have no obligation to protect individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to “use every reasonable means to enforce a protection order.” The Supreme Court has ruled and that’s that. 1983 “In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services” Stevens writes, “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

  • Mickey Fincher Kelz

    exactly who says that? “rather live in the middle east, than in the states”.. u ever heard the grass aint always greener on the other side

  • Mickey Fincher Kelz

    your a moron @notandrew
    you’re a moron @notandrew

  • Mit Ryan

    Irrelevant point because they both witnessed a crime in progress and the person committing the offense was also a spree killer they were chasing.They are cowards and no city should want anyone like these people to “protect and serve” anything for them.

  • Mickey Fincher Kelz

    @disqus_gHEMEJKhmk:disqus fuck you pussy

  • Mit Ryan

    They are sworn to upholding the law and not only witnessed a crime in progress (the head stabbing) but were also supposed to be in pursuit of the attacker. Last time I checked stabbing someone is illegal. A crime. He was already wanted for stabbing community members. Also a crime. They have no duty to protect but they do have a duty to uphold the laws that are put in place to protect citizens. This is supposed to keep them fair and impartial but seems to have failed as well.

  • Guest

    Well, I agree with your last sentence, but I’m not quite sure what you’re calling irrelevant. Here is your homework. Find a case where a cop got sued (and had to pay) for failing to save a person from getting beat up or killed. I haven’t found one. If you can find one, then please share so that I can update my knowledge. Thanks.

  • Jake McCoy

    I agree with your last sentence, but I’m not quite sure what
    you’re calling irrelevant. Here is your homework. Find a case where a cop got sued (and had to pay) for failing to save a person from getting beat up or killed. I haven’t found one. If you can find one, then please share so that I can update my knowledge. Thanks.

  • Jake McCoy

    When someone has a “duty” to do something, that means they can get sued (and lose) if they fail to do it. For example, I have a duty to pay taxes. If I don’t pay taxes, then the IRS can sue me for back taxes or even bust down my front door. If a cop fails to save you from getting beat up or killed, then you would NOT be able to sue the cop for failing to save you from being beat up or killed. The cop has no special duty to protect you.

  • Charles King

    The community as a whole is made up of all individuals. If you refuse service to one community member, you refuse service to the community. In this case, what the officers did was not in service of the community in any stretch, they let a knife wielding man attack a citizen, and if that citizen had not been able to subdued this serial killer, the serial killer might’ve dug his knife into another individual before the cops snapped out of their cowardice. They left the public without aid even though they were feet away while witnessing the crime. It’s shameful. It’s just as shameful to throw lawyers at this and have them tell us that common sense is not even sense because their reality is what we actually live in.

  • Charles King

    This doesn’t apply here, because first off, this serial killer was a threat to the community. He had already killed 4 people and was working on his fifth. It’s more than likely he would of continued his streak had he not been apprehended, and by a civilian I’d like to add. Secondly, these cops were part of the man hunt for this serial killer, they had his description and they knew he had already killed multiple people. So if you’ve got a man that has killed four members of your community in front of you, and you wear a badge on your chest, how possible can you say it was better for the community to leave this individual basically to die from a man on a kill streak, and it was likely that he’d continue his slaughter had he not been apprehended by this civilian. It was better for the community for this man to be stopped, because he wasn’t just a threat to an individual, he was a threat to all around him.

  • Jake McCoy

    You’re not understanding my point. Have a nice day. Bye.

  • mister guest

    Maybe your concept of community is distorted. What do you think a community is made of? Individuals, correct? So what exactly is your so called point? Unless by community, they mean, the buses, trains, traffic lights, buildings, etc. Oh I get it, maybe of the guy would’ve stabbed the rest of the people in the train car, then would the cops have an obligation to “protect the community”? I swear, you imbeciles kill me with your foolish rhetoric. Anybody can read the law, copy and paste just to appear knowledgeable, but it’s evident by the jargon you spew, that even you’re misunderstanding the law that you know so damn well…GTFOH. The cops are cowards…point blank!!! BYE!!!

  • Guest

    It’s just the case law. Try reading it. Regards.

  • Jake McCoy

    It’s the case law. Read it. Stop being emotional like a toddler. Until then, I’m handling you with kid gloves.

