In New York The Police Have No Obligation To Protect The Citizens!!!!

[Punch The Clown]

In New York State, the police have no duty to provide police protection to any particular individual. The Courts in New York have held that "generally, a municipality may not be held liable for the failure to provide police protection because the duty to provide such protection is owed to the public at large, rather than to any particular individual" (Conde v. City of New York, 24 AD3d 595, 596 [2005]; see Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]).

Now, check this out!!!!


Castle Doctrine

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.


So, some douche breaks into your house and you can't do a thing to him unless he rapes your wife and kills your children first. There is something very wrong with the people in this state. We must find a cure for democrats and liberals before they kill us all!

[timshufflin]

There is a cure, bone cancer. I just can't seem to put together the right voodoo curse.

[seaninmich]

That is the case everywhere in the country (that I know of). About 10 years ago I was told this and didn't believe it so, as i always do, I dig a lot of reading. Turns out law enforcement has no legal obligation to prevent crime. There have been several law suits and all rulings went this way. All the cops do is put up yellow tape so the crowd doesn't get in the coroner's way.

[Eli]

Yeah, cops have NO legal duty to protect anybody per repeated SCOTUS rulings.

Eli

[Roadkingtrax]

Protect and Serve the laws, not you.

[REHRIFLE]

Someone breaking into your house makes them the initial agressor. Shoot them.

A few years ago, Texas changed its castle doctrine and “stand your ground” laws for the better. Since then, there have been many instances, even by Texas standards, that citizens are fighting back and literally pulling the trigger.

I'm a state's right guy. If you don't like the laws of the state you currently reside, move to one with people that share the same ideas and standards.

[timshufflin]

I'm a state's right guy. If you don't like the laws of the state you currently reside, move to one with people that share the same ideas and standards.

You mean do what the Founder's said? How old fashioned.

[canes7]

Warren v. District of Columbia, circa 1981.

The courts ruled the fundamental principal of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

I know you believe me, but look it up anyway. Read about the incident that led up to this case. You'll puke.

[timshufflin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[seaninmich]

Warren v. District of Columbia, circa 1981.

The courts ruled the fundamental principal of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

I know you believe me, but look it up anyway. Read about the incident that led up to this case. You'll puke.



THAT'S the story that I heard that got me to look into the whole thing. It was in magazine I read at deer camp - so it was either Playboy/Penthouse or Field and Stream

[deputy85]

Lest you think the old rumor''cops will not get in a hurry to a shots fired or robbery in progress is just a rumor''it isnt'' only ones that get in a hurry are the new young hotshots the old seasoned ones will wait or try to wait till the threat is over,, the Liability the reports for using the duty weapon '' the potential biased broadcasting of video taken by some stupid person with a camera and sold to the local news channel,,,arent worth the risk,,

[paid4c4]

That New York court ruling should be appealed to the USSC seeking protection under the Fourteenth Amendment for "Equal Protection" under the law. Dep hit it on the head regarding about getting to the shots fired calls in a hurry. Most cops get so tired of all the routine activity like tickets, accident reports, incident reports that the chance to do "real police work" gets most cops excited and ready to go. We all knew the cops who hung back and were slow to roll on the call because of cowardice mostly and they lead a rough life after the event. When I was a young trooper we ran two man cars so the passenger rolled out with the shotgun which was in an upright vertical rack near the hump and the driver had their service revolver. I carried a Colt Python, we were ready for what ever came at us, ah those were the days as there were no video cams!
Bill

PS: In a more recent time it was judged that "man" needed to include "woman" and the vertical shotguns had to be placed in the trunk because certain minority populations found the shotguns to be "intimidating" and caused fear. The Python was replaced with a mandatory carry weapon which could only be .38 caliber because certain minority populations found the more powerful ammo/guns to be "intimidating" and caused fear. Then everyone was issued video cams and well read Deputy's comments. Along with the above came the Department of Justice to persecute/prosecute the police and came up with Collaborative Agreements like Cincinnati, Ohio signed. Basically says cops were to become Radio Patrolman which means cops answer their radios to calls, make the needed reports and do absolutely no self initiated activity or criminal deterrence. The result for Cincinnati is they're killing or shooting at least one per day usually two or three on a weekend. Hey Mike (Dep) retirement is good.

[canes7]

THAT'S the story that I heard that got me to look into the whole thing. It was in magazine I read at deer camp - so it was either Playboy/Penthouse or Field and Stream

I think it was Big 'uns....:)

[Prince Humperdink]

I think it was Big 'uns....:)

Al Bundy would be proud! ;)

[KnickKnack]

The Police exist primarily to investigate incidents after the fact. What Deputy said is absolutely true. In my 34 years working as a 9-1-1 police dispatcher, the patrol veterans were in no hurry to get into any altercation that didn't already involve another police officer. They routinely sat in their cars outside of bar fights and the like, waiting til the noise quieted down before making any attempt at entering. In fact, when the younger, more aggressive cops did wade into fights, especially where dozens of people were present, the situations were usually escalated until several more cops arrived.

