Howard 538 Posted October 29, 2013 We have all heard that the police have no obligation to protect you based on Federal court rules, but someone just posted the following on FB which shows the laws in our wonderful state of NJ actually codify this: NJ's own version of "we are not obligated to protect you" via the tort claims act.N.J.S.A. 59:2-4. Adoption or failure to adopt or enforce a law. A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt a law or by failing to enforce any law....N.J.S.A. 59:5-4. Failure to provide police protection. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.N.J.S.A. 59:5-5. Failure to make arrest or retain person arrested in custody. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody. This came from the case: BETTY WUETHRICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR THE HEIRS-AT-LAW OF JOHN WUETHRICH, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF,v.JOHN DELIA AND TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. Details here: http://www.leagle.com/decision/1975534134NJSuper400_1492 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,784 Posted October 29, 2013 Does this mean CCW? Ha, ha, ha!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted October 29, 2013 Hasn't this been discussed before??? Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD Typos courtesy Apple... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JrzyGuy30 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Does this mean CCW? Ha, ha, ha!!! I agree!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted October 29, 2013 From the NJ constitution ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES 1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. I don't get it. If the police do not have to protect it, and we can't protect it, how is it supposed to be protected? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,784 Posted October 30, 2013 Yeah, I've quoted that one before but been laughed at multiple times. Wishful thinking... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diamondd817 828 Posted October 30, 2013 Hasn't this been discussed before??? Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD Typos courtesy Apple... 18 Federal and State cases that ruled the police have no duty to protect an individual. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/47275-no-constitutional-right-to-be-protected/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted October 30, 2013 Yeah, I've quoted that one before but been laughed at multiple times. Wishful thinking... Just more justification for Jury Nullification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jm1827 284 Posted October 30, 2013 From the NJ constitution ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES 1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. I don't get it. If the police do not have to protect it, and we can't protect it, how is it supposed to be protected? I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted October 30, 2013 I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors... And piss yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,140 Posted October 30, 2013 I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors... And just after that guideline to self-defense was to hide under a desk and kiss your ass goodbye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,445 Posted October 30, 2013 I'm going to play devils advocate here. Reading the statute it seems to be protection against lawsuits. Given today's litigious society I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure there is a case, maybe the one mentioned above, where someone tried to sue a police dept when they failed to convict a suspect.. or a situation occurred that was beyond the capabilities of a small force that resulted in a lawsuit..etc. Yes, you can read the statutes and interpret them to say the cops don't need to do anything but sit in the station.. but there is a lot of middle ground where I could see these as necessary to keep the department from being sued into oblivion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,784 Posted October 30, 2013 I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors... I'm waiting for my lightsaber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azmaveth 1 Posted October 30, 2013 I'm waiting for my lightsaber. Here ya go... http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,784 Posted October 30, 2013 Here ya go... http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic That's going on my X-mas list! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrfly3006 42 Posted October 30, 2013 I'm going to play devils advocate here. Reading the statute it seems to be protection against lawsuits. Given today's litigious society I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure there is a case, maybe the one mentioned above, where someone tried to sue a police dept when they failed to convict a suspect.. or a situation occurred that was beyond the capabilities of a small force that resulted in a lawsuit..etc. Yes, you can read the statutes and interpret them to say the cops don't need to do anything but sit in the station.. but there is a lot of middle ground where I could see these as necessary to keep the department from being sued into oblivion. THIS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KramD52 0 Posted October 31, 2013 Yup, I agree.....voyager9 nailed it. It's all about limiting liability. Basically the police have a duty to protect and serve when they swear an oath to office but, as in any real world situation, may not be able to under various circumstances (absent non, mal, or misfeasance of course). Generally, they can't always be there when needed and this just helps guard against frivolous law suits. To me, this should give the legislators the arguing point against their anti gun constituents that they need to relax the CCW law....but then again we do live in the _ ss hole of the nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites