Misleading Post: "Police Don't Have To Protect People!"

[Hyena Dandy]

A post that goes around Facebook, tending to show up in my feed from conspiracy theorists, communists, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and Randroids, is a thing warning (in frontof a picture of police beating protestors) that the police have no obligation to protect you, only enforce laws. The implication being that the police are only obligated to go after those people who go against the norm. Like YOU! There's no remedy for police brutality!

What actually is being said in the rulings they reference, though, is that you can't sue police officers if they don't get to you in time. Essentially, they have to try. But there's no legal liability if they prioritize wrong, or situations change, or they just can't get there in time.

I guess this could be a "Things that I hate" thread, but I thought I'd post it here. What do you think, about the misleading posters, and about the rulings that I referenced?

[Kheldarson]

Well, the ruling to me makes sense. It's kind of their version of the "Good Samaritan" laws. They're human, too, and bound to make mistakes even if they're trying to do the right thing. They shouldn't be punished for that worse than what they'll probably do to themselves (because I can't honestly believe a cop wouldn't be upset that they got someone hurt when they were supposed to be protecting/helping them).

As to the misleaders, well, there will always be those. And since they don't like being corrected, better to just ignore them, honestly. I do it all the time with the Tea Party stuff some of my friends post.

[otakuneko]

I mostly see this referenced in arguments on gun control. It goes kinda like this: "Police have no duty to protect, so you better have a gun to protect yourself."

Warren v. District of Columbia is probably the most supportive of that argument. In that case, despite the negligent and incompetent way the police behaved, the courts ruled against Warren.

[wolfie]

My understanding is that the defining case law on this issue (possibly the case mentioned earlier in this thread - I haven't read it) is that someone who suffered harm due to lack of protection from the police sued, and when it went to the Supreme Court the decision was "The police have the duty to protect society as a whole. They DO NOT have the duty to protect a particular individual".

[Gravekeeper]

Both of these cases are incredibly fucked up, Jesus.

In the case in question in the op where the Supreme Court ruled the police have no constitutional obligation to protect a person from harm; The victim had a protective order that made arrest mandatory should her husband violate it. He violated it and kidnapped their children. The police failed to do anything about it despite the mandatory arrest order and he ended up killing all three of their children then walking into the police station with a gun and opening fire on everyone.

Christ.

The only upside to the case is that the dissenting judges seemed utterly appalled by their fellows.

[Andara Bledin]

Yup.

So, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and they might never get any closer if they don't feel like it.

While it's not precisely true that they don't have a duty to protect people, the fact that there is absolutely no consequence for them committing what should be considered criminal negligence, the plain fact of the matter is that they can choose to not protect you at all and get away with it.

Hell, my brother watched a shooting victim bleed to death across the street from where he was staying because he was a known gang member, so the police refused to let the ambulance that was already on site close the last 100 feet and actually render aid.

[ebonyknight]

Please don't get me started on police. My problem is not with the institution, but with the participants and attitude that everyone else is a "civilian". I am sorry, but the only person that gets to call someone a "civilian" is active duty military personnel.

The problem with police is a us vs. them mentality. They think they are entitled to "perks" that civilians don't deserve. I read a lot of police forums and blogs and it TRUELY never fails to amaze me how screwed up their thinking is.

Case in point. I was reading a story on a police website today, about a Florida State trooper that pulled over a MPD officer. She clocked him (no lights) going 120 MPH. She had heard of no active incidents or high profile emergencies. When she finally pulled him over, she wasn't sure if the cruiser had been stolen and had her gun drawn. When she saw he was uniformed, she holstered her gun, asked him what was going on, cited and arrested him. He was late for an off duty job and was trying to get there, on time........

Now she is being harassed and is suing. Her information has been "pulled" over 80 times from other precincts to get her personal information, and other police harassment. Anyway...the feeling is that she is getting what she deserved for pulling over a fellow cop! Some has gone as far as to blame HER for daring to pull him over. 120MPH, really?!?!? The most sympathetic blames them both. But the consensus generally is, he's police, he shouldn't have been pulled over, much less cited! The most tame response was, he shouldn't have done that, but I wouldn't have stopped him. sigh....

It just never fails to amaze me how the law doesn't apply to them, just to "civilians". We should respect cops as they do the right thing to protect society. That is how civilians are supposed to see them. But how do cops view Internal Affairs? Certainly not as how they feel civilians should see them.... The job instills a double standard that wears down truly good cops.

Now police incidents are common enough that there are popular terms for what they do. "Puppycide", "contempt of cop", harassment from legally filming them, etc. While these may not be common, everyday occurrences...they sure are FAR from uncommon.

"To Protect and Serve"... It seems that "civilians" aren't the ones that slogan is intended for.

Angry rant over....

[Kheldarson]

Both of these cases are incredibly fucked up, Jesus.

I feel that, after reading both of those case summaries, I should clarify my answer.

As long as the cops are actively trying to do the right thing in the enforcement of law and protection of citizens, then times where they fail should not be persecuted. So, they're protecting someone in a shootout and a stray person hits the civilian. The police shouldn't be held responsible for that.

Cases where they honestly fucked up by standing around? Oh, hell yes, hold them responsible.

[wolfie]

Case in point. I was reading a story on a police website today, about a Florida State trooper that pulled over a MPD officer. She clocked him (no lights) going 120 MPH.

Can you say "driving beyond your stopping distance"? Hypothetical situation: instead of state trooper pulling him over, there was a slight bend on a 4 lane divided highway. Beyond the bend, a 4-wheeler had cut off a big rig, resulting in the big rig jacknifing and blocking the whole road (4-wheeler gets away, naturally). MPD officer comes around the bend at 120 and sees the road is blocked, slams on the brakes. A hundred yards of skid marks later, can you say "dead cop" when he slams into the semi while he's still doing over the speed limit?

[Aethian]

Is it bad my first thought was "I wonder where the head would land"?

[Sarah Valentine]

Wasn't there a thing in the news recently where a speeding cop smashed into a parked car then arrested the driver for it?

[ebonyknight]

Yep...

Two Brooklyn cops sideswiped a parked SUV, then arrested a man sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, accusing him of damaging their car, a suit charges.

And the officers would have gotten away with their lie — had the whole bizarre drama not been caught by a security camera.

Surprise, surprise...in NYC.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/21/cops-hi...er-it-up-suit/

Wanna take odds, on if they even get a slap on the wrist???

[Gravekeeper]

Is it just me or does the NYPD employ a special sort of asshole? >.>

[Sarah Valentine]

Wanna take odds, on if they even get a slap on the wrist???

Sadly even though there's video evidence I highly doubt they'll get even that.

[ebonyknight]

Is it just me or does the NYPD employ a special sort of asshole? >.>

In PG County (Prince Georges County, Maryland), they would be considered teen thugs with negative attitudes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=prin...+police+abuses

NYPD, gets a spotlight because they are a major metropolitan city. There are plenty of jurisdictions that make NYPD look tame, and that the nation hasn't heard of.

And bear in mind, PG County is near DC, not some boondock county.