Justice. . did you know? A 2005 Supreme Court decision declared that it is NUT the duty of any police fence in the us to protect citizens, just enforce laws.. That's because, in theory, the laws do the protecting.
x

Comments(446):

[ 446 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #14 - aldheim (02/19/2013) [-]
That's because, in theory, the laws do the protecting.
#233 to #14 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
it means i the police watch you getting stabbed they have no obligation to do anything. A man in a subway in new york was stabbed while police watched from three feet away behind a glass door and did nothing. Man sued police, no convictions
User avatar #282 to #233 - vishnapalm (02/20/2013) [-]
I'm gonna call bs.... There are plenty of violations against the law there... Assault, Attempted Murder, etc and if he was being mugged, well there's a whole new set of chargers there.
User avatar #241 to #233 - cabbagemayhem (02/20/2013) [-]
and who's idea was it that only police should have guns?
User avatar #309 to #14 - lolzordz (02/20/2013) [-]
but that means its not their duty to save a drowning child or something cos its not in the law
User avatar #310 to #309 - aldheim (02/20/2013) [-]
It's not your duty either.
But I damn well hope you'd do it.
User avatar #314 to #310 - lolzordz (02/20/2013) [-]
course I would, its just i heard that british police are actually told NOT to save drowning children.. search on google
#318 to #314 - aldheim (02/20/2013) [-]
I don't need to look it up to know that your source is, at best, out of context.
User avatar #322 to #318 - lolzordz (02/20/2013) [-]
well the law isnt very protecting in a situation like that, i dont think im speaking out of context here
#312 to #309 - fractalius (02/20/2013) [-]
Well it's not.

I mean, if you saw a child struggling, you may or may not save them depending on what kinda person you are (I think I would too) But it isn't your duty.

The reason they said that, was because so many stupid ******* get really good lawyers for free who find loopholes in every god damn law, so they have to abolish laws like that to prevent people from getting out of time in prison due to a loop hole.

It's like when that faggot in your class talks back to your teacher, and then gets his mom to waver any punishment, even though he deserves it for being such a prick to someone he should respect.
User avatar #381 to #14 - cocorosie (02/20/2013) [-]
Laws only protect people when the enforcers are on their side.
#79 - followtheworms (02/19/2013) [-]
If a citizen needs protecting, than most likely somebody was breaking the law in the first place.

Cops face when
User avatar #192 to #79 - bulbakip ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
What about victimless crimes?
#184 - thenickel (02/19/2013) [-]
You have to pick one or the other, as often they can contradict each other. "Protecting citizens" is subjective and causes loopholes, enforcing laws is more concrete. Stop looking for justification that the US is an evil military state.
#250 to #184 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
The case was a man being stabbed in a subway while police were watching from three feet away behind a door and did nothing other than watch. Feel safe?
#272 to #250 - thenickel (02/20/2013) [-]
You can always point out specific exceptions. Those are flaws with human beings and human nature. I doubt telling the police officers in question beforehand to protect citizens instead of upholding laws would have made a difference.
#175 - anon (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's Batman's job
#28 - tinybroadcaster (02/19/2013) [-]
She has no boobs.
User avatar #351 to #28 - kailybailybo (02/20/2013) [-]
I'd still do.


And i'm not even a guy.
User avatar #31 to #28 - Maroon (02/19/2013) [-]
but her face is so pretty
User avatar #338 to #31 - buttinspecter (02/20/2013) [-]
It's a tough decision. I have a hand on my dick. Do I yank or not?
User avatar #191 - lightninghedgehog (02/19/2013) [-]
Remember, cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
#58 - felixjarl ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#200 to #58 - stlbecker (02/20/2013) [-]
america has atleast 6 more freedoms than new zealand. last time i checked new zealand only had 44 freedoms??
#253 to #58 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
So if I move there do I have the right to build my very own rape dungeon?
#67 to #58 - anon (02/19/2013) [-]
pretty sure you can do whatever you want in a country whose laws are governed and enforced by wild sheep
#72 to #58 - thereasonableperso (02/19/2013) [-]
*cough* orc infestation *cough*
#100 - jblackmetal (02/19/2013) [-]
**jblackmetal rolls 33**
**jblackmetal rolls 33**
User avatar #155 - Fgner (02/19/2013) [-]
It's easy to hate on this decision without thinking about it- isn't it?

