When you read legislation or legal language, you need to pay careful attention to defined terms.
'Protection' as a term to describe special police protection, is not the same as, and does not exclude, the basic duty of the police force to protect citizens.
'Owe no duty to victims' means that police cannot possibly protect every citizen from every crime and be held 'liable' (because everyone loves to sue in the USA).
A 'protective order' against an individual is to require them legally to keep their distance. It does not constitute a 'police protection' order that requires police to stake guards outside someone's home.
Ok, I did. It doesn't change what i put above. The real issue is, the USA is a very litigious culture, and legislation is required to protect from yet another loophole for idiots to make their fortune. The govt can't afford to let every police mistake or lack of resources available at the time open them up for millions of dollars of lawsuits.
I'm not 'weaseling' out of anything, thanks. Not having a 'a constitutional duty to protect a person' (reporter's words) doesn't mean their basic role has changed and they will never attempt to do so or to fight crime. As I said, reading legal language requires a subtlety, and that is ALMOST excluded from the article (making it more emotive). The fact is, police require "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes." Ask yourself why - is it really a conspiracy to abandon duty, or a reality of complex decisions that have to be made with limited resources.
1. Your first five sentences are spot on. The term 'duty' in your next sentence is ambiguous by nature - see further on.
2. Then you mention the ridiculous Gonzales case, chasing financial gain from the reality that police are unable in any country to turn a 'court order' into 24 hour 'police protection.' They are opportunistic clowns. No govt could allow that case, and needs to make sure their police forces are 'exempted from such negligence' because police in every country are too under-resourced to respond to every call in time to prevent every crime. It would cost govts billions in lawsuits. I can't imagine you disagree with that.
3. Duty is ambiguous - it is clearly the "duty" of the police to protect citizens (their actions and mission, see, eg http://www.watertown-ny.gov/index.asp?nid=123) without having the "duty" of being held legally culpable for their inability (through lack of resources or mismanagement) to respond to every crime in sufficient time to prevent it.
4. My use of the terms - my distinctions are correct - it's clear from the context. Particularly look at the word 'protect' 'protection' 'protective order'. They all have slightly different intentions.
5. The NY times article was a poor piece of writing. The real point of the ruling was not to define police role per se, but police role in relation to the court order. She then pulls that out of context in her opening para to imply the police have no duty to protect citizens in any way, something clearly part of their charter. She uses the ambiguity of terms 'protect' to confuse the issue. She makes no distinction between 'protect' and 24 hour police 'protection' in relation to a 'protective order'. Emotive? Yes. Good journalism? Ah, no.
I'm not really arguing against you. The ruling is specifically in relation to court protection orders, in response to compensation lawsuits. Important to distinguish between what the journalist stated and the quotes from the rulings. The journalist was either unintelligent (which I doubt) or mischievous in confounding the language. Court protection orders are made in relation to a person who is then legally required to keep a distance, etc. A protection order does not rule that police departments must put all their resources into 24 hour protection mode for someone. The word duty can read ambiguously. Police will continue to protect people and respond to crime according to discretion related to resources available and degree of risk (their duty). They are not obligated (duty) to respond to every call every time (and be sued if they don't), because it is not possible. So, agree with you that having a police force has never removed the obligation we always had to live carefully and look after ourselves.
Just finished reading a hell of an article along the same lines, citizens have the right to protect themselves from cops
the police job is to arrest, cite and prosecute, to make money for the state. that's about it
That's very complicated. The other side of the coin is that the police have a right to open fire to protect citizens. For example, all the sheriffs of the country wrote to Obama. Turns out that if a Federal agent wants to do something in a Sheriff's county, the agent must get permission. Well, the Sheriff has a right to order his or her agents to open fire on the Federal agents.
Sheriffs are police.
Sheriffs are at least usually elected (I was informed they are elected, as in always, but because I don't know for sure, I'll grant you that they usually are, because we can at least agree to that much). However, if they are not police, then who carries out their orders?
I'll admit, I'm curious what the Supreme Court is thinking... it is true that the mission of the Police is to, "Serve and Protect."
I guess their job is to enforce the law. Which is odd because the Constitution protects liberties. It's there to serve the people and protect them from the government.
I agree. Not only do I agree but also all the people who hunt in America represent the third largest army in the world. That's bloody huge. Now remember WWII? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. That was a sharp move and one that hurt. However, Japan didn't go any farther. They said they didn't want to suffer all the casualties of invading in the West because of all the armed citizens.
There are not many who would say a hick can't land a bullet between someone's eyelids.
I think that's the point.
wow- but with all the cra- going on recently im not surprised
To protect lead and serve that's they're job if you feel they haven't done that you can sue or at least I heard
Yes. When they lie about protecting the people to ask for more and more of our money, they are lying. They have proved to SCOTUS that they do not ever protect the people. That is NOT their job. Their job actually is to find excuses to send you or me to prison for life. That is their job.
They also have proved to SCOTUS that they LIE to the public every day as part of their training and daily job. SCOTUS warned American people NEVER to trust ANYTHING that a blue shirt ever says, not ever. He's a trained liar. That is their job. They are all liars, not honorable men.
I was wondering where all those "Troopers are your best protection" bumper stickers got off too -
Not according to our president
They LIE a lot. Everything they say is a lie.
Absolutely, cuz the fuzz aren't going to bust their *** to do any work.
Doesn't the right to self-defence constitute the right to protect oneself?
No, the right to self-defence is proportional. Meaning that you may use lesser or equal force to protect yourself from harm and if you have good reason to believe your life is threatened then you may use deadly force.
However I suspect you may have been being facetious :P There are some cases in which it doesn't work out, but I doubt many that go to jury trial go amiss - most people would sympathize with a true self-defence situation. I would choose trial by jury if I was ever in this situation and had the choice - I would want sympathy, not legal technicality.