  • Charles King

    I get it, what my issue is with the court ruling itself. It redefines and contradicts the conception and oath of law enforcement. It’s motive specifically to absolve any responsibility of this ethical duty. Protecting citizens from imminent danger, wasn’t this a common sense obligation of law enforcement? This case ruling was obviously given for the protection of government employees, so they can now choose whether they want to prevent a crime – enforce the law, or stand back and be a witness, placing law enforcement to the side. I see that the actions of these officers are legally not actionable, but can your gut agree with their actions? Is standing by

  • Charles King

    Simply, if you align your ethics to this judiciary ruling, then I understand where you stand. But if you hold a set of ethics that values human life, and feel that an oath to protect and serve the public means to protect and serve the public, no matter what a court deems “protect and serve” legally means, then I have no Idea why you’d choose to stand by this ruling instead of criticizing it. Unless you’ve just been saying that the law is the law, and I think that’s where you might be coming from. I’d still state that law should be ethically empowered, spirited by moral conviction, and that judges should not be giving gov’t employed law enforcers back doors out of their oaths.

  • Ben R Sizemore

    So I see that all these arguments are based upon an incident that happened in NYC in the State of New York, which the citizens considered to be OK based upon the non-action of the citizens over this. Instead they come to FB to voice their objections, thinking this will result in some action taken. Well politicians really don’t care what is on FB. What is the population of NYC? Eight or nine million? That’s a lot of votes and let’s say that 2 million protest en mass at City Hall of the police action then someone at city hall is going to get concerned about votes, of course they could care less about individual citizens, but at least 2 million votes means something. This is not a Federal matter, nor do the Feds have any jurisdiction or say in the matter. So who is to blame here, the victim, the criminal, the NYPD, the mayor, the city of New York or is it the citizens? The citizens in this case is the problem. NYers have a history of not wanting to get involved, they don’t want to get involved in this either. So why even bother complaining, why even bother, if you are an outsider, getting involved with a problem in NYC. Focus in your own city, county and state to get these problems resolved before it gets in the headlines. Citizen involvement and action is a responsibility of every citizen in the United States. If you do not get involved and take action then you have absolutely no right to complain when things go wrong. Too many men and women have shed blood and paid the ultimate sacrifice for your right to express your citizenship and protect your rights. Most prefer to enjoy their rights and let someone else take action. That is why we are in the mess we are in today. So either get up off your asses and do something about it or keep your opinions and excuses to yourselves. Some citizens do not deserve the rights granted by brave men and women, are you one of those?

  • Guest

    I’m just stating what the law is. It’s important to understand the law fully because a clear understanding of the law should affect how you go about living your life. Here’s where I’m going. As you know, a cop has no special duty to protect an individual. So, how does that structure how you live your life? Are you going to protest? Are you going to go to law school and try to change the law in the highest court in the land? Are you going to blog and whine endlessly about how you don’t like the law? What are you going to do about it? That’s not a rhetorical question. I have a ground level practical approach. I live my life with the belief that cops are NOT going to protect me. In fact, again, that’s basically the law. Accordingly, I have a mindset of self-defense. I take self-defense courses. I am pro-gun. I do not carry in public, but I do have guns in home that can be accessed in less than 10 seconds. With the state of the laws, frankly, I don’t understand how anybody can advocate being anti-gun. By the way, I actually agree with the Supreme Court’s stance, and you’re wrong on one point. The Supreme Court is thinking about money. If a cop had a special duty to protect an individual, then everybody could sue whenever a copy failed to fulfill that duty. That would bankrupt the legal system and the local governments. Nobody wants that unintended consequence.

  • Jake McCoy

    I’m just stating what the law is. It’s important to understand the law fully because a clear understanding of the law should affect how you go about living your life. Here’s where I’m going. As you know, a cop has no special duty to protect an individual. So, how does that structure how you live your life? Are you going to protest? Are you going to go to law school and try to change the law in the highest court in the land? Are you going to blog and whine endlessly about how you don’t like the law? What are you going to do about it? That’s not a rhetorical question. I have a ground level practical approach. I live my life with the belief that cops are NOT going to protect me. In fact, again, that’s basically the law. Accordingly, I have a mindset of self-defense. I take self-defense courses. I am pro-gun. I do not carry in public, but I do have guns in my home that can be accessed in less than 10 seconds. With the state of the laws, frankly, I don’t understand how anybody can advocate being anti-gun. By the way, I actually agree with the Supreme Court’s stance, and you’re wrong on one point. The Supreme Court is thinking about money. If a cop had a special duty to protect an individual, then everybody could sue whenever a copy failed to fulfill that duty. That would bankrupt the legal system and the local governments. Nobody wants that unintended consequence.

  • Miles Coleman

    If your poor and a civilian….the grass is dead wherever you are!!!1

  • Miles Coleman

    How can you protect a community without protecting individuals within that community….its a duality…..and makes no sense! If that is what the law states then those that ruled on it are mentally insane….a community is made of individuals you cannot protect one without protecting the other…….I’m not arguing with you, just stating that the whole thing does not make sense…..

  • Jake McCoy

    Cops can fail to protect an individual while still protecting a community as a whole. For example, a madman takes a person hostage. The police respond by securing the perimeter (protect the community) and wait it out with guns drawn on the building. The hostage gets raped and then shot. The cops failed to protect the individual, but protected the community.

  • You and I

    So Cops WON,T DO
    THERE JOBS for whatever reason “Evidently Now OUR
    Steps to either change the law in
    USA. OR ….ARM
    Confess Sin + get
    ready to die! (one way OR another
    COPS have chosen
    to be “WHAT” Do their own thing while being paid”!!!

  • suzy

    What age group
    Are you even
    Referring to!! ha.

  • John Willis

    exactly , the oath nowhere contains the wording ,”ignore the individual “

  • John Willis

    this jake guy is smoking crack ,,just dont argue with a troll , its really numbing listening to his drivel ,just because he sits and parrots out case law doesnt make it right ,the law protects itself by design

  • John Willis

    exactly , the problem starts at the top and trickles down to the street level

  • Ian

    As a retired firefighter I cannot understand how a police officer is not bound to do the job that he signed up for! If I saw a fire whilst off duty with people inside fearing for their lives I’d like to think I’d go to their aid even though I’m technically not working.Same goes for seeing someone having a heart attack in the street….I wouldn’t stop to think “Is this my duty?” I’d go to the aid of a fellow human in need of my assistance!

  • Guest

    I’m not talking about the bro code definition of duty. I’m talking about the legal definition. If somebody has a legal duty, then that means you can sue the person if they don’t fulfill that legal duty. You cannot successfully sue a cop who fails to save your life as individual. A cop has no legal to protect an individual. Compare the legal duty of parent. A parent has a legal duty to take care of their kid. If the parent does not provide proper care, then the state can sue the parent and take the kid away.

  • Jake McCoy

    I’m not talking about the bro code definition of duty. I’m talking about the legal definition of duty. If somebody has a legal duty, then that means you can sue the person if they don’t fulfill that legal duty. You cannot successfully sue a cop who fails to save your life as individual. A cop has no legal to protect an individual. Compare the legal duty of a parent. A parent does have a legal duty to take care of their kid. If the parent does not provide minimal required care, then the state can sue the parent and take the kid away.

  • Tru2DGame

    You tax money isn’t paying their salaries, the banks that fund your city’s operation budget pay for their and all city employees salaries in advanced!

  • J.M. Prokop

    …and how exactly standing there and staring at people getting stabbed is protecting and serving the community…?

  • Jake McCoy

    Good question…learn how to protect yourself.

  • Jake McCoy

    Also, don’t be one of those idiots who wants to strip citizens from all means to protect themselves.

  • Makomva Naome

    After being in relationship with Wilson for seven years,he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to someone online and she suggested that I should contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that don’t believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I meant a spell caster called EHOHO and I email him, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened, that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him, that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem and who is different from all the fake ones out there. Anybody could need the help of the spell caster, his email: drehohospiritualtemple@gmail.com you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or anything. CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS.you can call this number to rich him +2347067154021

  • Gene Smith

    Make no mistake…There is no connection between law and morality. The police are her to enforce the law, not protect you or me. Even worse, they only enforce the laws they want to, when they want to. While I hate to see Baltimore going through this…I am not surprised.

  • Smitty man Jensen

    Only two of those citations are from the Supreme Court, and they don’t say what you think they say.

  • JeanClaude1

    No duty to protect is an old story that people who know the law have been trying to get public for decades. The fact is…..a minimal amount of people care and even fewer will act or know how to act to have these things changed. Further when they find out how to have these egregious “laws” eliminated they once again back down because it’s just to hard to……GO OUT AND VOTE AND GET RID OF THE SCUM RUNNING THE COUNTRY. Thank you!

  • JeanClaude1

    Because we are LAZY. Pathetic, but true.

  • JeanClaude1

    If teachers were paid what they are worth (check out the National Institutes book, “The Coming Storm”) they would be paying the school system instead of visa versa. And if negligence and lack of certifications were punishable we would not have to worry about it, they would all be in jail.

  • JeanClaude1

    Yeah, it’s a joke. The kind of joke that can beat your wife to death or gun down your son or cripple you and put you in jail for the rest of your life with no proof of a crime being committed. Yeah, that’s some joke.

