I'm not sure if this subject has been hashed out here before, but here it is... The police are not required to protect individuals, only the society as a whole. This is a concept that has been borne out in a number of legal cases.
Case Law (incomplete list):
The Supreme Court rules, “a police department is not required to provide personal protection, only society.” (Court: No right to police protection: United Press International, June 27, 2005) “In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!” Taken from Taking on Gun Control “Do you have a right to police protection?” retrieved September 13 2005 from Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection? .
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Other examples taken from PoliceCrimes.com
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
What does it all mean?
Do the police have the obligation to arrest someone who repeatedly violates a domestic violence protective order? No. Can the police ignore an emergency call for assistance in order to do paperwork? Yes. Do the police have the obligation to respond to a 911 call for help? No. What if they promise that "help is on the way"? Do they then have an obligation to respond? Still no. If the police witness a crime in progress, must they intervene to protect the innocent? No again.
The reason for posting this information is not to undermine all the fine LE personnel who put themselves into harms way every day. (My son is in Law Enforcement) Rather, it is to alert everyone that the duty to protect family and self falls ultimately onto each of us.
*** Remember to shake a fireman's hand. They are the only ones that swear an oath to risk their lives to save yours.***
Case Law (incomplete list):
The Supreme Court rules, “a police department is not required to provide personal protection, only society.” (Court: No right to police protection: United Press International, June 27, 2005) “In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!” Taken from Taking on Gun Control “Do you have a right to police protection?” retrieved September 13 2005 from Taking On Gun Control - Do You Have a Right to Police Protection? .
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Other examples taken from PoliceCrimes.com
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
What does it all mean?
Do the police have the obligation to arrest someone who repeatedly violates a domestic violence protective order? No. Can the police ignore an emergency call for assistance in order to do paperwork? Yes. Do the police have the obligation to respond to a 911 call for help? No. What if they promise that "help is on the way"? Do they then have an obligation to respond? Still no. If the police witness a crime in progress, must they intervene to protect the innocent? No again.
The reason for posting this information is not to undermine all the fine LE personnel who put themselves into harms way every day. (My son is in Law Enforcement) Rather, it is to alert everyone that the duty to protect family and self falls ultimately onto each of us.
*** Remember to shake a fireman's hand. They are the only ones that swear an oath to risk their lives to save yours.***
