Are the Police Responsible for our protection? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Are the Police Responsible for our protection?

  1. #11
    Independence and self-reliance is a practice, much like common sense, that liberals would rather see altogether be made extinct!

    Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
    by Peter Kasler

    Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!

    All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten-class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.

    Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
    Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well! Psalm 144 (msg)
    ...follow me at

  3. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewaynelson View Post
    Independence and self-reliance is a practice, much like common sense, that liberals would rather see altogether be made extinct!
    You really mean to say the anti-2A people, right?

  4. #13
    All I have to say is that when you really need them their not there. I have been in my car countless times when some idiot decides to do something stupid and where are the police at??? No where to be seen. So as said before........carry and protect you and your own because no one else will do it for ya.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post

    ... You really mean to say the anti-2A people, right?
    I guess IT DOES depend on the definition of liberal. My use of the term was not to be confused with the definition of 200 years ago that would have reflected the views of men like Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton… views that resulted in the American revolution and the birth of this great Nation.

    The modern use of the word “liberal” has been hijacked by folks whose policies and ideas almost always result in restricting American liberties and freedoms—including the attempt to limit (and ultimately revoke) the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

    Folks like the 8 Republicans who helped pass the colossally ignorant Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey) legislation through the House on Friday! The same 8 who consistently vote for a liberal agenda—the aim of which is never about protecting liberty or defending the constitution they all swore an oath to defend!
    Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well! Psalm 144 (msg)
    ...follow me at

  6. I wish I could remember where I read it. It's good and the author does deserve credit.

    Police are out for Justice. They access situations after the fact. They are not there to protect you, but they are their to (try) to bring the ones responsible for committing a crime to justice. Therefore their act is by default "vengeance". So no - they are not there to protect you. They can't be.

    Self defense is the responsibility of the citizen.

    But then, when the LEOs do take a criminal into arrest, you then have to worry about the judicial system setting them free.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    East of Cleveland.... FAR East !
    If you would care for an eye opening read about what the police really are there for, read "Dial 911 & Die" by Richard W. Stevens. It cites laws for each state and gives examples of true situations. In short, the police have no duty to protect you. It is up to yourself, which we already know.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". ~George Orwell / Rudyard Kipling

  8. #17
    The fact that the police are NOT there to protect you is settled law, having been decided in almost every state and up to the Supreme Court.

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
    A California case even went so far as to say that a municipality was under no legal obligation to even provide police services.

    Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)
    Kansas law prevents a citizen from suing the government for negligently failing to provide either police or fire protection.

    "As a federal appeals court bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (Bowers v. DeVito, 686F. 2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982))
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results.
    Albert Einstein

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Tampa Bay Area
    A retired cop once told me this:

    Police = Armed Historian

    Atleast that's how he felt a lot of the time. He said the vast majority of the time he showed up AFTER the crime had been committed and the perp was gone. He'd take a report and then try to find said perp.

    The police have a tough job and can not be everywhere all the time. I know several and they work hard but there is only one person I know will be there 100% of the time..... Me.
    "When Government fears the people, it's liberty. When people fear the Government, it's tyranny."
    - Benjamin Franklin

  10. #19
    Though the letters on the car may read "to serve and protect" - the police don't have that obligation, in part because it's impossible and also for the liability/law suit reasons. (This country is already broke!) I see the police - at least in a general sense, and not specific incidents of rogue cops tasering grandma's and pastors, or choking out EMT's etc etc. - as "avengers" and not "protectors." Ideally, they'd be objective and fair and wise in their capacity. Reality is what it is.

    However, in light of this fact of American law, the true horror of socialists like our president and his administration is revealed. They will insist the 2nd amendment is an out-dated concept, no longer necessary and never intended to apply to the individual. Yet, the federal courts maintain again and again the state has NO DUTY to protect citizens - which means excatly what the founding father's intended: the PEOPLE must maintain the right and ability to do for themselves what the gov't cannot.

    WHY do these fools insist on disarming the American people, while smiling and declaring their intentions are for the good of all... kinda like Hilter and the 'camps.' Scary stuff man. Scary stuff.
    "There is no consitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (7th Cir. 1982, Bowers v. DeVito)Stay safe, and stay

  11. #20
    Those of you that take this time to hate on cops, next time you need help you should call a crackhead.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts