Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/7/2005 2:16:49 PM EDT
I’m at work and don’t want to do much browsing around the internet. Can anybody with the links handy link me the cases that the US Supreme Court ruled on that established that the government does not have a responsibility for everybody’s public safety?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:02:11 PM EDT
Sometime during their second semester of law school all law students learn that the 4th amendment applies only to government searches and seizures. It is often an incredulous student who remarks that a “burglar can break into your house and tell the police you have illegal goods and the police can get a warrant to search your house.” Such oddities of constitutional law are generally unknown to the public at large. Another such oddity, and the topic of this paper, is the duty of the government to provide protection to the public. Similar to the 4th amendment, the public is often confused and perplexed to learn that the government is not required, as a function of its existence, to provide any services at all.

This paper delves into the issue of when a government entity must provide protection to its citizens. More specifically, this paper explores the viability of bringing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for damages resulting from private criminal action against government entities in jurisdictions which prohibit or limit the ownership of firearms for defensive use.

Many people are first introduced to the no-duty rule in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). While this is certainly not the first case that lays out the no duty rule it is widely cited. In Warren, the Court held that the government of D.C. had no duty to provide any police services to the residents of the District of Columbia and therefore could not be held liable for the negligent provision of those services. The facts of the case and the subsequent firearms prohibition passed afterwards provide a good example of the issues this paper addresses. The victims of crime in Warren were three female roommates, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas. Miriam Douglas was the first victim of the two burglars who broke into their residence on the night of March 16, 1975. Joan Taliferro and Carolyn Warren called the police as Miriam Douglas endured the sexual assault of the two burglars. The police arrived at the address but drove on without stopping to investigate. After calling a second time and being assured that the police were once again coming to the house, the two roommates waited anxiously. After hearing silence for a few minutes and assuming that the police had arrived or the burglars had left, the two roommates ventured downstairs to check on Miriam Douglas. Unfortunately for both of them, the police had not arrived, however, the burglars were still in the house. Joan Taliferro and Carolyn Warren were subjected to 14 hours of sexual torture and rape before the burglars left the apartment.
Fourteen months after this attack the District of Columbia enacted a handgun ban that prohibited the possession of any new firearms after the enactment of the ban. Herein lays the crux of the problem and the best example of the issue discussed within this paper. Had any of the three Warren roommates had a handgun, or any gun, all three may have been saved from a horrible fate. The police and the District of Columbia should morally and normatively share some responsibility for their fate. However, the three roommate’s lack of foresight in retaining adequate protection bears the majority of the responsibility. Prior to the D.C. handgun ban, the three Warren roommates still retained the ability of self help. It is plausible that that even without the District of Columbia providing any police services, the women would have and should have been able to protect themselves.



A little excerpt from a paper I wrote.


The most cited case is Warren v. D.C. Enjoy.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:19:27 PM EDT
Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the most recent case. Decided in June of this year.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:44:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 6:45:04 PM EDT by KBaker]
Well, I've been whoring my essays out here recently, here's two more on this topic:

"Is the government responsible for your protection?"Part One, and Part Two. These cover Warren v. D.C. and Riss v. N.Y., two of the most egriegous cases. There are links to the decisions, and the decisions themselves reference the precedent-setting cases.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:00:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 7:43:46 PM EDT by txgp17]
the U.S. Supreme Court District Court of Appeals ruled, in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), that police do not have a duty to protect individuals (in general). Here is the abridged version from another website, not my writing:

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 woman, 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 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).

Read the full ruling below....www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm


Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Warren v. District of Columbia is NOT a Supreme Court case. It is a federal district case.

Ooops, thanx for the correction PAEBR332
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:02:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By txgp17:
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), that police do not have a duty to protect individuals (in general). Read the full ruling below....
www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm




Warren v. District of Columbia is NOT a Supreme Court case. It is a federal district case.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:07:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:
Well, I've been whoring my essays out here recently, here's two more on this topic:

"Is the government responsible for your protection?"Part One, and Part Two. These cover Warren v. D.C. and Riss v. N.Y., two of the most egriegous cases. There are links to the decisions, and the decisions themselves reference the precedent-setting cases.




If the .gov could be sued, that is be held responsible for personal safety, would our 2A rights be restored b/c of .gov liability?

I can't imagine .gov paying out millions for every mugging, rape, robbery, etc.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:08:47 PM EDT
Here's some case law.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose
Davidson v. City of Westminister
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)
Bower v. DeVito (1982)
Calgorides v. Mobile (1985)
Warren v. District of Columbia (1983)
Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983)
Sapp v. Tallahassee (1977)
Keane v. Chicago (1968)
Jamison v. Chicago (1977)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
Silver v. Minneapolis (1969)
Wuetrich v. Delia (1978)
Chapman v. Philadelphia (1981)
Morris v. Musser, (1984)
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority
Shernov v. New York Transit Authority

Also, include the recent Gonzales v. Castle Rock, CO
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:10:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By xxTAPxx:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
Well, I've been whoring my essays out here recently, here's two more on this topic:

"Is the government responsible for your protection?"Part One, and Part Two. These cover Warren v. D.C. and Riss v. N.Y., two of the most egriegous cases. There are links to the decisions, and the decisions themselves reference the precedent-setting cases.




