Have A Gun – because the police owe you no duty of protection

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on October 7, 2008 at 12:22 am
LearnAboutGuns.com > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Have A Gun – because the police owe you no duty of protection

I believe in the value of gun ownership for self defense.  This is due primarily the fact that the police almost certainly can’t get there in time to stop a criminal.  However it is also worth noting that the police owe individual citizens no duty of protection – meaning that if you call the police and they fail to arrive for hour and hours, you have no recourse:

A couple court cases illustrate this longstanding rule of law that the police owe no duty of protection to individual citizens, even when the police royally mess up and fail to respond for hours after being called several times.

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is the case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia police because of negligence. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and begin attacking the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate’s screams finally stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. The two women went downstairs to find that the police never arrived, but that the rapists were still in the house.  All 3 women were then held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers’ sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. The District of Columbia’s highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

Riss v. New York (22 N.Y.2d 579, 240 N.E.2d 860, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897) Linda Riss was harassed by an ex boyfriend, who claimed he would kill or severely injure her if she dated someone else. Riss repeatedly asked for police protection, to no avail. After learning that she became engaged to another man, her ex threatened her and Riss again called the police for help. The next day, a criminal sent by the ex boyfriend partially blinded Linda Riss and permanently disfigured her face with a caustic chemical. The court held that the police do not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual, and dismissed her lawsuit.

These rulings, and countless others, make clear that the police do not have a duty to protect a citizen, even when that citizen has done everything in their power to summon the police for help. Given that fact, I would urge my fellow law abiding citizens to have a gun so that they can defend themselves, rather than being a victim.

ALSO READ:  Washington Times Editorial: "Guns needed to stop Chicago murders"

When law abiding citizens are armed, things are different: This woman defended herself against a stalker who broke in when the police did not arrive in time.  This couple fought off two armed home invaders, saving their own lives.  This elderly lady stopped a home invader.  The fact is that gun ownership saves lives every day.

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , ,

  • Bryan

    Way to go man! Nice work pointing this out. Please keep up the good work!