Are the Police Responsible for our protection?

[SubHntr]

Have you ever wondered whether the police are there to protect you? If you say "Yes, That's what they're for." then maybe you need to read this. You may want to pass it around to your friends that think along this line as well. I use it with the GC crowd and it seems to stop them cold.


Cops Can't Protect You

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
—Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989

“...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...”
—Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


Jim

[Scarecrow]

all the more reason to live in a state where you have rights to bare arms and protect yourself.

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

all the more reason to live in a state where you have rights to bare arms and protect yourself.

Exactly. What is really bad is the states and cities that infringe on our 2nd amendment rights are most of the time the ones that have the worst crime and you are at the mercy of the criminals. So the police have no responsibility to protect you and you have no right to protect yourself.

[whiskey]

NO. They are not.

[mom of 3 angels]

Very good read, thank you. I absolutely agree, cops are too heavy to carry around with me anyway and then I'd have to get a bigger car, feed them, etc. Much better to carry a firearm and take care of myself as much as possible. :)

In all seriousness, these cases show the fallacy in the entitlement way of thinking. I deserve protection, but it is not my responsibility to protect myself. I deserve food shelter etc, but it is not my responsibility to do my best to provide for myself. I'm fine having others provide for me, but will be certain to complain of the injustices when it's not being done how I think it should be done.
"How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?"

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by mom of 3 angels

Very good read, thank you. I absolutely agree, cops are too heavy to carry around with me anyway and then I'd have to get a bigger car, feed them, etc. Much better to carry a firearm and take care of myself as much as possible. :)

In all seriousness, these cases show the fallacy in the entitlement way of thinking. I deserve protection, but it is not my responsibility to protect myself. I deserve food shelter etc, but it is not my responsibility to do my best to provide for myself. I'm fine having others provide for me, but will be certain to complain of the injustices when it's not being done how I think it should be done.
"How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?"

+1. Very good points mom. Thanks for posting.:joia:

[NDS]

Originally Posted by SubHntr

Are the Police Responsible...

they are irresponsible


Police are something a sane society cannot afford.

[Hoplites1234]

The Po-lice are only responsible for keeping the donut shops in business.

[kwo51]

Supreme court rule years ago that they were hear to clean up.In the case of where I live it would take 10 to 15 min. to respond. better to call fire dept. responce time 5 min. Hell I'm not running to a gun fight either. Damn sure will run from one.

[toreskha]

Well...sort of - but mostly not. :hmhm:

Law enforcement is a human institution, and police are only human, so they're not going to perform miracles. Obviously there's so much going on at any one time that there's not enough police to handle it all, without having a police state (which is the manifestation of an attempt to stop all social disorder). The cops are reasonably ok at stopping crime that they witness, and at providing a certain degree of "law abiding" mindset among those who might break the law if it weren't for the possibility of a LEO around. That's more of a psychological thing than anything else, but it's fairly effective. Also, they tend to be very good at creating a somewhat formalized framework for handling stuff, which prevents vigilantism and lessens the severity of feuds. Citizen activism is great, but mob justice is awful.

As far as actual crime goes, the thing police are probably most effective at handling three general types of situations:

- Instances where members of a public have witnessed a crime and the criminal is either still there, or is still committing the act. This is domestic violence, random drunken brawls, and so on. They mostly do this, and tend to engage in a certain amount of mediation to keep things from getting too heated.

- Acting as the direct enforcement hammer of the state, cracking down on crimes that run contrary to government policy. This means stopping riots, ending hostage situations, busting crack houses, etc. Also, solving serious crimes such as murders and bank robberies, which tend to be high-profile and erode confidence in society.

- Making sure things don't explode during large-scale emergencies; directing traffic during power outages, arresting looters, etc.

Police will not guarantee your personal protection, as they're not your private security detail. That's your own job, unless you can afford to hire someone.