"Protecting citizens" is a very subjective term. Because of this, if a police officer didn't save one person and cause another five to die, the family could sue because they didn't save that one person - and win.

As well, what defines protecting? Does that mean keeping a crime from happening? They can't do that. The police can only take action after a crime is committed. If I go up to them and say so and so threatened to punch me if I bang their wife again, the police are not legally obliged to guard me while I **** his wife's brains out.

And what is a citizen? If you break the law, you are still a United States citizen. Therefore, to allow police officers to be able to defend themselves or aggressively capture someone - they need to remove anything that says they can't harm citizens.

The legal world is filled with ******** semantics. This has a purpose - a good one. In fact, if you don't like this judgement, you're a ******* idiot who doesn't understand how the legal system works at all.
#259 to #155 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
Read the case jackass. The case involved a man getting stabbed while police watched through a door from three feet away and didn't attempt to do ANYTHING. Actually figure it out before you jump on the "police are scary so t I won't question them" fagbag train.
User avatar #295 to #259 - Fgner (02/20/2013) [-]
******* anon. This is from THIS case:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order against her husband because of his violent behavior. However, she had allowed him to take the three children numerous times since. One day he takes the children and she calls the police. The police remember her allowing the father to take the children numerous times, and also here that he called her to say that they were at an amusement park. They decided that the report was of no importance and took no action BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST BEHAVIOR REGARDING THE RESTRAINING ORDER.
Later, the husband came to the police station and started a shoot out. The man was killed, and the bodies of the children were found in the backseat.
She then sued the Castle Rock police department for failing to respond to the restraining order violations. The case came to the Supreme Court to discuss the duty of the police force to enforce the restraining order.
HOWEVER
Under Colorado state law, the police force is not mandatory to enforce restraining orders, it is up to their discretion and judgement to make such a call. Even if there were such a law, it does NOT create an individual right for protection and enforcement. The police aren't peoples person bodyguards.

The Supreme Court are the least corrupt branch of government, regardless of what you believe. Despite what you may think, they uphold LAWS. They don't decide morality, they decide Constitutionalism. Here are some statements made about these kinds of cases:
"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones."
"The police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"A government and it's agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.."

tl;dr Anons a ******* idiot.
#49 - manymanymangoes (02/19/2013) [-]
"We're not defenders of justice... we're merely keepers of the law."
"We're not defenders of justice... we're merely keepers of the law."
User avatar #415 - Deeticky (02/20/2013) [-]
I don't know about the rest of you, But I honestly enjoy having the police around. I don't see why any non-criminals would dislike the police....

In all truthfulness, some police are dicks. There is no way around that. Most of the police officers though, are just hard working people doing their jobs the best they can. Their job is not a fun one, but it is necessary.

Does anyone else watch the Campus PD tv show? It's really funny how the suspects always say "I didn't do nuthin!" right as they are resisting arrest for whatever crime the police just caught them committing....
User avatar #420 to #415 - jafkdb (02/20/2013) [-]
I dont think that OP is saying that police are a bad thing to have around, they are pointing out that the courts have said that the police do not have to protect you as an individual, and therefore one of the main arguments many gun control advocates use i.e. "just call the cops" is invalid.
#424 to #420 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
and although they aren't legally mandated to do so, most people don't become cops because they want to protect the law. Most people who become police officers feel a sense of duty to protect the people and often find themselves pissed at some of the things the law makes them do just as much as we are. It's not the cops who are the problem. Most are pretty genuine people.

