Are governments obligated to protect individuals against crime?

Two threads on the killings in Tyler, TX attracted a variety of comments but the incident also posed an interesting question.

If the police on scene had not aggressively attacked the gunman, he might have wounded or killed more people. If that had happened, could the victims or their families have successfully sued government for failing to protect such victims?

SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO, “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

Related DU threads are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1263436&mesg_id=1263436

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=100427&mesg_id=100427

arrive to save them? Seems like I read (some years back) of several cases where courts ruled that citizens have no right to expect the police to protect them. It is impossible for police departments to be everywhere at once was the gist of the decisions.

The problem I have with police failure is when there is a restraining order, continual violations of it, and then someone ends up dead. Now that is something they should be accountable for.

I also know someone who was threatened several times by a stranger, called the police and found the officers even unwilling to take down a description of the person who almost broke the door down 3 times and threatened to kill. The cops' rational? What good would it do you for us to know what he looks like if you get killed? The person making the complaint, my nephew and the son of a cop/special investigator for a Calif D.A., replied that at least they would have a clue as to who to fucking look for!

In the meantime, I will protect my own hide (and those around me, as I did when I stopped an attack on a woman a few years back) and rely on the police to haul off any bad apples who roll my way.

"… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." - U.S. Supreme Court, in Warren vs. District of Columbia, 1983.

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." - U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, in Bowers vs. Devito, 1982

I provide for my own safety. I carry a 9mm.

It will be interesting to see the various answers we get.

Skippy actually stated it quite well in his post.

In order to protect people from crime, you'd need more watchers than civilians. Think about it.

In a free society, police agencies are reactionary by necessity. The alternative is to have every move made by every person monitored by the authorities in order to stop crime. Of course, the bug in that ointment is that all of the watchers must be spot free. That won't happen: and very few would tolerate such a system in any case.

Think of The Patriot Act multiplied by a factor of thousands, perhaps millions.

..of a possibly apocryphal story (I'll hunt around the web when I have more time) about a sheriff in CA who was basically giving CCWs on a shall-issue basis; when some local anti's raised a stink and demanded to know why all these people needed permits (AFAIK CA is a demonstrated-need state), his reply was simply "Because I can't be there at their sides 24/7." Classic.

Governments are indeed obligated to protect their citizens against crime....with the clear and obvious understanding that governments cannot protect all citizens against all crimes all of the time.

What's your alternative, jody? Disband all the police forces because they don't have a 100% success record at combatting crime? Just have everybody arm themselves and hope for the best? Sounds like gun radical wishful thinking, to me.......

How did we ever manage to have a society!

The latter 1800's is the same time frame in which militias, along the lines of the "well regulated" militias mentioned in the Second Amendment, died out for good.

Looking forward to the usual cut-and-paste responses about how vibrantly alive the 2nd supposedly is at this point in time......

The American militia system was being torn down in the 1850's in exchange for a model built around what the Prussian military had done for decades, and the Civil War effectively ended anything that Jefferson would recognize as a militia. By the late 1800's the frame work for the National Guard and Reserves were pretty much set, and the organization was formalized right around the turn of the century. It got a few tweaks in the 30's, but essentialy what we have today goes back only a hundred years or so.

What the hell does that have to do with municipal police forces?

Can you show me what law that states this? Because we both know that their is none now please stop preaching this line of BS.

Why would I waste time arguing with someone who hasn't mastered 4th-grade spelling?

and would rather take the easy way out by dismissing his argument based solely on his poor grammar.

I stand by the comments I've made in this thread, just as they are.

And by the way, the word is "because," not "cause." Your statement should read: "I'm guessing, because you don't have an answer to his query, that you would rather take the easy way out by dismissing his argument, based solely on his poor grammar." See? Even though it's still a completely erroneous statement, at least it makes sense, now.
You're welcome.

I hope you guys handle loaded weapons with more care than you do the English language.......

Thanks for the English lesson! Now, to the subject at hand!

You said:



While that sounds nice, you were asked to provide some sort of legal statute in any jurisdiction that calls for government to do just that "protect citizens against crime". It would be easier to take your position more seriously if you could actually do that, instead of just pointing out speling and grammar erros!

There is, however, lots of legal precedent that the opposite is true that in fact...well, I'll let the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's words speak for themselves:



See also the decisions in:

• Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
  
• Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
  
• Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
  
• Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
  
• Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
  
• Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
  
• Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
  
• Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
  
• Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
  
• Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
  
• Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and
  
• Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

And you also said:


I don't presume to answer for Jody, I bet they can answer for themselves, but I haven't seen anyone calling for a disbanding of police forces.

Myself, I don't feel a need that we need to have "everybody arm themselves" just those who wish to do so. Since, as the various courts in the various states have said time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the government/police are under no duty to protect you. So if the government is under no duty to protect you then an individual should have options open to them to protect themselves, including the ability to posses and carry firearms.

I for one don't understand how wanting to be able to legally posses the tools of self defense (which are not limited to firearms) is "gun radical wishful thinking". Seems to me, being the government has no obligation to protect me, that its common sense that I protect myself. I guess one persons common sense is another's "gun radical wishful thinking".

