A simple fact, unknown by most people and disbelieved when they hear about it, is that Law Enforcement has no obligation to protect you from crime.
Of course, the vast majority of our Law Enforcement (at least those outside of Broward County, FL) are hard working people who take their motto of “Protect and Defend” seriously, and who would run in to save you from harm, risking their lives in the process.
However, they are not required to do so. Their duty is to the community as a whole, not to an individual who might be in peril.
Safety and security of an individual is strictly the responsibility of that individual. There is an exception: The State is responsible for protecting people it has in its custody, for instance those who are kept in prison or insane asylum.
The first Supreme Court case affirming this absence of duty to protect that I am aware of is South v. Maryland from 1855 (the decision postulates that this notion goes far back in time), but there have been many others, at all levels of government.
Time after time a victim of a crime brings a case against a police force that had been begged for help in a dire situation, could have helped, but didn’t. And every time the court rules that no, neither the State in general nor its Law Enforcement arm in particular can be held liable for what any normal human being would see as negligence in saving an individual from crime. A more recent Supreme Court case was Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, from 2005. The justices then decided that “the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation,” to quote a summary by the New York Times.
In addition to philosophical and constitutional arguments as to why that is the case, there is also the matter of qualified immunity that is afforded to Law Enforcement in exercise of their duties. Unless their conduct is an obvious violation of the victim’s constitutional rights, they are immune from liability. Since there is no constitutional right not to be a victim of a crime, a policeman’s refusal to come and help is covered by the qualified immunity.
Where does that leave us, regular citizens of this great country?
Your safety is your own responsibility. If you insist on delegating it to the state, you can certainly achieve that by getting yourself imprisoned or committed. Then the state will be obligated to protect you from harm. Let us know how that works out for you.
Otherwise, it is up to you. Arm yourself. Train. Then train some more.
And remember, even though most Law Enforcement officers will do their best to protect you, 1) they will not be there when the crime takes place, and 2) even if they are, they do not have the obligation to save you, and some will choose that course of inaction.
So protect yourself and your loved ones.
2 replies on “Protect and Defend”
I wonder what would happen if someone took their police department to court in a state where they’ve been denied the right to a means of self-defense?
Either as a counter-suit to prosecution for having used such means “illegally” or as a civil suit because they complied with the law an suffered harm as a result?
There have to be enough of these cases already to frequently make a 2A case out of it. I’m concerned that the case be carefully structured, lest it backfire and produce a militarized, omnipresent, police force as they attempt to meet newly mandated levels of protection, but a suit that says that, in addition to the 2A violation, the city/state is liable for material and emotional damages resulting from that violation seems like an option.
Am I playing too much with fire here, or is this sort of counter lawfare in order?
IIRC from the last time I was reading up on this, there were cases similar to what you describe. Some of them were even more egregious than Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Unless I am misremembering things, a woman threatened by her ex, with previous incidents of violence, convictions, etc., asked for a CCW permit so she could defend herself. They refused, even with the documented history of violence and threats and urgency of the danger. Naturally, she got killed (or seriously hurt, I don’t remember the details).
The municipality was sued, and of course that didn’t go anywhere, because the combination of absence of duty to protect and that immunity of theirs wins every time.
I don’t think there is a danger of police militarizing even more based on a lawsuit you propose. First of all, they don’t seem to need a reason; they do it quite merrily as it is. But secondly, they would not want to accept that official responsibility to protect (and they are right in that). So if there is an option to go that route just to get more toys/authority, I don’t think they would choose it.
I think the best course of action is to strengthen the 2A. I wonder if it could be incorporated even further, down to municipalities. After all, local governments are bound by the First Amendment, so why not the Second?
And in the meantime, change state laws in the direction of Constitutional Carry (my state is already one of them).
And get out of the States that curtail your rights (which I had done). Because I just don’t see MA, NJ, CA, etc. moving from “may issue” to “shall issue”, let alone permitless, or repealing their idiotic “assault weapons” laws.