Author Topic: Police: No Duty To Protect: CA, NJ, IL Statutes  (Read 1571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Police: No Duty To Protect: CA, NJ, IL Statutes
« on: June 02, 2015, 09:35:48 AM »
The same with EVERY government and EVERY police force.

Cops are not the good guys here.

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

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. 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 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ 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.⛔

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

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.⛔

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.⛔

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?

Think about this when the opportunists and cowards demand more gun control.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2022, 07:07:15 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: Police: No Duty To Protect: CA, NJ, IL Statutes
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2022, 04:54:04 PM »
The same with EVERY government and EVERY police force.

No Duty To Protect

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

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. 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 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ 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.⛔

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

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?

Think about this when the opportunists and cowards demand more gun control.
Natural Law Matters