Examining Police

South v. Maryland

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)

Where, in an action upon a sheriff's bond, the declaration did not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which the real plaintiff was personally interested, but with a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob, the declaration did not set forth a sufficient cause of action against the sheriff and his sureties.
[...]
The breach alleged is, in substance,
"that while Pottle was engaged about his lawful business, certain evil-disposed persons came about him, hindered and prevented him, threatened his life, with force of arms demanded of him a large sum of money, and imprisoned and detained him for the space of four days, and until he paid them the sum of $2,500 for his enlargement."

That South, the sheriff, being present, the plaintiff, Pottle, applied to him for protection and requested him to keep the peace of the State of Maryland, he, the said sheriff, having power and authority so to do. That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.
[...]
The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.
Justia

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. (Available at the Justia link.) The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. There was no police assistance or protection given.

When the criminals found out that there were two more women in the house they then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to one of the criminals' apartment. For fourteen hours three women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of two rapists.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)

Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
[...]
After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.
[...]
In either case, it is easy to condemn the failings of the police. However, the desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. In neither of these cases has a relationship been alleged beyond that found in general police responses to crimes. Civil liability fails as a matter of law.
[...]
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.
Justia

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago

The father beat a 4-year-old so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
Justia

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The mother called the police when her children were noticed missing from the yard outside the home. After police were notified that the father had the daughters without permission contrary to a court order of reasonable notice to the mother the children were found inside the cab of the father's pickup truck dead, murdered by the father. 

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)

We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
Justia

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law

California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

Given this information, why does the criminal syndicate called government want to control gun ownership?

The criminal syndicate called government will use any excuse to take your guns away from you.

Police Funding

The dictionary definition states that the people called the police are government employees.

I will point out that these government employees are paid by the government out of government funds.

Where do these government funds come from? From you of course. These funds are collected from you under Threat, Duress, and Coercion. Whether by so called taxation or by so called traffic fines, extortion in either case, you are forced to pay for the very same police who have no duty to protect you.

Get a speeding or parking ticket, go to court, and you will be faced by a criminal called a judge, a criminal called a prosecutor, and a criminal called a police officer. Why do I list them all as criminals? Because they all belong to the same crime syndicate. They are all paid by the government' out of government funds. When their collusion finds you guilty, you fine goes into their treasure chest funding further criminal actions against the populace.

The judge is the biggest criminal because if you challenge getting a fair trial when the judge, the prosecutor, and the cop work for the entity called government' a dishonest judge will tell you that there is no conflict of interest.

Personality Traits

Would you want the job of window washer in a big city, if you are afraid of heights?

What type of personality do you think would want a job where you can order people around, point guns at them if they don't obey your commands, and kill them if they decide they're not going to go gently into a cage?

Smarts Discrimination

U.S District Court rules, It's okay to discriminate based on too much intelligence.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. 99-9188
Robert Jordan, Plaintiff,
-vs-
City of New London and Keith Harrigan, Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Connecticut constitutions stemming from Defendants’ hiring practice. Plaintiff was denied a job opportunity because he had scored higher than average on a written examination used to screen applicants and, as a result, was deemed overqualified for the position.
[...]
On March 16, 1996, Plaintiff took a written test for the position of entry level police officer given by the Law Enforcement Council of Connecticut, Inc.[...]

In the fall of 1996, Plaintiff learned that New London was hiring police officers. He requested an interview with Keith Harrigan, the Assistant City Manager in charge of personnel. Id. at P 10, 11. Mr. Harrigan informed Plaintiff that he was ineligible because he scored too high on the written test.

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
 Complete case text at AELE 

2000 U.S. App. Lexis 22195 (Unpublished)
With thanks to AELE for having the court case online.

You just have to be smart enough to threaten people with a gun?

No Good Cops

The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.

We need only consider the following:

• A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
• Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;

Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops. - Robert Higgs

There have been assertions made by police supporters that it's only a few bad cops. If that is the case, then why are the supposedly good cops doing nothing while one of their own brutalizes people who are no threat to the cops?