Do You Have A Right to Police Protection?
One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and
military should have handguns or any type of firearm. I cannot explain
their rationale, other than to say that gun control proponents must
believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization.
But, in light of court decisions,
we find that such is not the
case. Further, look at the behavior of attorneys, and in particular, one
attorney Mr. John Brophy,
who doesn't deny
that the police have no legal
obligation to protect citizens, but does attempt to intentionally mislead
people into believing that the government in this country recognizes and
upholds citizens' rights to self defense, a belief that is completely
and utterly false!
Look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun control legislation
and associated court cases, the Bernard Goetz case in New York and other
so called weapons charges cases, for evidence of the government's true
intentions. In other words, Mr. Brophy is deliberately lying, in an
attempt to cover up what the government really is, when he says that the
government recognizes your legal rights to self-protection. Mr. Brophy's
behavior is hardly surprising considering that he belongs to the same
that the judges in the courts do. But, anyways, onto further
discussion about what the courts have done.
The courts have decided that you have no right to expect the
police to protect you from crime! Incredible as it may seem, the
courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to
your calls for help, even in life threatening situations! To be
fair to the police, I think that many, and perhaps most, officers really
do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get
hurt. But the key point to remember is that the courts have said
they are under no legal obligation to do so. Another key point to
remember is that the courts have committed treason against the
people and sovereignty of this country in making those decisions, if, for
no other reason than the following:
"We the People of the United States, in Order
to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America."
For those who do not recognize what I just quoted, this is the Preamble to
the United States Constitution, and the government is not obeying it
because of the court decisions just mentioned, and which are backed up by case
included later in this document.
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Preamble has as much legal force as the rest of the United States
Consitution. Furthermore, the Preamble of the United States Constitution
defines why, and for what reasons, the government should exist. If
the government isn't following the Preamble of the United States
Constitution, then, it isn't what the people intended that it should be. Or, in other words, the government is a fraud and is acting in bad
The questions that everyone should be asking now are:
What is the government today and who does it serve if it isn't the
people of this country? Find the answer here, even though the reading is dense.
Who do the police serve? It appears that they ultimately serve
whoever the courts serve.
Who do the courts serve and are they accountable to the people of
this country? Look at this. It should be obvious that the courts certainly do not serve the people
of this country, that they are doing everything in their power to hide
this from the people, and that they are trying to keep secret who it is
that they do serve.
What is the ultimate goal of the government in this country? Try this terrifying answer.
I welcome anyone who has a case history of their own to add to this
list. Simply email it here
will add it to this webpage. Some of the court case cites in these case
histories are links to the actual cases in official online law library
databases. The reader may wish to take a look at those actual cases. All
of the links were valid at the time that they were created and every
effort is made to keep those links valid. Nonetheless, the validity of any
of those links can't be guaranteed and I would very much appreciate being
notified if a reader finds a link to be invalid. The reader can easily
reach me through here.
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for
protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening,
Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill
her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they
come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr.
Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell
them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not
liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help (Hartzler v. City of San
Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)). Those of you in the Silicon
Valley, please note what city this happened in!
Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the
police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly
threatened: "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when
I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she
had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face,
blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently
scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly
difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit
against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law,
Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter
irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York
which now denies all responsibility to her" (Riss v. New York, 240
N.E.2d 860 (N.Y.1968)). Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law
prevented her from arming herself in self defense.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this
type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their
roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They
phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the
way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped,
they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went
downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the
intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the
opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive,
raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and
made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three
women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but
D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that
it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a
government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public
services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). Just
what did happen to "provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty
under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney
v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989;
489 U.S. 189 (1989)). Look here to see when and where the United States Supreme Court first introduced
that "general rule" that the police have no duty under federal
law to protect the citizens. Frequently these cases are based on an
alleged "special membership" between the injured party and the
police. In DeShaney, the injured party was a boy who was beaten and
permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship
existed because local officials knew he was being abused. Indeed, they had
"specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to
protect him against that danger," but failed to remove him from his
father's custody ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a
Constitutional Duty to Protect?" Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield,
S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991).
The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a
"special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of
care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as
incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others
restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.
"The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's
knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of
intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his
freedom to act on his own behalf" (DeShaney
v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at
1006). In other words, this court's decision is just so much
doublespeak designed to allow the government to turn its back on the
people. Consider the absurdities that this court put forth, namely:
A little boy in the legal custody of an abusive father is able to
protect himself and is free to act on his own behalf, even though he is
a minor and is not of legal age to act on his own behalf.
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted
DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Department (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990).
The word or assurances of a government official, including those of a
police officer, mean nothing, because this court has decided that the
giving of that word or those assurances in no way obligates a government
official to keep his or her word or assurances.
Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a
"special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica
Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because
there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals,
however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give
rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody.
Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no
duty to protect her. So, when they failed to do so and she was injured,
they were not held to be liable.
Citizens injured because the police failed to protect them can only sue
the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials
violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win
such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have
existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do.
v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) very likely
precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of
cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action. That very
deceptive case, because it appears to favor Burch, who was the injured
party, in part, states:
"The constitutional violation actionable under 1983 is not complete
when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the
State fails to provide due process. Therefore, to determine whether a
constitutional violation has occurred, it is necessary to ask what
process the State provided, and whether it was constitutionally
"We express no view on the ultimate merits of Burch's claim; we
hold only that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim under 1983
for violation of his procedural due process rights."
Many states, however, have specifically denied such claims, barring
lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by
enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821,
845, and 846, which state in part: "Neither a public entity or
a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police
protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and
failure to apprehend criminals." No doubt, Zinermon
v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) would still
assert that those states provide adequate remedies.
Another key point stated in Zinermon
v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990; 494 U.S. 113 (1990)) is that of
making "due process" dependent, at least in part, on fiscal
issues. To quote that case again:
"Due process, as this Court often has said, is a flexible concept
that varies with the particular situation. To determine what procedural
protections the Constitution requires in a particular case, we weigh
'First, the private interest that will be affected by the official
action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest
through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of
additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the
Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail.' Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319, 335 (1976)."
Considering that the money
in the United States is fraud,
and that the problems that it has
created will only get worse with time, it can be expected that the
"due process" given the citizens of this country will also get
more and more limited with time.