This coming from someone who has been on the wrong side of the law quite a few times.
User avatar #429 to #424 - jafkdb (02/20/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that cops won't protect people, I'm simply saying that OP was right and there was a court case, Warren V DC, that said that the police do not HAVE to protect you as an individual. They are meant to protect society at large.
#421 to #420 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
They do have to respond to crimes though. That argument isn't used in that way, they argue that police response times are slower than your own when you're standing right there.
User avatar #425 to #421 - jafkdb (02/20/2013) [-]
I think you read my comment wrong. If the gun control advocates are claiming that police response times are slower than my own, then they are in agreement, with many gun rights advocates.
#430 to #425 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
That's the argument I was saying. You said the "just call the cops" argument is anti-gun, which it is. You used it to say that the opposite side will just say that doesn't work because the police aren't looking to protect you. I was saying they argue against that point for an entirely unrelated reason. Apologies for the confusion.
User avatar #433 to #430 - jafkdb (02/20/2013) [-]
Mine to you as well, I'm glad this didnt turn into a big thing.
#435 to #433 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
Well, you aren't acting like an angst filled child, even if you have the opposite stance, so no harm done.
#313 - Soilwork (02/20/2013) [-]
how the law is in texas
User avatar #354 to #339 - pokemonstheshiz (02/20/2013) [-]
That's actually what I named my router
#82 - anon (02/19/2013) [-]
enforcing laws is straightforward, protecting the citizens is an unclear concept
User avatar #211 - durkadurka (02/20/2013) [-]
The whole point of this is to keep police from being sued if they fail to save or protect someone.

If someone breaks into your house and you call the police, they'll definitely come to help you. It's just not a guarantee that you'll be protected.

So what this means is that you cannot rely on cops to protect you from anything. Sure they'll try, but your best defense is yourself.
User avatar #221 to #211 - breakfastskippa (02/20/2013) [-]
Yeah but if you do anything to the burglar you get put in prison, basically he has to do something to you for you to do something to him. ( this is Aus laws not U.S)
#246 to #221 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
That's retarded. By breaking into your home he IS doing something to you. Damaging/stealing your property, threatening your feeling of safety, and often leaving lasting psychological effects.

That sort of ******** only encourages criminals. The law is really ass-backwards in some places.
User avatar #254 to #246 - breakfastskippa (02/20/2013) [-]
Even if the guy has a gun, if you shoot him before he shoots you, you get charged. You are only allowed to do to him what he has done to you.
User avatar #331 to #221 - durkadurka (02/20/2013) [-]
Here in the US it varies from state to state. I'm pretty sure that all follow the notion that you're allowed to use appropriate force to protect yourself. Sometimes that means your life is threatened and you may use deadly force in turn.

Some states have "castle doctrine" on top of this. Like the other guy said, castle doctrine basically allows you to defend your family and property as one would a castle.

Other states have this "obligation to retreat" ******** which basically requires you to run away if you can. I think it only helps the criminals but the states are allowed to make these laws as they see fit.
User avatar #266 to #221 - weejer (02/20/2013) [-]
as long as the burglar is in your home, you can defend yourself with any means necessary. the only requirements (at least in my state) are
A. you must be afraid that substantial injury or death may be inflicted upon you or the other residents
and
B. there is no escape for yourself
this is called the castle doctrine as long as they are in YOUR castle, you can do whatever is needed to ensure your safety and well being
#243 to #221 - nkprives (02/20/2013) [-]
i live in ******* NY and as long as i dont shoot the **** in the back it's not even likely i'll be charged
#252 to #211 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
This case was not if they would save you, it was if they were obligated to even try. The case confirmed they had no obligation to try at all.
User avatar #333 to #252 - durkadurka (02/20/2013) [-]
Yes, but they will try.
#123 - dafogman (02/19/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#81 - bronywhat (02/19/2013) [-]
...So what? And what does "protecting the citizens" even mean exactly? The laws protect the citizens.
#240 to #81 - anon (02/20/2013) [-]
If you are being stabbed to death and policeman is standing literally three feet away he can watch you getting stabbed and do nothing and not be charged with a crime. This was the actual case in trial.
User avatar #90 to #81 - Zarke (02/19/2013) [-]
Not exactly. Laws like speed limits are guidelines that protect the citizens. Laws prohibiting murder and rape simply allow those crimes to be punished fairly in a court of law.
#166 to #90 - anon (02/19/2013) [-]
Actually if a cop sees someone being raped or murdered they're legally obligated to stop said rape/murder.

