Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,834 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,689,354
Pageviews Today: 2,389,706Threads Today: 532Posts Today: 10,921
05:01 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you

 
concerned
User ID: 6545575
United States
12/19/2012 06:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
article was originally published in the United States Department of the Interior's "SERO ROLL CALL" Bulletin, March 14, 2007, Vol. 85-07.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the constitution is not a source of any affirmative obligation on the state or its subdivisions to protect its citizens. Since "the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them."

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." - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

There are many similar cases with same results.

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958);
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
Davidson v. City of Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
Westbrooks v. State, (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332
Bowers v. DeVito, (1982) 686 F.2d 616. (No federal constitutional requirements that police provide protection.)
Calgorides v. Mobile, (1985) 475 So.2d 560.
Davidson v. Westminister, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rep. 252.
Stone v. State, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 924, 165 Cal.Rep. 339.
Morgan v. District of Columbia, (1983) 468 A.2d 1306.
Warren v. District of Columbia, (1983) 444 A.2d 1.
Sapp v. Tallahassee, (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert. denied 354 So.2d 985.
Keane v. Chicago, (1968) 98 ILL.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321.
Jamison v. Chicago, (1977) 48 ILL.App.3d 567.
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871.
Silver v. Minneapolis, (1969) 170 N.W.2d 206.
Wuetrich v. Delia, (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929.
Chapman v. Philadelphia, (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753.
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937.
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority, (1982) 55 N.Y. 2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196, 197 (1989).

someone get an original and verify


full article here:
[link to www.frfrogspad.com]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 6545575
United States
12/19/2012 06:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
2nd Amendment appears to be pretty important since the police are not required to protect you.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 6545575
United States
12/19/2012 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
does everyone know this already?????
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27889364
United States
12/19/2012 07:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
heard this before,yet they force you to pay for it thru taxation.don,t pay your taxes they will fucking show up and seize your property tho.this whole being a citizen thing sure ain't working out too well
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 6545575
United States
12/19/2012 08:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
I guess that who "protect and serve" on the side of the car should have an asterisk after the "serve" with a paragraph in small print under it defining exactly what services they provide.

I have friends that are police officers that I need to run these court cases by them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/19/2012 08:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
Ban the US Dept of Interior.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30244563
United States
12/19/2012 08:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: United States Department of the Interior - Police not legally obligated to protect you
I guess that who "protect and serve" on the side of the car should have an asterisk after the "serve" with a paragraph in small print under it defining exactly what services they provide.

I have friends that are police officers that I need to run these court cases by them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6545575


"Protect and serve" is a red herring that actually refers to the BANKERS. The police protect and serve them.

Don't bother running any court case by any cop friends. They are chosen for their low intelligence. I know because I had a friend who was rejected for being "too smart" and I don't consider him to be very intelligent :\

News