Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
brightnorm said:
[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
... it might surprise some people, but there have been actual court cases where the courts said police have absolutely no legal obligaiton to respond to calls for help.
For example:
...Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying 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..."
...and that's why I carry a gun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tomas,
That is a shocker; I had no idea. So the police have an obligation to provide such services to the public in general, but not to specific citizens just because they ask for it? Is that a correct interpretation.
Brightnorm
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is correct. Police have no obligation to protect citizens as individuals, just society as a whole. This actually has a valid reason though. Imagine the millions of lawsuits agaisnt every L.E. agency in the country. Every time some moron left his car unlocked and has his stereo stolen he'd be suing the local PD. But it does go to show that in reality you are on your own.
The only problems I have with testing requirments are that first it might put it out of reach of those who don't have a lot of money, and unfortunately, those are often the ones who need it most. Second, it's another control and once people get used to one restriction, it's easier to get another, then another, then another.
Some of the restricions pissed me off. I moved to Virginia after making the mistake of living in DC, instead of Maryland for it's easy to get concealed handgun license. Actually let's use me as an example about some of what I hate about those who want these restrictive controls. I carried a gun to protect this country (and now state), my security clearance jsut expired this year, and the only reason I can't renew it is that my unit doesn't think it's necessary so they don't want to spend the money, I was an armed security officer in Virginia (requiring both state, and federal background checks, I had to pass a NCIS check to start training at my security job at the Customs Data Center, and had to complete a background check going back 7 years to include having neighbors, bosses, co-workers, friends, etc, and a credit check. One of the background invistigators said he checked us out more than the actual employees (everyone had to do the same check who worked in that building) because we had total access and were armed. I also did some part time work armed for another company at various places. I was good enough to protect the goverment, and whoever had enough money to hire their own security (almost private police since VA armed guards have arrest authority on site, while on duty almost the same as cops). BUT I many say that I'm not trustworthy enough to protect my self or my wife. Screw them.
brightnorm said:
[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
... it might surprise some people, but there have been actual court cases where the courts said police have absolutely no legal obligaiton to respond to calls for help.
For example:
...Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying 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..."
...and that's why I carry a gun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tomas,
That is a shocker; I had no idea. So the police have an obligation to provide such services to the public in general, but not to specific citizens just because they ask for it? Is that a correct interpretation.
Brightnorm
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is correct. Police have no obligation to protect citizens as individuals, just society as a whole. This actually has a valid reason though. Imagine the millions of lawsuits agaisnt every L.E. agency in the country. Every time some moron left his car unlocked and has his stereo stolen he'd be suing the local PD. But it does go to show that in reality you are on your own.
The only problems I have with testing requirments are that first it might put it out of reach of those who don't have a lot of money, and unfortunately, those are often the ones who need it most. Second, it's another control and once people get used to one restriction, it's easier to get another, then another, then another.
Some of the restricions pissed me off. I moved to Virginia after making the mistake of living in DC, instead of Maryland for it's easy to get concealed handgun license. Actually let's use me as an example about some of what I hate about those who want these restrictive controls. I carried a gun to protect this country (and now state), my security clearance jsut expired this year, and the only reason I can't renew it is that my unit doesn't think it's necessary so they don't want to spend the money, I was an armed security officer in Virginia (requiring both state, and federal background checks, I had to pass a NCIS check to start training at my security job at the Customs Data Center, and had to complete a background check going back 7 years to include having neighbors, bosses, co-workers, friends, etc, and a credit check. One of the background invistigators said he checked us out more than the actual employees (everyone had to do the same check who worked in that building) because we had total access and were armed. I also did some part time work armed for another company at various places. I was good enough to protect the goverment, and whoever had enough money to hire their own security (almost private police since VA armed guards have arrest authority on site, while on duty almost the same as cops). BUT I many say that I'm not trustworthy enough to protect my self or my wife. Screw them.
