SWGA Politics

Why it’s not up to the police to protect you

We live in troubled times with troubled people. In a post yesterday, I spoke briefly on who’s fault our crime problem is, and that I believe the blame doesn’t rest on law enforcement’s shoulders. There were some great comments, but I thought it was important to delve into why it’s not up to the police to protect you.

Obviously, many disagree. Yes, as a Libertarian, we are known for individualist positions and minimize the state’s role in just about anything. It’s easy to blow of my opinion as that of someone who wants less government overall. It’s also easy to blow off the comments of police when they tell you that they can’t, since obviously they’re to busy eating doughnuts instead of preventing crime, right?

Well, how about the court system?

One of the best known examples is Warren v. District of Columbia, where three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for not responding to repeated calls for help. After a break in at a home occupied by three women, the assailants attacked one of the roommates while the other two hid upstairs. They repeatedly called police for help, and when they heard their roommate stop screaming, they assumed that help had finally arrived and went downstairs.

They assumed wrong.

Over 14 hours they were forced to do whatever their attackers wanted with no help from the police.

The DC Court of Appeals maintained that it is a “fundamental principle 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”. This isn’t the only case where this was found to be the case.

Linda Riss begged the police for help from an ex-boyfriend who decided that if he couldn’t have her, then no one would. He through lye in her face, causing blindness in one eye and extensive damage in another as well as scarring on her face. New York City has long been a “gun free” zone, and this is where Linda lived forcing her to protect herself. However, the Court said otherwise.

If Appeals Courts aren’t enough, then look at the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County. In DeShanney, a minor boy who was being abused by his own father had been told by police that they would protect him, failed to do so. The mother sued, arguing that police knew of the circumstances and failed to act. The case went before the Supreme Court. However, again the court stated that it wasn’t the obligation of the state to protect you. In fact, one of the more amusing quotes is:

A little boy in the legal custody of an abusive father is able to protect himself and is free to act on his own behalf, even though he is a minor and is not of legal age to act on his own behalf.

And one that sums everything up just as I’ve been saying:

The word or assurances of a government official, including those of a police officer, mean nothing, because this court has decided that the giving of that word or those assurances in no way obligates a government official to keep his or her word or assurances.

A minor child was supposed to protect himself, according the the Supreme Court. Now, if you think that the police are obligated to protect you, think about the fact that a small child was supposed to be responsible for his own protection from an abusive parent. But oh yeah, you’re case is different.

With our post earlier today about a possible ramp up in gang violence, it’s important to remember that only you can keep you safe. I urge you to keep a weapon close at hand. Calling 9-1-1 is only the first step.