So yeah, they do protect citizens... so long as an enforcer is actually around during the crime. Of course, there are stupid laws/issues not covered, but this is speaking from a general sense.
#277 - animepost (02/20/2013) [-]
If you've ever taken a law course, you understand how 			******		 up it is.   
Police have no obligation to protect you.   
Yet in most cases, you're not allowed to protect yourself either.   
   
9/10 self defence cases charge the attacked for defending themselves by causing serious injury or death to the attacker.   
   
Their logic is that the attacked did not simply flee the scene   
(The attacker being faster, having a gun etc. Is irrelevant apparently.)   
Or if there was no exit, the attacked used excessive force unessential for defending themselves.   
   
Your choices are:   
A. Deal with it yourself but be charged for harming someone attemting to kill you.   
or   
B. Call the police and risk imminent death.   
   
(This doesn't apply to battered women syndrome.)
If you've ever taken a law course, you understand how ****** up it is.
Police have no obligation to protect you.
Yet in most cases, you're not allowed to protect yourself either.

9/10 self defence cases charge the attacked for defending themselves by causing serious injury or death to the attacker.

Their logic is that the attacked did not simply flee the scene
(The attacker being faster, having a gun etc. Is irrelevant apparently.)
Or if there was no exit, the attacked used excessive force unessential for defending themselves.

Your choices are:
A. Deal with it yourself but be charged for harming someone attemting to kill you.
or
B. Call the police and risk imminent death.