If the .gov could be sued, that is be held responsible for personal safety, would our 2A rights be restored b/c of .gov liability?

I can't imagine .gov paying out millions for every mugging, rape, robbery, etc.

The British .gov does it. Only it's not millions. They get a pittance.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:18:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KBaker:

Originally Posted By xxTAPxx:

Originally Posted By KBaker:
Well, I've been whoring my essays out here recently, here's two more on this topic:

"Is the government responsible for your protection?"Part One, and Part Two. These cover Warren v. D.C. and Riss v. N.Y., two of the most egriegous cases. There are links to the decisions, and the decisions themselves reference the precedent-setting cases.




If the .gov could be sued, that is be held responsible for personal safety, would our 2A rights be restored b/c of .gov liability?

I can't imagine .gov paying out millions for every mugging, rape, robbery, etc.

The British .gov does it. Only it's not millions. They get a pittance.




Too bad it's not more money. Could you imagine the frustration from a liberal socialist democrat if their choices were to arm the populace or not have any money to spend?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:20:07 PM EDT
Dial 911 and DIE





Dial 911 and DIE

by Richard W. Stevens
With an Introduction by James Bovard
Author of Lost Rights and Freedom in Chains

Endorsements
Click here for bulk orders!

"Gun control" survives as an idea because most Americans believe one single myth:

"You don’t need a gun because the
police protect you from crime."

If you don’t know exactly why that statement is a lie, then you cannot destroy "gun control."

If you can’t effectively rebut that statement, then you cannot make the strongest positive case for private firearms ownership.

Anti-gun lobbyists get away with proposing to completely disarm the citizens only because most citizens just assume the police will protect them. That assumption is false. The police cannot protect everyone -- in fact the police usually have no legal duty to protect anyone.

Dial 911 and Die proves this fact. For nearly every American state and territory, this book shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect individuals from crime. The police in most places do not even have to come when you call.

Gun prohibitionist lobbyists, politicians and media have sold Americans the myth of police protection. Schools teach youngsters to "Dial 911." There was a television program with "911" in the title. That phone number is perhaps the best known in the country. A generation of Americans has come to trust a telephone number for self- defense.

Government authorities and media pundits never told Americans about the dark side of 911. Too many Americans have dialed 911 and died because the police did not or could not help them.

Dial 911 and Die kills the logical root of "gun control" ideology. Erase Americans’ blind faith in police protection, and a rational person who faces a risk of criminal attack on himself or his loved ones would never voluntarily allow himself to be disarmed.

Erase the myth of police protection, and "gun control" dies as an idea ... permanently.

How often do the gun prohibitionists use the recent spate of murderous attacks on schools, businesses, community centers and churches as reasons for "gun control"? When you understand the concept in Dial 911 and Die, those reasons evaporate. Each of those cases highlights that the police were powerless and unable to prevent or stop those attacks. Emergency 911 service is available almost everywhere in the U.S. -- and it was worthless against those armed attackers.

The unarmed victims of criminal attack and their families cannot get compensation from the city governments that failed to protect them in these famous terrible cases. The only people on location when the attackers came were the victims themselves. At the same time, the prevailing laws and anti-gun culture made sure those victims were unarmed. Police help was too little, too late.

Those murderous events do not prove the need for "gun control" -- they prove the utter inability of the police to protect individuals from violent crime. Police typically investigate crimes after the fact -- they don’t prevent very many crimes. And the laws in nearly every state say that the police don’t even owe a duty to protect individual citizens. Citizens are on their own -- and the sooner they know it, the better.

There are many excellent arguments against "gun control." Only one argument destroys its logical root. Master that argument. Get Dial 911 and Die for yourself, your local talk host, your local NRA leaders, your family, your local libraries. Read the harrowing, gut-wrenching stories of crime victims who tragically depended upon police to help. See how the courts just dismiss the victims’ appeals out of hand. You’ll never look at your telephone -- or your gun rights -- the same way again.



Dial 911 and DIE
$11.95 postpaid
Wisconsin residents check the "Include sales tax in order total" box. Canadian residents will have an additional 10-percent added to the order for shipping.

Bibliographic details

ISBN 0-9642304-4-5
Pages: viii, 278
Size: 7-inches by 4.25-inches
soft bound
$11.95 USD postpaid
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 7:10:35 PM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 7:21:38 PM EDT
tag
Top Top