Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/13/2001 1:19:58 PM EST
ok, i need your help, quite a while ago someone posted a link about a supreme court ruleing saying that the police are to just enforce the law and not provide personal protection. i did a search on supreme court but nothing that covers police protection. i need this for a letter to the editor in the liberal star ledger of new jersey
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 1:42:11 PM EST
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989. See [url]http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+f_children!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt104655%7D/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D[/url] Specific part of the ruling:
(a) 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. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 2:01:15 PM EST
Here are some more: [url]http://www.copcrimes.com/courtcases.htm[/url] The Bowers v. DeVito ruling was a 7th Circuit Appellate decision that was not heard by the Supremes, but it said
There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.
View Quote
In other words, dialing 911 does not mean you won't be hurt or killed.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 5:43:12 PM EST
okay, a little off topic here, but is any one else appalled at the "we suppose" statement by the justices in the second excerpt? if they're not sure, either check the facts or don't mention it. this is going into a legal decision afterall. there is no room for "we suppose." i know that wasn't the point of the decision, but we shouldn't ever start letting them get away with "supposing" anything. bad precedent, i think. by the way, great links. thanks for the research. i love using that piece of info on antis who say the police will protect them. hee hee.
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 6:59:49 PM EST
ARLady, you have to realize that legaleaze is a language unto itself. The fact that the Court mentioned the rest of the Constitution at all reflects the fact that they thought it important enough to make the point. The case was brought before them under the auspices of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is the ONLY thing they could rule on, by law. What they said, essentially, is "don't try to appeal on any other basis, because you'll lose". BTW, you're welcome. I think it's best when everybody has the facts.
Top Top