I find it remarkable that even with hundreds of vehicle and traffic laws on the books, easily 80% of what a patrol officer does is related to motor vehicles. More summons are written for traffic law violations and more arrests made for motor vehicle related incidents then any other type of arrest. More motor vehicle accident reports are written then any other type of report. Less than one percent of the incidents that a police officer is called to involve some type of firearm. There are so many violations of motor vehicle laws that there are separate courts just to handle the case loads. Virtually no driver on the road has not violated one of the vehicle laws on the books, even if was something as simple as not fully stopping at a stop sign or not signaling a lane change. Yet, there is no call to ban certain types of cars, decrease the top speed they can travel at, or limit the amount of gasoline you can put in your tank. Even though the Government takes in money on fines from violations, it spends far more on police overtime salaries and court costs. So why aren't we focusing on solving that everyday problem, instead of solving a comparatively minor problem of some loony using a gun every few days? Vehicle crashes have become so common that the News doesn't even care about them any more. But a shooting is so rare that it becomes big news. The logic is all backward.

[KnickKnack]

That New York court ruling should be appealed to the USSC seeking protection under the Fourteenth Amendment for "Equal Protection" under the law. Dep hit it on the head regarding about getting to the shots fired calls in a hurry. Most cops get so tired of all the routine activity like tickets, accident reports, incident reports that the chance to do "real police work" gets most cops excited and ready to go. We all knew the cops who hung back and were slow to roll on the call because of cowardice mostly and they lead a rough life after the event. When I was a young trooper we ran two man cars so the passenger rolled out with the shotgun which was in an upright vertical rack near the hump and the driver had their service revolver. I carried a Colt Python, we were ready for what ever came at us, ah those were the days as there were no video cams!
Bill

PS: In a more recent time it was judged that "man" needed to include "woman" and the vertical shotguns had to be placed in the trunk because certain minority populations found the shotguns to be "intimidating" and caused fear. The Python was replaced with a mandatory carry weapon which could only be .38 caliber because certain minority populations found the more powerful ammo/guns to be "intimidating" and caused fear. Then everyone was issued video cams and well read Deputy's comments. Along with the above came the Department of Justice to persecute/prosecute the police and came up with Collaborative Agreements like Cincinnati, Ohio signed. Basically says cops were to become Radio Patrolman which means cops answer their radios to calls, make the needed reports and do absolutely no self initiated activity or criminal deterrence. The result for Cincinnati is they're killing or shooting at least one per day usually two or three on a weekend. Hey Mike (Dep) retirement is good.

The Police Chief in Sandy Hook stated that the shooter had more firepower than his officers did. So who's fault is that? If you refuse to give the workers the tools that they need to complete the job, the job will never be completed effectively. But what I also found odd in his statement was the News videos clearly showed armored vehicles with heavily armed para-military police officers hanging off of them responding to the school. So what's the real story?

[seaninmich]

I find it remarkable that even with hundreds of vehicle and traffic laws on the books, easily 80% of what a patrol officer does is related to motor vehicles. More summons are written for traffic law violations and more arrests made for motor vehicle related incidents then any other type of arrest. More motor vehicle accident reports are written then any other type of report. .

why would you find that remarkable? cops exist for one reason - TO GENERATE MONEY. What's the best way to do that? write traffic tickets.

This is all very simple. Their purpose is NOT to get everyone to stop speeding, running red lights, and rolling through stop signs. They WANT people to do these things. If they don't, there is no money. Their purpose is NOT to stop murderers, rapists, and burglars, They WANT these types to continue. Without these criminals, there is no fear - and no need for UNIONIZED police.

[KnickKnack]

My point was that I find it remarkable that there is no huge outcry about automobiles, when so many people are breaking the laws with them, and they cause far more injuries and deaths then guns. Yet they go after our guns and not our cars. But then, we have become a Country that also allows the murder of approximately 1 million children per year, simply because their mothers aren't resposible enough to avoid getting pregnant. The only difference between Germany of the 1930's and the current United States is that there was a Country big enough and strong enough to come to the aid of Europe and stop the Nazis. No one is coming to our aid or stopping anything.

[timshufflin]

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), which is part of the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights), was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-1) The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) by providing that powers not granted to the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state), are reserved to the States or the people.

Perhaps now, we can see why the 10th amendment is what it says it is. If some question comes up, and that question is not covered in the Constitution, that question is to be decided by the States or the People. The 2nd amendment is clear, we cannot just vote for people to represent us at the federal level and get rid of the 2nd amendment without amending the Constitution.

Why is this relevant, the 10th? Because some here have argued that even though things like welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid... are NOT in the Constitution as federal jurisdiction, that "the people" can make these things federal matters simply by voting for representatives who will then cast votes to make them so at the federal level. This can NOT be done. The cannot be done any more than "the people" can vote for representatives, who will make federal law outlawing the 2nd amendment or to all religion. You must amend the Constitution if you want to change it.