The Police Are Not There To Protect You
People have been taught that if
you are in need of help to call the police.
However, how many in progress crimes do the police make it to? The supreme court of the United States ruled
in Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez that it is not law enforcements job to protect
you.
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now
more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he
will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the
existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full
measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal
bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their
presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have
held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot
sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence,
they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in
front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet
your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually
need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a
robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while
the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone.
Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show
up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of
violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The
idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect
to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to
recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for
a pizza. See who shows up first."
Many people deal with the problem of crime by
convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special
"crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt
surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not
respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can
occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or
mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are
willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of
others.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
A policeman cannot help you as quickly as you need if someone is a raving maniac breaking in. You have a right to save your life or someone in your home. It is not the gun or the careful gun owner who is violent.
But they grant you the right to protect yourself.
As pointed out by the Second Amendment Sisters, the police have no duty to protect you. And the police do not grant me any rights at all. My rights are mine because I exist and are not granted by anyone. But they are recognized and supposedly, though not in action, protected by the Constitution.
" When seconds count the police are only minutes away".
laws were not created to protect people, they were created to punish people.
that's all. Amen brother
Darn Skippy! There is no such thing as a "Gun Free Zone" where armed criminals are concerned. To them, "Gun Free" Translates as "Ample Pickings".
Law-Abiding citizens need to have the option of LTC to protect themselves against the ever-growing population of armed-and-violent criminals that are running our streets.
This seems like an odd perspective, given the motto of the LAPD. Does the police department misunderstand their own role?
If you take a look at Hartzler v. the City of San Jose you will discover that the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Seriously. And don't look to the constitution for help on this one, either. According to attorney Richard W. Stevens: "in its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm."
Police officers have, from time to time, failed in their "duty" to protect citizens because of sheer negligence. Under such circumstances, no citizen is allowed to sue a police officer (or police department) for the loss of a loved one due to an erroneous officer not doing his job, because as the supreme court mentioned, police officers are not constitutionally (or legally) responsible for protecting individual citizens. Sucks to pay their salary, doesn't it?
Your so right.Thats why we need to take the steps to protect our selfs with our guns .
The Police can not be everywhere at once. They are often outnumbered by 500 to 1 or more. They do the best they can but they are not your personal body guard. When seconds count, the Police are Minutes Away. For this reason it is your personal responsibility to have & train with the tools necessary to secure yourself & your household.