Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by thardey, Nov 21, 2008.
Two UPS guys on their way home from work caught a robber holding up a liquor store.
Good job guys..But as the police said there is a danger tackling an armed suspect...I just glad no one ( except the perp) was injuried...
Ditto good work. However they also lucked out.
Yes they did....That not withstanding they still did the public a service...
good for them...nice to see people step up and do something.
The constant refrain from the police "oh, you shouldn't have done that, it was dangerous . . ." is a big reason so many people choose to look the other way. They've bought into the idea that our self-defense is someone else's job.
If the people of a community want less crime, this is precisely what they need to do -- band together and stop crime.
The police not only can't do it, they have no positive duty to do it. They're job is to catch bad guys, if they can, after the crime has occurred.
Quite true...Cops say what they do cause we are supposed too..Kind of like you Mom saying " Take an unbrella cause its raining"...I for one have never said those words...
I don't know about where you live, but cops up here are supposed to do both...
Agree with Drac... 100% absolutely correct. If you're in a position to DO something about it then by gum do it!
Yes, it's dangerous to try and take on an armed perp, but is it any LESS dangerous to let them get away with it and do it again where they might shoot someone next time because they resisted the robbery? Kinda like a Peter Parker syndrome going there.
Way to go guys! :cheers:
I don't blame the LEOs for giving that advice, but it's good some people are willing to take the risk!
Leo advice is always great, but at the same time it is great to see people that can make a difference.
Not in the USA.
In the USA, court case after court case has resulted in the same conclusion: no specific individual has a right or expectation of public service from the police, fire department, or any other public safety department.
You can call 911, and the cops do not have to come.
You can be being robbed right in front of the cops, and they will incur no legal liability by doing nothing.
There is tons of case law on this, but the Warren decision is one you'll find quoted quite frequently:
The Deshaney case sets the standard for when the police have to protect you:
In other words, unless the police have you in custody, then they don't have to help you. Period.
I must have missed that section while in the academy
Riiiight...I would LOVE to hera the explanation that some LEO up here would give to the Chief, Law Director, Mayor, etc...For NOT responding to a 911 call....Wait until the media finds out, they will be camped out on the stations door step..
See the above answer..Someone being robbed and you DO NOTHING...You won't wear that badge very long..
Maybe where YOU LIVE, but not in Ohio...
In another discussion which I can't find at the moment, the question of "Do cops have to come when called" was brought up, and in some cases, it's a no. I believe it had something to do with limited manpower and prioritizing things, ie responing to a riot is more important than having your drunk neighbor turn down his tv at 4am.
There is also the matter in some areas n if you've paid the right folks for your protection.
From 1996, NYC cops were given a pass on responding if you hadn't paid your alarm fees, going so far as to keep a "No Response" list. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...7A15750C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Ah! Found something.
All the better to live in a Castle Doctrine state that lets you defend yourself and not one like NY that lets the crook sue you if his drink is warm while he's beating you.
Good job but like I posted before on a similiar subject its a double edged sword. It could have ended badly.
Go look up Warren v Washington, D.C.
While there might be administrative penalties, there are no legal liabilities. The police have no affirmative duty to protect anyone except those in direct custody. Period. It's established case law.
Again, administrative actions do not equate to legal liabilities. I can provide dozens of citations if you want.
Yes, in Ohio. And in every other state in the USA. Those quotes I provided are directly from federal court rulings.
There was a discussion on this recently...IIRC, it was Deaf Smith who posted a link to a site with a reference to all the cases that ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals.
You are on your own.
SCOTUS has ruled many times the police have no duty to protect any one individual. Society as a whole, yes, individuals, no.
And thus if you call 911 and no one comes, to bad. Does not matter how many times you call, how bad you are off. You are SOL if they can't come. And in many many places, there are so few cops, well, it will be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes for them to come.
You are on your own!
Notice in hurricanes and riots, the officials say they cannot do anything and will not come? They are not suicidal (and I don't blame them.)
You are on your own and always have been.
The only question is, have you thought ahead as to what you can do (or would like to train so you can do.) Are you good at first aid? Are you good with your hands and feet? Are you good with a reasonable weapon (knife, gun, stick?) Do you know how to operate machinery (besides the remote?) Do you know how to identify different types of fire extinguishers and how to operate (PASS any one?)
Besides being in our companys HAZMAT team, I'm also CPR and First aid certified. PADI divemaster, expert or above in IDPA, 5th dan TKD. Graduate from over 10 shooting/SD schools. Driven school busses on down to motorcycles. I also know how to use a remote
It's not a brag, it's something I feel strongly about. I feel every good man, and many a woman, should have such skills and more. And most importantly, guts to use them when needed.
Now as for the people who stopped the robbery, I say excellent. It's a risk, but life is a risk. I can tell you from my own experince that such as what they had happen in front of them happens fast and unexpected. You have to react quickly and with some confidence in your skills.
They steped foward when it counted. And that means something.
Or as Robert Heinlein said, "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier."
Absolutely true: South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, DeShany v. Winnebago County, etc.
Moreover, if one looks into state statutes, most states have actually codified as law general immunity from liability for the state failing to provide specific services to any individual.
And on that note, I just found out we have a local ordanance that says If I call for assistance, I will be billed a fee of 60 dollars per vehicle that responds.
I'd be ok with that if I had the choice of calling someone who I know is gonna come protect me, rather than someone with no obligation to do so.
In many states if a rescue squad comes, they can bill you for the 'rescue'. Never mind you paid taxes to finance the squad. Never mind if they are to late. Never mind if they do anything wrong (good samaitan laws absolve libility.)
You, and your loved ones, are on your own. The government is a 'maybe'.
Separate names with a comma.