Is the Government obligated to protect us?

[skippythwndrdog]

Below is a question that was asked by DU member "Jody" in the Gungeon.
Take note that this refers only to personal security from criminals and the like, not zoning issues, toxic waste, that kind of stuff.


Two threads on the killings in Tyler, TX attracted a variety of comments but the incident also posed an interesting question.

If the police on scene had not aggressively attacked the gunman, he might have wounded or killed more people. If that had happened, could the victims or their families have successfully sued government for failing to protect such victims?

SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO, “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.”

Related DU threads are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now for my own commentary
I believe that it is my own duty to watch out for my own safety, and the safety of my family. I apprectiate it when the government can aid in that, but ultimately, it is up to me. What say you? Is it the government's job to protect you?

[thecorster]

1. from things that I cannot control, yes.

I am ultimately responsible for me. I can control many factors affecting my life, and if I am a wise person and make good choices, I like to think I will succeed. But there are outside factors that I cannot control. If a mega corporation wants to build a factory next to my house and dump toxic sludge into the river, my protesting isn't going to do much. That is government's responsibility.

Gov't exists to regulate business and laws. It also has a responsibility, IMO, to take care of those who are down on their luck and cannont get back up by their own devices. Sure, churces and social service agencies can help a few people, but it is Gov't that has the resources to help the masses.

I think we should have a reduced Gov't, but the portions that need reduction are the beauricratic-patriot-act-big-brother portions.

[skippythwndrdog]

2. Good point, thanks, I was thinking of personal security, though.

I didn't realize that the question could be read in many ways. I went back and did a quick edit to make it more clear. Thank you.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Believe it or not, no it isn't. There was a case that went to the

federal Supreme Court, where a citizen sued his local police because the police failed to protect his safety when he asked for it. The Court held that although the purpose of police and the like are "peace officers" who exist to enforce penal codes and generally maintain the peaceful of a community, the police are not legally obligated to protect individual citizens from harm. Magic word: legally. Thus, they cannot be held liable for injuries or death that arise from their nonfeasance of protection.

[thecorster]

5. thats awful n/t

[pnutchuck]

4. That opens pandora's box as to the question of our police

force as a whole. Isn't their motto "to protect and serve"? If not for the public's protection, then they are simply enforcers. Isn't that more in lines with a military state?

And if they're not here to protect us, but our assets or to simply capture those who have already broken laws, then what the hell are we paying them for? Shouldn't we then consider other methods of security as in private security forces like they have in parts of San Francisco and I'm sure other parts of the North West?

And if they offer no civil protection, then they need to find new jargon for their war on terror. With the wording in the Patriot Act, police are given increased powers to surveil and detain people based on an assumption that they might be terrorists and therefore a danger to the public.

The list goes on: Bar fights, protests, drugs, etc.....

What the hell are they here for?

I mean laws in general were created to protect the public as a whole. If some crazed gunman starts shooting at people, obviously breaking the law, and the police fail to act to stop this guy, WHY aren't they responsible?

[skippythwndrdog]

7. The motto may be "To protect and serve"

But that isn't the job. The job is to catch criminals and investigate crime. That's it. They are under no obligation to do anything else.

[pnutchuck]

8. Well they should change their motto then....

It's false advertisement :-))

[HawkerHurricane]

6. The First Purpose of Government

Is protection from bullies. It may not always suceed, but if it refuses to try, it needs to be changed.

[two gun sid]

9. As long as the Police and Fire Departments receive....

my tax dollars you're goddamn right I expect them to protect me.

[jody]

10. Police dept try to solve a crime after it's committed and fire dept

to put out fires after they start.

Neither department can prevent crimes or fires or serve as the first line of defense, that's a personal problem.

Many people understand that simple truth and possess guns and fire extinguishers for personal defense of self and property.

[two gun sid]

11. Well, shucks, if that is true I guess that we can go ahead...

and cut some people from their staffs. No more Fire Inspectors, no more units monitoring gang activity or subversive groups, no more cruisers to patrol neighborhoods, no fire safety education.

If it is a personal problem, great! I have never had to call the police or fire department to my house. They don't need my money. They can charge by the individual incident.

To be serious: You are right. They cannot guarantee your complete safety. That was not what I meant. My problem is a court that says the government should not be held accountable for failure to protect its citizenry. Of course it is stupid to hold them negligent if some madman with a gun starts blasting away on a public street. But, shouldn't our government be held accountable if they receive a report that says a terrorist attack is likely and they totally ignore it? Like, "Bin Laden determined to strike"?

[jody]

12. I understand your point. The sad thing is voters have a chance every

two years to hold our government accountable by electing a brand new House of Representatives and nothing happens.

In a related vein, it is ludicrous to argue that (a) governments can compel a citizen to keep and bear arms to defend governments, see Arver v. U.S. (245 U.S. 366) and US v. Miller (307 U.S. 174), and (b) governments have no right to defend a citizen, see Deshaney v. Winnebago (489 U.S. 189), but then assert (c) citizens have no right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves as gun grabbers do.