  • JeanClaude1

    I think the answer to your question, “as a retired firefighter I cannot understand how a police officer is not bound to…..”. I think the answer lies in the mindset of your former vocation. Volunteer fireman for decades (volunteers don’t have “retirement”) have associated with and met many “professional” firefighters. Conversations with groups of professionals always turned to their “benefits” “medical disability” and “retirement” topics….oh and I don’t want to leave out the UNION! In our firehouse at home, after polishing the 50 year old equipment that will do anything the “new” 8 times more expensive equipment will do, volunteer firefighters talked about and studied first aid, firefighting, community awareness of fire danger, fire safety in the home and lifesaving. I can’t remember a single conversation about salary/disability/COLA etc. And I’ve found this to be true in every volunteer station I have visited in 26 years. Nobody is perfect and volunteer fireman are certainly not….but they are not taking from the public because they called themselves “professionals”. They just do what has to be done, and helping people seems to be pay enough. They have jobs to make money from and firefighting to give back to their fellow citizens.

  • Devedre That’s Daved Slaughter

    Then why in the heck do we need thevpolice then us citizens mite as well put badges on and protect are selves

  • Name tags = service industry

    Maybe police need to read this so they understand what they get paid for: http://www.theiacp.org/What-is-the-Law-Enforcement-Oath-of-Honor.

  • November

    Fuck the police they act like there out hunting the general population and pose for photos with “suspects”. I’m glad pigs get gunned down they are the true criminals. I just wish there where more pictures of dead cops online.

  • Tien H

    It’s tax payer dollar sweetheart.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    So in many areas you cannot own a gun and now police don’t have to help you. So you literally are defenseless unless you are a hand to hand combat expert, which still does nothing to stop bullets?

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    You, my friend, are a lapdog and lemming of the highest order…..It’s just the way things are…..People like you love to say that and just accept it as fact, even to the point of defending it. All this tells me is cops really are here to farm money for the system.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    What if the WHOLE community is taken hostage, do they then have to run in guns blazing, or do they then rope off the streets to protect the buildings? Sounds to me like they have a obligation to protect THEMSELVES, no the community.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    What if someone has a gun in an area where these gun grabbers have grabbed all the guns? Just die I guess, like a good citizen.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    If tomorrow they made it law to shoot yourself, you would.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    Typical black woman

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    Are you a paid shill? You have copied and pasted that statement a dozen times. Copblock is most certainly the kind of site they would send a shill too.

  • Randall Chance Simpson

    So if tomorrow the Supreme Court rules cops have a right to shoot you…..You are really good at acting like a few judges are god and everything they say is holy. One court case basically designed to save money doesn’t take away from the irony that individuals make up the community, and the only time a WHOLE community is in danger is when terrorists and war are involved, and that isn’t the polices’ forte, that is for the military, How often is a crime capable of injuring, harming or even bothering a single street in a community, let alone everyone in it? Never, so theoretically, they are never liable to do anything to help anyone unless it is EVERYONE. See the folly here?

  • Jake McCoy

    I’m not sure how discussing the facts makes me a lapdog. By the way, I’m pro-gun and knowledgeable about self-defense BECAUSE of the facts.

  • Jake McCoy

    Good point. Also, we don’t have to guess. If you notice in the recent riots around the country, cops are protecting themselves and their jobs mostly.

  • Jake McCoy

    I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

  • Jake McCoy

    I’m replying to different people. People post and never return. They just get email notifications of replies, and that’s the only way possible to interact. You should try designing a better discussion format if it bothers you so much.

  • Jake McCoy

    I think I’ve explained this elsewhere, but you seem to be unable to accept the information. I’ll try again. Please find me ONE case in which a cop was successfully sued for failing to step in and protect an individual. For example, find me ONE case in which somebody in law enforcement got sued for taking three hours to respond to a 911 call. That’s just one example. Don’t take it too literal. I’m just giving you an idea of the concept. Cops have absolutely no duty to protect you as an individual. If they actually had such a duty, they could be successfully sued for breaching such duty. Here’s an example of an actual legal duty. You have a duty NOT to allow raw sewage to leak into your neighbor’s yard. If you do so, you can be successfully sued. Look, I’m just talking about the way the current case law is. You’re complaining to the wrong person if you don’t like how it is. My overall point, is that you need to take steps to protect yourself and don’t think of cops as your protector because they aren’t.

  • Robert McBride

    For most people one simple question can prove that police are either unnecessary, not doing their jobs, or are a menace to a peaceful society. The question is… When was the last time the police helped you?
    For me the answer is never, they have never helped me. They have harassed me, made me pay fines for “rolling” through a stop sign, or going 10 over the speed limit, but never once have they helped me.
    My second question would be, would my life have been better or worse if the police weren’t in it? For me, clearly, never. I’d bet most people would say the same. Protect and serve my by big fat ass, (it’s not that big)

  • Pingback: She Would Have Gotten a Quicker Response()

  • Pingback: Teenager Was Violently Assaulted by Police for Jaywalking()

  • Pingback: CO Police Threatened to Arrest Artist for Stacking Rocks()