and someone read this and see if they're getting what I'm getting out of it?

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007

Sounds about right. I've read this type of stuff before and it's a scary misconception that a lot of people have about police.

Why is anyone still shocked by this? The supreme court has already made this clear.

 

It also makes sense if you think about it, the police can't be everywhere all the time, nor do you want them to be.  Thus, you can't logically hold them responsible for not being everywhere when you need them.

 

This isn't the problem. The problem is when the state starts telling you that you can't do things for yourself because the police will do it for you, when clearly the police can't and can't legally be held responsible if they don't.

I'ts amazing how many people think everything on tv and movies is the same as real life.

Then they are shocked when they hear something like this.

Yes the police have no duty to you, I was shocked when I learned this years ago, but now it takes alot more to shock me, like finding out the post office takes a picture of everyones envelope, and retains this for who knows how long, and for who knows what purposes. The best argument for conceal carry may be that the police have no duty to us as individuals.

This has been a given for years now and referenced numerous times.I have to believe the OP is also aware of this so why is it news or even a relevant topic?

read WHERE it came from.

read WHERE it came from.

Again, the Supreme Court said it, it has been the law of the land for quite some time. Would you like the police chiefs and their lawyers to pretend it isn't true and go against the Supreme Court? Check out Castle Rock vs Gonzales of 2005.

 

What exactly is your point?

Yes and?.............

This  source is just one of the many LE papers,blogs,union publications that has already picked apart,discussed,debated the doctrine in the years the ruling was made.Forgive me but you're already a day late and a dollar short.

This has been a given for years now and referenced numerous times.I have to believe the OP is also aware of this so why is it news or even a relevant topic?

 

+1K!

 

Like a brilliant shinning Star, this too will go "Super-Nova" and implode of its' own volition.  LOL!

ok ok ok, got it.  YOU ALL KNEW THIS!  no one new to the site can post ANYTHING you guys knew.  geez.   at least you guys aren't as bad as nasioc yet.

Why is anyone still shocked by this? The supreme court has already made this clear.

 

It also makes sense if you think about it, the police can't be everywhere all the time, nor do you want them to be.  Thus, you can't logically hold them responsible for not being everywhere when you need them.

 

This isn't the problem. The problem is when the state starts telling you that you can't do things for yourself because the police will do it for you, when clearly the police can't and can't legally be held responsible if they don't.

+1

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

many of us appreciate it too.....thank you

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

+1

 

This is what the +1 is meant for so there ya go

Here is a listing of some court rulings posted on this forum.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/47275-no-constitutional-right-to-be-protected/

many of us appreciate it too.....thank you

I agree, but there is far too many rotten apples in that tree... and the the weeds (politicians) that we seem unable to get rid off.

Its the ones u here about...

I dont feel we need police to protect us, we should have the right to protect our selves (ccw).

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

 

Most do, I do, but there's one in every crowd as they say..

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

Thanks +1

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

^^^THIS...I was t aught at a young age that whatever you do in life always be able to come home and look at yourself in the mirror ....I'd like to think that just about all of those I work with have done and will continue to do the right thing.. And yes civilians should absolutely have the FULL ability to protect themselves

Accountability. Individually and professionally, is there a code, written or implied, to ignore or cover for when others around you are not accountable, and does the profession as a whole have an organizational arm that reduces accountability of the group legally and or politically. If you and your profession dont fit into the above you probably will find it much easier to do the right thing and you probably dont end up in the news very often as a profession.

While the supreme court may say there is no duty to protect i beg to differ. Those of us that take the job for what it is supposed to be do have a duty to protect. We took an oath and we take the job seriously. I am not saying that every cop feels this way but there are a lot of us that have a self-imposed duty. Unfortunately we cant be everywhere so things happen and one should be allowed to protect themselves if necessary.

I think most of us know that there are cops that take the duty and oath seriously. Thank you and others that do.

Its the ones u here about...

If we hear about those, the 'good ones' hear about more. Not much is done about it. There is a systemic problem, if there weren't, the good ones would be able to do more about it without having to go full serpico and get totally screwed. There's a growing systemic problem with our police forces. It doesn't matter if you don't like what is going on, don't approve of the policing actions the politicians require, wish there was something that could be done about the ever increasing count of bad apples, in the end you are part of the system with problems. If you aren't fixing it, or leaving it, you are picking your side.

 

It isn't just the bad apples either if you are singling out corrupt cops with that epitaph. You could have 100% law abiding cops, and you are still dealing with a system where 10 over can result in a loss of 2-3 weeks worth of income for the median household that has between 0-2 weeks of buffer before rent isn't getting paid. You can wind up in prison longer for book keeping issues than you can for beating someone half to death. There are a dozen things less socially damaging than running around killing people that are treated on par with second degree murder.

 

The system has problems.