NJ laws says police don't have to protect you

[Howard 538]

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

 

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Does this mean CCW? Ha, ha, ha!!!

[bhunted 887]

Hasn't this been discussed before???

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[JrzyGuy30 0]

Does this mean CCW? Ha, ha, ha!!!

I agree!!

[Fred2 367]

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?

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Yeah, I've quoted that one before but been laughed at multiple times. Wishful thinking...

[diamondd817 828]

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/

[Fred2 367]

Yeah, I've quoted that one before but been laughed at multiple times. Wishful thinking...

Just more justification for Jury Nullification.

[jm1827 284]

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...

[djg0770 481]

I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors...

 

And piss yourself.

[siderman 1,139]

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.

[voyager9 3,439]

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. 

[CMJeepster 2,780]

I think there was a federal recommendation to use scissors...

I'm waiting for my lightsaber.

 

[azmaveth 1]

I'm waiting for my lightsaber.

 

 

Here ya go...

http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Here ya go...

http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic

That's going on my X-mas list!

[jrfly3006 42]

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

[KramD52 0]

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.