The Meaning Of The Second Amendment For Each Citizen!

[ROGER4314]

The Real Meaning Of the Second Amendment!
LEO’s do not have a duty to protect individual citizens in this country!

Simply put, if you are the victim of a crime and sue the police for not protecting you from that crime, you will lose. Individual states have passed their own versions of limitation of liability for law enforcement officers but the theme is the same. LEO’s have a duty to protect the public in general but have NO responsibility to protect individual citizens from crime unless they are in custody. This puts your welfare and the safety of each member of your family and all of your property squarely in your own hands.

Washington DC is formed from a piece of Virginia and Maryland. It is not a state and is under Federal control. Identical laws were passed that made Washington DC LEO’s immune from civil suits filed by individual crime victims. Test cases for these Federal rules were horrible and gut wrenching and if you need some ugly reading, research those cases. Once again, though, the Federal laws echo that LEO’s are NOT responsible for protection of individual citizens!

This is not a post that bashes LEO’s. Their jobs are hard enough! But a government that mandates that each individual citizen is directly responsible for his/her own protection then moves to block the means to do that guaranteed by the Second Amendment is nuts!

What say you?

Flash

 

[San Antone RR]

I am an advocate of personal responsibility. I ask no one to protect me and mine and expect nothing like protection from anyone else. The Second Amendment means that I am not standing behind the door with a baseball bat shaking like a leaf because I might be outnumbered.

LEOs can't be everywhere at once, so the limitation from liability is appropriate.

 

[MR Redneck]

Good subject Roger.
Actually there is a supreme court ruling on this subject.
Police Have No Duty to Protect Any One Single Individual as demonstrated by the US Supreme Court.

Warren vs. District of Columbia; Three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were 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. DC'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. This ruling was upheld by the US Supreme Court.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
This Guy said it best. To Redneck it up a little, the following means, " The Law Makers make laws agianst your rights, then the cops arrest you if you exercise those rights. In the end, you cant use your right and the cops have no obligation to watch your back!
Here's Patrick Henry's version of what I just said.
"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry

 

[tobar0972]

I'm a LEO in this great state of our, Texas... I have to point out that there is a difference in civil liability and criminal liability. If a LEO in Texas witnesses a felony being committed and fails to act that officer is criminally responsible! It is a crime for that officer to not act! civil may be a different story, but i would bet there would be civil actions agaisnt any officer who out right refuses or fails to help the victim of a felony. I am not sure where you got your information from but you may want to check the source.

 

[Bithabus]

If a LEO in Texas witnesses a felony being committed and fails to act that officer is criminally responsible! It is a crime for that officer to not act!

I didn't know that, interesting. What crime would the Officer be committing?

 

[zembonez]

I am an advocate of personal responsibility. I ask no one to protect me and mine and expect nothing like protection from anyone else. The Second Amendment means that I am not standing behind the door with a baseball bat shaking like a leaf because I might be outnumbered.

LEOs can't be everywhere at once, so the limitation from liability is appropriate.

AMEN!

I agree completely.

 

[MR Redneck]

I'm a LEO in this great state of our, Texas... I have to point out that there is a difference in civil liability and criminal liability. If a LEO in Texas witnesses a felony being committed and fails to act that officer is criminally responsible! It is a crime for that officer to not act! civil may be a different story, but i would bet there would be civil actions agaisnt any officer who out right refuses or fails to help the victim of a felony. I am not sure where you got your information from but you may want to check the source.

How does that apply to this? Warren vs. District of Columbia
If Texas has such a law, thats great. I just dont see how that could be enforced when the high court ruled against it.

 

[ROGER4314]

Tap, tap tap on the screen. TX Investigator..........where are you when we need ya?

Flash

 

[txinvestigator]

I'm a LEO in this great state of our, Texas... I have to point out that there is a difference in civil liability and criminal liability. If a LEO in Texas witnesses a felony being committed and fails to act that officer is criminally responsible! It is a crime for that officer to not act!

I know of no law in the penal code that makes that an offense. I am always open to learning.

civil may be a different story, but i would bet there would be civil actions agaisnt any officer who out right refuses or fails to help the victim of a felony. I am not sure where you got your information from but you may want to check the source.

The supreme court ruled on this several years ago. The case was not as simple as the examples posted here.

In the case the police did not respond in time to protect a woman, and she sued. I think these are close to the facts, but I don't recall the case off the top of my head.

 

[M. Sage]

There was another case (don't remember the name right now, but I'll poke around) involving a woman from Pacifica, CA who had a restraining order against an abusive spouse or boyfriend. He came along and assaulted her. She had called the police, they failed to even show. Same result as the Warren case.

 

[ROGER4314]

The bottom line on this subject is that Libtards who say personal ownership of firearms is not needed because we have a fully equipped police force just don't have the law to support that. The law tells us to defend and protect ourselves and guarantees us the tools necessary to do just that. Best case scenario is the Police can assist in that effort. Worst case.....you're on your own and the Cops fill out reports after it's over.

Any arguments?

Flash

 

[Bithabus]

The role of the Police is to deter crime by creating an atmosphere of accountability. Anyone who thinks the Police can prevent crime, to the point that individuals don't need to be armed, is living in delusion.

 

[MR Redneck]

The role of the Police is to deter crime by creating an atmosphere of accountability. Anyone who thinks the Police can prevent crime, to the point that individuals don't need to be armed, is living in delusion.

Police are great when you call them. Police can deter crime, but not all of it. Police have no idea when or where crimes are going to be committed so how could we expect them to prevent it?
Me, I think police are good for keeping track of criminals with known records even though they cant keep track of those POS's all the time.
I wont depend on anyone, or wait for anyone if and when I have a problem.

 

[navyguy]

The role of the Police is to deter crime by creating an atmosphere of accountability. Anyone who thinks the Police can prevent crime, to the point that individuals don't need to be armed, is living in delusion.

I concur. It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise. No matter how many police are on duty, they can not 100% prevent crime.

As to an officer witnessing an assault or any crime and failing to take action, I would think that even if there is no specific written law, to do so would be contrary to their oath of office and subject them to departmental disciplinary actions which could lead the way to civil suites.

 

[txinvestigator]

The role of the Police is to deter crime by creating an atmosphere of accountability. Anyone who thinks the Police can prevent crime, to the point that individuals don't need to be armed, is living in delusion.

From a guy who was a LEO for a decade, I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[codeman]

Post Deleted

 

[txinvestigator]

What is the old cliche? "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

 

[ROGER4314]

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

I love it! Thanks for sharing it!

Flash

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

...If my home is broken into in the middle of the night, I grab my gun first and the phone to dial 911 second. If I’m lucky the LEO’s will catch them in the act or get finger prints and track them down. Worst case scenario they can call the ambulance or the coroner to take care of the dumb a$$ who didn’t believe me when I warned him I was armed.

x2

Any time spent on the calling 9-1-1 could be better spent aiming, shooting or issuing instructions. I'll call AFTER the situation is stabilized, unless my wife has the ability to grab the phone.

I have a wife and 4 small kids. I can't hunker down defensively until police arrive. If at home I have to secure the kids so they aren't wandering around the house, grab a gun, etc. I've thought about this before, and there's really no time to for me to call if something were to happen. At the first sign of the threat my plan is to grab the 12 gauge and move to the danger to eliminate it. Meanwhile, the wife can round up the kids and my .45 w/laser and get into a bedroom, maybe out the window, and THEN call 911.

Of course, if we're not at home I just have to make sure I shoot first and dont miss. With a bunch of kids around, you have no choice but to have a devastating and effective offense. There is really no option to run away, toting two babies and a couple grade school kids.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I pray nothing ever happens. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I failed them. I would never blame the police though, these things happen too violently and too quickly for them to be able to respond before bad things happen.