(This doesn't apply to battered women syndrome.)
#281 to #277 - insertfuckingname (02/20/2013) [-]
this depends on the state. some states have a stand your ground law that says you have the ability to fight back. others say you must flee. the more you know
User avatar #334 to #281 - PIPExDAD (02/20/2013) [-]
I live in Texas you can shoot a cattle rustler.
#446 to #334 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
is that even an actually issue anymore.. sounds to me like an old law that was never removed or amended to reflect current time period.. like in my town there is still a ordinance on the books that if you bring dead rats or the head of a rat to the court house you get a nickel a piece because the town used to have a rat problem back in the 1800's or some **** .. built on a huge river so rats kinda come with the territory.
User avatar #476 to #446 - PIPExDAD (02/22/2013) [-]
no we still have cattle its TEXAS
#477 to #476 - whymewhy (02/23/2013) [-]
no **** moron.. i asked if cattle rustling was still a problem. i didn't ask if you had cattle.. guess reading isn't one of the required teachings in texas huh?
User avatar #478 to #477 - PIPExDAD (02/23/2013) [-]
if something exists people will steal it so yes we still have cattle in Texas
#412 to #281 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
thats why i said it depends on where you are earlier...
0
#475 to #412 - insertfuckingname has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #340 to #277 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
or instead of shooting an attacker in the head you just give them a flesh wound and they flee.
#387 to #340 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
then you get assault with a deadly weapon, or assault with the intent to do great bodily harm less than murder since you just suggested shooting them in the back. the states that allow you to protect your home or self with force such as a firearm also state that you can't shoot them if they are fleeing. in some states mine included you can't shoot them unless they are inside your house or garage unless they are pointing a weapon at you then you have the legal right to defend yourself and your home with equall or lesser force than what is being applied to you. so if you feel your life is in danger, they are in your house and facing you then unload on that ****** .
User avatar #392 to #387 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
I didn't say to shoot them in the back I implied if the don't leave you give them a flesh wound to scare them off.
#397 to #392 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
you said shoot them as they flee, that would be the back, be it the back of the leg or back of the arm or just their back. if you assault them while fleeing its a no no
User avatar #400 to #397 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
no I did not good sir you are mistaken.
#403 to #400 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
ok your right, i just went back and reread it and see where i made the mistake sorry.
User avatar #369 to #340 - iamdovahkiin (02/20/2013) [-]
They could still die due to blood loss
User avatar #384 to #369 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
also the odds of dying from a minor flesh wound ie bullet grazing you are very slim .
User avatar #382 to #369 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
yes but it is very unlikely. in most cases a burglar or mugger just want's money or stuff that can be fenced and has no interest in hurting people. just showing you have a gun or blade will almost always be enough to scare them off and if not you can shot or cut them in a non vital area easily. so when someone says they came home and saw a burglar in their house and immediately pull out a gun and shot them in vital areas one or more times without a "warning" which is legally required. they didn't act purely in self defense and used excessive force.
#402 to #382 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
thats only partially true.. yes most times they just want to get stuff they can sell and be gone but if they are caught by the owner they have a tendency to get violent so they can't be identified later.
User avatar #404 to #402 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
less then 15% of robbers will threaten with a weapon if they are caught almost all with run away because 98% of them wear masks so as not to be identified .
#416 to #404 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
ya ya i can make up numbers too. more than 90% will threaten with a weapon because 2% wear a mask.
User avatar #418 to #416 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
I am using US police statistics from 2010.
#423 to #418 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
see and they can make up numbers too. not to mention lets pretend those numbers were accurate.. they are out of date
User avatar #440 to #423 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
they are a little out of date . I don't see why they would lie about crime statistics.
#445 to #440 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
make themselves look better.. too lazy to do the actual work.... hard to get accurate numbers since the ones that get away could be violent or could not but you won't know since nobody caught them.. any number of reasons.. why do people lie about most of the **** they lie about..
User avatar #453 to #445 - timmywankenobi (02/20/2013) [-]
well the statistics were not flattering at all so I doubt they did much to them.if they ran away they are by definiton not violent and they know if they had masks or no because the witness will say. and any burglar that is never seen and never caught is very skilled and likely has no need for violence.
#454 to #453 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
or nobody was home and they didn't feel like beating up the couch before they left with the home owners **** . and thats why they didn't get violent..
#380 to #277 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
in response to the defending yourself and getting int trouble for it thing is because some states, apparently the one you are referencing have a mutual combatant law meaning if you throw a punch, kick, bite, or try to fight back in anyway you are considered just guilty as the person who attacked you. the way around that is to just lay there and get your ass kicked then press charges...
User avatar #459 to #380 - animepost (02/20/2013) [-]
Okay, but what if the attacker meant to take your life?
What if they seriously injure you to the point of permanent damage?
What if the attacker is disguised, or you simply don't know them, and they take off?
What if you simply just don't want to let someone beat on you, no matter how high the monetary compensation is?
#460 to #459 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
obviously some things are taken into consideration don't be a tool. such as if they are trying to kill you then of course your within your right to defend yourself. as to injuring to the point of serious damage what does that have to do with you fighting back and getting in trouble.. what if during your defending yourself you seriously hurt them, like say they punch you in the nose once so you break their arm so bad it has bone sticking out?. now to address "What if the attacker is disguised, or you simply don't know them, and they take off?" if they are disguised but stick around long enough for the cops to show up then they are pretty dumb, if they run away and you have know idea who they are then its kinda hard for you to press charges and since you wouldn't be pressing charges its kinda hard for the unknown attacker to press charges back on you. as for the don't wanna get beat on, tough **** nobody wants to get their ass kicked but the law is the law.. and where the **** did monetary comensation come from?
User avatar #461 to #460 - animepost (02/20/2013) [-]
Okay... Let me set this straight.
If someone attacks you, and you fight back,
at that point pressing charges is useless,
because the attacker has something to bring to court - the fact that you fought back.

