Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

No duty to protect

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ATCclears, Oct 20, 2013.

  1. ATCclears

    ATCclears Seattle area, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    This appeared in the Nov, 2013 issue of American Rifleman.

    Peter


    http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/16475/presidents-column-43/

    As NRA members, one of our key roles in defending liberty is to educate people who have little understanding of the real meaning of the Second Amendment. And often our responsibility is to dissect the biggest lies of the gun-ban crowd—among them, the notion that individuals don’t need guns to protect themselves because that’s the job of the police.

    “… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

    “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”

    Those are the opinions of the District of Columbia Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals issued in 1978 and 1981 blocking a suit by three young women who had been raped and beaten for 14 hours during a nightmarish home invasion in 1975. Two of the women had repeatedly called the D.C. police. They watched a police car slowly roll by their townhouse after their first call for help, then were told help was on its way in subsequent calls, when indeed it was not.

    The decisions in that case, Warren v. District of Columbia, came at a time when D.C. was still enforcing its ban on firearms in the home for self-defense.

    The decision by those lower courts in Warren mirrored decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedents. The latest high-court opinion declaring police have no duty to protect ordinary citizens was handed down in June 2005.

    All this gives the lie to the gun-ban crowd’s mantra: “let law enforcement protect you.”

    The simple truth is, were individual citizens owed an absolute duty to individual protection by police, no law enforcement agency in the nation could exist because of the glut of litigation claiming violation of individuals’ rights to police protection.

    Admittedly, the circumstances that have led to some lawsuits against police departments involve horrendous indifference by police, but if a duty is owed in one awful situation marked by incompetence, it is owed in all cases by all law enforcement officers. And that is the rub.

    Duty to protect? Police officers simply cannot be everywhere a crime of violence is occurring. Most of the time, their job is to investigate, pursue criminals and make arrests after a crime has been committed.

    I don’t know who originated the notion that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away,” but it defines why the individual right to keep and bear arms is such a core right today. In rural areas, those minutes might be hours.

    The question our friends and neighbors and fellow gun owners should ask is:

    Who, then, protects you if the police have no duty to do so?

    The answer is, You do. Responsible members of your family do. Neighbors do.

    Had the young women in the Warren case been armed, they could have defended themselves. But at the time, such armed self-defense was a crime in Washington, D.C.

    That was the issue finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark June 2008 Heller decision striking down the D.C. handgun ban and the city’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

    In his ringing majority defense of the Second Amendment, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.”

    That remarkable decision was followed by the high court’s June 2010 majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the protection of the Second Amendment in Heller to every corner of the nation.

    People need to understand that the Second Amendment preserves their choice to defend themselves with arms against criminal violence.

    The gun-ban crowd always assumes that people are stupid. Given the truth—the facts—most Americans will begin to understand the personal meaning of the Second Amendment.

    If there is a “duty to protect,” it is our duty as members of the NRA to protect the Second Amendment. We can do that with our votes; by exercising the First Amendment and one-on-one convincing friends, co-workers and neighbors of the truth of our cause. That must be a major part of our mission. It is mine.
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  2. fyrediver

    fyrediver Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    133
  3. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross Winlock, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    752
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  4. simon99

    simon99 Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,673
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Any way you cut it, as stated, the police can't be everywhere all the time. When they show up, its usually after the fact. They can seal off the area, put a sheet over you, question the witnesses ( if any), take pictures and go about their merry way.....while you're dead.

    I'd rather ensure my own safety.
     
  5. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,917
    Likes Received:
    2,340
    I don't particularly WANT the police to be "required" to protect. Can you imagine the direction they would quickly spin that?
     
  6. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    I hope you don't mind, I put this on the Top thread in the forum about sources to help fight.
     
    Brutus57 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    Yep, the very first rule of survival. CY own A !
    Rely on few and try to help many.
     
    Tug and (deleted member) like this.
  8. ATCclears

    ATCclears Seattle area, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Taku, nope I don't mind at all!

    Peter
     
    Taku and (deleted member) like this.
  9. U201491

    U201491 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    10,560
    A very good piece.
     
  10. Burt Gummer

    Burt Gummer Portland Completely Out of Ammo

    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    5,495
  11. misplacedtexan

    misplacedtexan Beaverton, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    124
    This is a Washington state case, and it seems that it would fall under the 'special relationship' statement in the US Supreme Courts ruling. Reading the what the paper wrote, yes I know it's a paper/media thing, it seems the cop would be at fault for serving the restraining order, then leaving both parties alone, inside the house.


    Either way, it's your life. If you choose to not protect it, then you choose to lose it.