I look forward to your spelling and grammar corrections! I even left a few in on purpose, along with the naturally occurring ones, for you to pick out and fix! See if you can tell me the ones I left on purpose, and the ones that exist from my clumsy use of the English language!

....I've confirmed in all my years of pissing away time here in the Gun Dungeon that there is no relationship between the mental stability of gun militants and their ability to compose well-structured, grammatically correct statements. Indeed, some of the most clearly deranged, off-their-meds gun rights advocates have shown themselves capable of producing posts of flawless, if unpersuasive, quality in this forum.

As for the government's duty to protect its citizens, I think I covered it pretty well in my original post no. 6. Any government worthy of the name has an obvious duty to protect its citizens; what is not required, nor possible, is a 100% success rate in rendering such protection, and in most circumstances, no legal liability attaches for failing to attain such absolute perfection. Governmental avoidance of legal liability is the critical factor here, but if you want to use this as an excuse to buy a few more guns, I'm sure you'll manage to find a big supply of them from which to choose, things being as they are......

I have never needed a firearm, a seatbelt, or a roadflare.

I still have all three though.

It is the governments job to protect you, but also some of that responsibility is on you. You can do things to make yourself safer in most situations other times you have no control over it.

“A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

Go the link I gave in the original post above and read the case. SCOTUS said governments are not required to protect you unless they have you in custody. The bottom line is it's 100% your responsibility to protect yourself.

If you choose not to, that's your decision and OK with me but, don't expect government or me to do your job. :shrug:

with a vague question as to whether a govt owes a Constitutional duty to protect citizens from crime, whether or not that idea is written into the Constitution or can be implied (like a right to privacy).

I like the tort line of cases better, which ask the Q: Does the government have a general enforceable obligation under established legal principles and traditions to protect individual citizens from harm? The answer is "no - too bad, so sad."

But's that just my preference . . .

To protect individuals under either due process or tort law?

Unless there was some sort of "special relationship" between the citizen and the government.

Example #1: government has to protect prisoners in its custody

Example #2: government, once it assignes specific police protection to a politician, has to maintain the adequecy of that protection during the period of assignment. Same if protecting a specific individual (i.e., important witness just before a trial)

The government isn't obligated to get me to work ... and yet I'm not sure that this entitles me to drive to work at 150 mph ...

Oh yes, that's right. There are people hereabouts who don't understand analogies.

Does the fact that the government is not obligated to do something for me mean that I get to do it any which way I please?

I don't thiiiink so.

That was a very poor analogy. I'm sure you can do better. As an aside, the government isn't even required to find work for you. Good thing, isn't it? Self protection is not analagous to driving in any way, no matter what folks on both sides of the issue claim. Frankly, one would be baffled by reading your post, as it does not address the question in any coherent way. First, there is a poor analogy, then you make a statement that doesn't even attempt to answer the question. I'd like to see you try again.



I don't thiiiink so.
You took the words right off of my screen.

FYI, the question that you didn't answer is:
"Are governments obligated to protect individuals against crime?"


The question that wasn't asked, but you decided to rhetorically answer in a preemptive manner in a way similar to George Bush's preemptive waging of illegal war (see, a much better analogy) must have been a grand one indeed, yet we're still looking for it, just like George is still looking for those mysterious WMDs.

TTFN

"Are governments obligated to protect individuals against crime?"

Are governments obligated to protect individuals against the measles?

Are governments obligated to make it rain on Wednesdays?

The fact that someone chooses to string a few words together and stick a question mark at the end does not mean that s/he has created a meaningful question.

No one is "obligated" to do THE IMPOSSIBLE. The question of whether anyone IS obligated to do the impossible is simply a bunch of words strung together with a question mark at the end, and is MEANINGLESS.

You won't tell me whether orange is true or false, and I won't answer this stupid "question".

It is IMPOSSIBLE to "protect individuals against crime" -- that is, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE, including the individuals in question, to "protect" anyone, including themselves, "against crime".

The person who shoots the gun-wielding intruder in his/her home has NOT "protected" him/herself "against crime". The crime was COMMITTED; the individual broke into the home and shot someone. The firearm in the possession of the householder did NOT "protect" him/her "against crime".

"The government", a very particular way of characterizing what is in fact a society, acting through the people and bodies it has chosen to act on its behalf in certain matters, does have certain responsibilities.

Those responsibilities do not derive from some "law", as postulated in post 18: Can you show me what law that states this? Because we both know that their is none. That's another, quite egregious, example of asking the wrong question.

Those responsibilities derive from the very nature of a society organized as a state, and of the relationship between the society/state and its individual members. In highly developed and organized societies/states, that relationship (among other things) is often expressed in a constitution:

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The state thus has both responsibilities and powers, assigned to it by "the people".

The state has a responsibility to provide "the people" with conditions in which they can exercise their rights and freedoms, to the extent that the people gives the state the powers and resources to do that. The people cannot demand anything of the state that it does not give it the power and/or resources to do, obviously.

