By Robert Greenslade, © Nitwit Press
Opponents of the private ownership of firearms always claim there is no need for individuals to own a firearm for self-protection because the police are entrusted with that duty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Courts throughout these United States have consistently held that police have no legal duty to provide police protection to any individual citizen.
In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in a civil suit against the Metropolitan Police Department. In the syllabus, the Court wrote:
“[The] fact that police answered [the phone call for help] and arrived outside premises which were scene of burglary and assault did not give rise to special duty on part of police toward victims therein, and police officers were not answerable in damages for failing to ascertain that assaults were continuing upon victims therein, or for leaving premises without so ascertaining.”
The Court ruled that:
“[G]overnment and its agents are under no legal obligation to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular 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 duty exists.” [Cite for case: D.C. App., 444 A. 2nd 1, 1981]
On April 19, 1990, an Associated Press article entitled: “Woman can’t sue cops for failing to help,” stated:
“A women who was being raped in an Oakland (CA) apartment can’t sue police for failing to rescue her, even though a friend may have told officers where she was a state appeals court says.
The officers’ alleged inaction is ‘troubling’ but they had no legal duty to find and save the woman and did not make her situation worse, said the 1st District Court of Appeal in a ruling released Wednesday.”
The article went on to state:
“Her suit was dismissed by Alameda Superior Court Judge Demetrios Agretelis, who said the police had no legal duty to rescue her, the appeals court majority agreed.
The opinion by Justice Gary Strankman noted that a police officer, like a private citizen, has no legal duty to come to another person’s aid. An officer who undertakes to help, however, can be sued for certain types of carelessness or misconduct that makes the other person’s situation worse.”
The police are under no legal obligation to protect you because you have the inalienable right to protect yourself. That right comes from God not government.
This right is enshrined in many State Constitutions. The first section of the California Constitution states:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
The next time a big mouth statist tells you that government should restrict or ban individual firearms ownership because the police are under a legal obligation to protect you, kindly shove the above information in their face. Not only will it put a smile on your face, but you will be amazed at how fast it shuts them up and makes them go away.
Note-I believe this principle should be used in every case where an individual applies for a concealed carry permit. If the police are under no legal obligation to protect you, then where do they get the right or power deny you the right to protect yourself? If they deny the permit and you are damaged at a later date by their decision, I believe it could change the relationship that immunizes the police from damages as stated above.
Latest posts by TAC Daily Updates (see all)
- A Good First Step: California Governor Signs Anti-Surveillance Bill into Law - October 1, 2014
- James Madison on “Parchment Barriers” and the defense of liberty - September 17, 2014
- New Hampshire: A Hotbed for Liberty - September 1, 2014