With all the craziness of the gun control going on and arguments about the police and their role/obligation in protecting the public I have a question. The police motto, as seen on some patrol cars and not on others, says "to protect and serve" Now i know some departments have said it is not there duty to protect you, so my question is, the departments that feel its not there duty to protect the public are they the ones that removed that saying and secondly if it isn't the duty of police to protect us shouldn't that motto be changed?

Protecting the public is to uphold the laws and arrest those who break it. To protect doesn't mean to specifically protect any one person from a threat.

Dont confuse motto's with legal decisions. If a bad guy is chasing you with an Axe and LE intervenes, I think its a safe bet he will protect you. But the courts have decided he is not obligated to do so. So if you have a stalker after you, they are not obligated to give you an armed escourt for the duration.

Protecting the public is to uphold the laws and arrest those who break it. To protect doesn't mean to specifically protect any one person from a threat.

 

I view protecting the public and upholding laws as 2 seperate things

I view protecting the public and upholding laws as 2 seperate things

police can't do anything unless a law is broken, and removing a criminal from the public is to protect them.

Dont confuse motto's with legal decisions. If a bad guy is chasing you with an Axe and LE intervenes, I think its a safe bet he will protect you. But the courts have decided he is not obligated to do so. So if you have a stalker after you, they are not obligated to give you an armed escourt for the duration.

 

this is the simplest most straightforward answer you will get...

 

the police can obviously not follow you around 24 hours a day... and because people want to sue everyone for everything.... it is important to establish that there is not a legal obligation to protect each individual person on a constant basis... its impossible.. 

Whats the "this" and video all about? can't a question be asked around here?

 

 

Yes..... you can ask a question.  And an adult discussion can follow.....

 

But what he is commenting on, is the fact that most likely, this will take a turn, and become a LEO bashing thread, and will be locked at that point....

Well I have not seen any bashing so they are junping the gun or are encouraging it

I can see the need to remove "to protect" from a legal liability point of view. Might be stretching it a bit, but if someone walks across the turnpike at 3 am and the inevitable happens, I could see someone saying "where were the troopers, aren't they supposed to patrol the roadway".

I can see the need to remove "to protect" from a legal liability point of view. Might be stretching it a bit, but if someone walks across the turnpike at 3 am and the inevitable happens, I could see someone saying "where were the troopers, aren't they supposed to patrol the roadway".

 True..but then again, "Patrol" is not a static thing..you cant be everywhere at once...that is the whole issue. there are a finite number of LEO's, and you cant be in more than one place at a time.  

Well yes, the police can't be everywhere at once, and that is understandable. That is why we should be able to have our own means to protect ourselves. 

Whats the "this" and video all about? can't a question be asked around here?

You must be new here. you can ask anything your heart desires, but questions like these usually last around an hour on this board. Not your fault of course, so don't get all bent out of shape.

145 posts

The police will protect you and many will risk their lives to do so...once they get there.  You're on your own otherwise.

 

Not the police's job to protect you - get a gun and a dog

Not the SSI's job to support you in your old age - save your money

Not the state's job to educate your kids - teach them the important stuff like how to think for themselves at home

Not the Fed's job to guarantee you a mortgage - rent until you have saved  enough and your income is adequate

 

Not the government's job to do a single thing for us.  If they would stop, we would all be more able to care for ourselves and wouldn't need them...hey, wait a minute...maybe they know that.

Well yes, the police can't be everywhere at once, and that is understandable. That is why we should be able to have our own means to protect ourselves. 

Bingo we have a winner,

Well yes, the police can't be everywhere at once, and that is understandable. 

 

 

Don't worry, the drones are coming...

You ask why I carry a gun ?? Becuse a cop is too heavy to carry !!

SCOTUS and lower courts have ruled that there is no duty to protect any specific individual, even if they are called e.g. to a home invasion in-progress (Warren v. District of Columbia was decided by D.C Court of appeals) ; no duty to protect an individual with "a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation." (Castle Rock v. Gonzales).  This has several other decisions (http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm).  I do not know the site, but this piece seems to have decent references and attributions.

 

Hopefully they will be there when you need them, and in my experience I believe that almost every LEO I have talked with would risk their own safety to protect any individual in any given situation.  But we also have an individual responsibility--and RIGHT--to provide for our own protection at any time or place.  As a society we have delegated that function to LE, but each individual still retains full rights to provide for their own protection and can pretty much do anything necessary for protection of self and others that a LEO can do.

I'm not aware of any departments that have said it's not their duty to protect you.  Which departments have stated that?   What has happened is that is some bad things happened to some people and they sued the police saying the police should have protected them.  The courts have ruled in favor of the police.  

 

I don't think a motto on the side of a patrol car confers any legal meaning. 

"To Protect and Serve" was the winning entry in a contest to select a new motto for the LAPD in 1955 by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek.

 

My understanding is that it is referencing the Oath taken to Protect and Serve the Constitution and Laws of the Nation and State.

 

 

SCOTUS and lower courts have ruled that there is no duty to protect any specific individual, even if they are called e.g. to a home invasion in-progress (Warren v. District of Columbia was decided by D.C Court of appeals) ; no duty to protect an individual with "a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation." (Castle Rock v. Gonzales).  This has several other decisions (http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm).  I do not know the site, but this piece seems to have decent references and attributions.

 

These laws basically states that the Police are not your servants and do not have to sacrifice their lives to save yours. That does not mean that we won't run towards the sound of gunfire, dive into bodies of water, climb out on bridges, pull you from a burning car, investigate bombs, rescue a hostage etc... Most of us will, and we do it gladly.

 

We regularly put the safety of the public and the needs of citizen's and their families ahead of our own. 

 

We don't need a catchy slogan on the side of our cars to remind us of what we have dedicated ourselves to do.

 

 

I'm not aware of any departments that have said it's not their duty to protect you.  Which departments have stated that?   What has happened is that is some bad things happened to some people and they sued the police saying the police should have protected them.  The courts have ruled in favor of the police.  

 

I don't think a motto on the side of a patrol car confers any legal meaning. 

 

^^ This.

 

It is a slogan, not a legally binding contract or job description.

And all of these stated reasons that cops aren't legally bound to protect you are not foolproof reasons for reversing this state as "MAY ISSUE" to "SHALL ISSUE" and getting rid of ridiculous laws not allowing an individual to protect oneself or their family? (Rhetorical question)

 

This has been an interesting thread.