This Little Known Supreme Court Ruling About Cops Will Make You Furious

When I was growing up, I always heard that police officers were there “to serve and protect” the public, that they were the good guys, and, after all, because our taxes pay their salaries, they work for us. But, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, that’s not the case.

According to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, police do not have a duty to protect you or anyone else even if you’ve followed their procedures which you’ve been told are necessary for them to protect you. A New York Times article about that ruling said:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver. [hat tip to here for the source]

Now, maybe you’re thinking that it’s only restraining orders that this applies to, but you would be wrong. A 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police do not have to protect children who are getting beaten by a parent even if social services is involved. This should make you wonder what, exactly, social services are there for if the government has no responsibility to care for those that social workers are there, in part, to protect.

There have been other rulings by courts that police do not have a duty to protect people if those people feel threatened or in danger.

Now, to be clear here, I know a number of police officers, and the ones that I know believe that they have a duty to serve and protect people. But, let’s be frank, if there is no responsibility beyond their own personal integrity to protect people, in a crisis situation, we are going to have more stories like the police officers who waited outside while the Parkland, Florida shooting occurred and did nothing to stop it.

Our recommendation is that you train in real world self-defense methods, including hand-to-hand and firearms, so that you can make sure that you are able to keep your family safe because you can’t guarantee that the police will.

 
 

  • CHUCK ADKINS

    IF THIS IS TRUE, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING OR NEEDING POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN OUR NATION ? iF WE ARE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE OUR OWN PROTECTION, WE HAVE NO NEED FOR ‘ PEACE OFFICERS.’ AND WE HAVE A GREATER NEED FOR THE 2nd AMENDMENT. CHUCK ADKINS

    • Daniel Murphy

      Right on Chuck.
      Lock and load.

      • CHUCK ADKINS

        I STILL HAVE ONE NEPHEW IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN PEORIA, ILL. AND I’M SURE THAT THE COPS THERE OR IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WERE NOT TOLD TO STAND DOWN BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY. AND STRANGELY, THE RECENT BOMBINGS IN TEXAS, THE POLICE HAVE ASKED THE PUBLIC TO HELP IN ANY WAY TO FIND THE BOMBER; OF COURSE THIS DOESN’T MEAN TO BE A VIGILANTE. AND THEY HAD A SHOOT-OUT WITH THE GUY BEFORE HE BLEW HIMSELF UP WITH A BOMB IN HIS CAR. GAME OVER ! CHUCK

  • fisherman

    Police departments exist to collect revenue from decent citizens who may unknowingly violate some foolish little, unknown ordinance. Other than that, there is NO reason to have a PD in any city or town. Don’t even get me started on crooked sheriff’s departments. I would type my fingers raw giving my opinion on them.

    • MBounce

      Roger Roger. The cops exist to protect their own asses and serve their own intererests. They are not there to protect and / or serve you. The more money that they can steal from you, the better chance that they might get a raise. Legalized extortion / theft is the name of the game.

    • disqus_htVNWSBEmM

      How long would you be safe WITHOUT a police department? Maybe you are one of those from which the public needs protecting. Cops are not usually enemies of law abiding citizens.

      • fisherman

        Maybe you should get out more. Cops violate the rights of civilians every day. They have some bizarre notion that badges grant extra rights. Apparently you think that is ok. I have never been a danger to ANYBODY. You, on the other hand, seem questionable. The fact that you don’t know about all the illegal police conduct that happens every day shows that you are either ignorant of the facts or worse, a cop sucking troll.

        • disqus_htVNWSBEmM

          I imagine I have seen more than twice the sunrises than you have and seen several countries. I never said the police were honest, but I never for once said we did not need them. It is absurd and stupid to think of some area without law enforcement. The opposite is anarchy and no sane person wants that.

  • shavager

    They are basically “REVENUE COLLECTORS”, that is the job they are hired for. Our judicial/law enforcement program is ALL ABOUT COLLECTING MONEY–that’s why we can’t keep criminals behind bars–they create too much money for the system if they return to streets. The police have now morphed into a NATIONAL POLICE CONTROL FORCE for Feds to control the people with since Constitutions forbids use of military against citizens.

  • william g munson

    So-what-they-saying-that-soliers-do-not—-have—-to-fight—either-period

  • mwood13

    communists on the court

  • Dexter L. Wilson

    Because of Ginsberg and Kagan who both broke 2 federal statutes to rule that homosexual marriage is legal, I understand that we need them indited for crimes against the US and for legislating from the bench if not just impeached.

  • Ky Belser

    I have been a law enforcement officer in three states and have never heard anything so outrageous. I doubt if this is true other than not being responsible just because they were not able to arrive in time to be able to stop a crime . Crazy

  • lordhoff

    This is nothing new – it’s exactly what NYC police officially stated after refusing to protect areas of the city (in this case, mostly Jewish areas) from rioters. They had to illegally arm themselves to protect their businesses and homes. Some were later charged.

  • disqus_htVNWSBEmM

    Initially, being a police officer is just another job, and with some, that’s all it ever amounts to. The ones who take it seriously don’t have to be begged to act.

  • disqus_htVNWSBEmM

    People who think police are unnecessary are of the same class that graduated with idiots. They are too stupid to recognize that they are advertising their idiocy when they when they say that police are unnessary.