The people cannot demand that the state make it rain on Wednesday, no matter how much rain on Wednesday would "promote the general welfare", because the people cannot give the state the power to do that, or if it could (if there is such a power), it cannot yet give it the resources to do that.

The people cannot demand that the state preserve all individuals' lives, because the people has not given the state the power (were there such a power) or the resources to do so -- even though each individual has a right to life. The people also cannot demand that the state preserve all individuals' property in their possession, for the same reasons.

But the people can -- if it is willing to grant the power and resources -- demand that the state do certain things to enable individuals to preserve their own lives and property. Like empower the state to require that property-owners place handrails on staircases used by the public, and provide the state with resources to enable it to provide health care to individuals.

The people can also empower the state to enforce limitations on the things that individuals do in the exercise of their rights and freedoms. They can empower the state to prohibit the advertising of snake oil to cure cancer, even though such advertising is an exercise of freedom of speech. They can empower the state to prohibit the killing of willing individuals in religious rituals, even though such sacrifices are an exercise of freedom of religion.

A highly developed (in our terms) society makes rules for what "the people" may permit the state to do or prohibit the state from doing, that the people agree to abide by. Such rules generally protect individuals from what the people have agreed are outrageous and unjustified limitations on exercises of rights and freedoms, and protect members of minorities from unequal treatment by both the state and individuals in certain contexts.

The state, meaning the bodies with the authority that the people has assigned for the purpose, may prohibit me from driving at 150 km/h on downtown streets, even if the state does not provide me with some other way of getting where I'm going in time so that I don't lose my job.
The state may prohibit me from advertising snake oil to cure cancer, even if the state does not provide me with an alternative way of feeding my children.
The state may prohibit me from sacrificing another person to my god, even if the state does not provide me with the million dollars I would otherwise need to buy my eternal salvation.
The state may prohibit me from spray-painting "Vote Kerry" on a bus shelter, even if the state does not provide me with a megaphone to express my political opinion to the public.
The state may prohibit me from holding a demonstration against the WTO in the airport terminal, even if the state does not provide me with someplace else to do it.

The state, on behalf of the people who chose the individuals and bodies through whom it acts, really may make and enforce rules that interfere in how individuals exercise their rights and freedoms -- and the state really does not have to guarantee that the individuals will be able to exercise their rights and freedoms some other way.

Opinions within "the people" as to how much, or how little, the state should do to limit the exercise of individual rights and freedoms, in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to it in order to create conditions in which individuals are able to exercise those rights and freedoms as fully as possible, will vary. Duh.

But the state has no more responsibility (let alone ability) to guarantee the exercise of anyone's right to life than it has to guarantee the exercise of anyone's right to grow tomatoes to feed his/her family.

I don't claim to be entitled to water my garden during a drought when the municipality has determined this to be an unwarranted danger to the drinking water supply. And I don't claim to be entitled to cart a handgun around in my pocket when my country has determined this to constitute an unwarranted danger to the safety of the public.

And I would no more be yammering about being entitled to do what I please because the state has not agreed to guarantee that no one will try to kill me than I would because the state has not agreed to guarantee that my family will not starve to death.

And obviously, I see the likelihood of somebody killing me because I didn't have a handgun in my pocket to be about as high as my family starving to death because I didn't water my tomatoes ... or some god condemning me to eternal hellfire because I didn't sacrifice my neighbour's first-born.

And, I'm sure just as obviously, I see anybody claiming to be afraid of being killed if s/he doesn't have a handgun in his/her pocket at all times to be about as dim ... or disingenuous ... as anybody who claimed to be afraid of seeing that hellfire if s/he didn't sacrifice the neighbour's kid.

"Are governments obligated to protect individuals against crime?"

What colour *is* orange, anyhow -- true, or false?

You may now feel free to whine at length, or in brief, about the length and/or irrelevance of the answer you demanded, and have now got, to a meaningless bunch of words strung together with punctuation at the end.

Heroism may cost the county
Deputies running into fire could be a safety violation
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
BY AMALIE NASH
News Staff Reporter

A state agency is investigating whether workplace safety regulations were violated when three Washtenaw County Sheriff's deputies rushed into a burning apartment building last fall and pulled residents to safety.

Sheriff Daniel Minzey said he was shocked to learn that someone had filed an anonymous complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration after his three deputies received two awards for efforts labeled as heroic and life-saving.

"I'm proud of them," Minzey said. "They faced a dangerous situation and had to make a decision. They decided to do something to try to save a life. Now they're being investigated as if they did something wrong."


http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1108482006253820.xml

Andrew

Kepp in mind at this point it's just an investigation - if MIOSHA is anything like the Fed OSHA, they *have* to investigate when a complaint is filed, regardless of merit. I'd bet $20 that they find the officers did nothing wrong, or at the least, while they may have techically violated the rules, exigent circumstances absolve the department of any guilt.

Interesting snippet from the article: "Sheriff's Cmdr. Dave Egeler said he has strong reason to believe the complaint was filed by someone associated with the Ypsilanti Township Fire Department." Interdepartmental pissing contest...