If you do nothing,
then congratulations, you're entitled to monetary compensation,
(for things like pain & suffering, medical expenses),
but you also just risked your own life.

It's a lose-risk situation.
Choose to lose or risk death for compensation.

Beyond that, the court doesn't have to hear out any "considerations".

This is law 101. A court will shrug off everything you just stated.
#462 to #461 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
actually they do have to hear out some considerations such as lets say asshole pulls a knife in a bar argument or something, he stabs you, its not an instant kill but it ******* hurts, he tries again so you fight back 99% chance that you won't get charges pressed on you since it was in defense of your life and not just because you got punched in the nose.. not sure where you took this "law 101" course but i would get my money back
User avatar #467 to #462 - animepost (02/20/2013) [-]
First of all, I can just barely understand your awkward grammar.
Anyway, If you're stabbed, (and you miraculously have the strength to fight back),
you're still going to be charged assault.
For one, they do not condone "guilty by first strike" verdict methods.
If both parties harmed one another, both are in the wrong, and you don't have a case.
It's a corrupted way to judge, but it's how it works.
If you're so adamant that courts are compassionate enough to hear out every little detail you may have and simply take your word for it,
try it out.
The next time someone attacks you, retaliate with reasonable force.
The accused will be punished with absolutely nothing and you will be compensated with a grand total of $0. (Tax included.)
#473 to #467 - whymewhy (02/20/2013) [-]
i never once said anything about being compensated that was one of you retards. I can't wait for someone to assault you so you can just lay there and die or hopefully if you fight back you get some corrupt ass judge who ***** you over. I know for a fact that judge do listen to extenuating circumstances, my friend and his wife were about to be robbed the husband was at work and his wife called him and 911 letting them know someone was outside trying to get in, she grabbed a shotgun and what she thought was a rock salt round and snuck around back and fired at him.. turns out it was 000 buckshot but she was a bad shot and only got his leg. he got arrested she got a pat on the head.
#66 - Schadenfreude (02/19/2013) [-]
But the police are my fwends!!!! :(   
   
   
   
   
   
   
I have a dozen of these
But the police are my fwends!!!! :(






I have a dozen of these
#188 to #66 - robotrino (02/19/2013) [-]
post them if you would please

pic unrelated, present
#287 to #66 - welcometoatl (02/20/2013) [-]
This happened in Baldwin Part, CA if I remember. It had to do with a chase that began in El Monte. After the gangster was cornered he lied down and I guess this cop (who was actually in charge of my neighborhood in El Monte) was mad as **** because of all the resisting that he gave him a kick to the head.. The cholo/gangster sued though
#301 to #66 - Schadenfreude (02/20/2013) [-]
OK here are a few more I have
OK here are a few more I have
User avatar #68 to #66 - ishalltroll (02/19/2013) [-]
Exceptions confirm the rule.
User avatar #263 to #68 - cabbagemayhem (02/20/2013) [-]
No, but it's another good reason to avoid a police state.
User avatar #109 to #66 - snappywilliams (02/19/2013) [-]
moar please.
User avatar #77 to #66 - chonies (02/19/2013) [-]
it looks like his body spiraled counterclockwise
User avatar #113 to #77 - razthough (02/19/2013) [-]
Could we use that info to determine where this happened?
User avatar #298 to #289 - razthough (02/20/2013) [-]
I was getting at wich hemisphere this happened, since the body moved counterclockwise.

Thanks for the link though, good to see the community helping each other.
+15
#36 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #75 to #36 - crampypmarc (02/19/2013) [-]
A lot of laws were made to protect rich people.
-1
#76 to #70 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
[ 446 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)