Mission Statement
update 1/21/08
Editorial Policy
Letters to the Editor
Reader's Forum
Return to Home Page

  The Police are Under No Legal Obligation to Protect You

By Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press

November 22, 2010

Opponents of the private ownership of firearms always claim there is no need for individuals to own a firearm for self-protection because the police are entrusted with that duty.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Courts throughout these United States have consistently held that police have no legal duty to provide police protection to any individual citizen.
In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in a civil suit against the Metropolitan Police Department.  In the syllabus, the Court wrote:
“[The] fact that police answered [the phone call for help] and arrived outside premises which were scene of burglary and assault did not give rise to special duty on part of police toward victims therein, and police officers were not answerable in damages for failing to ascertain that assaults were continuing upon victims therein, or for leaving premises without so ascertaining.”
The Court ruled that:
“[G]overnment and its agents are under no legal obligation to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.  The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific duty exists.”  [Cite for case: D.C. App., 444 A. 2nd 1, 1981]
On April 19, 1990, an Associated Press article entitled: “Woman can’t sue cops for failing to help,” stated:
“A women who was being raped in an Oakland (CA) apartment can’t sue police for failing to rescue her, even though a friend may have told officers where she was a state appeals court says.
The officers’ alleged inaction is ‘troubling’ but they had no legal duty to find and save the woman and did not make her situation worse, said the 1st District Court of Appeal in a ruling released Wednesday.”
The article went on to state:
“Her suit was dismissed by Alameda Superior Court Judge Demetrios Agretelis, who said the police had no legal duty to rescue her, the appeals court majority agreed.
The opinion by Justice Gary Strankman noted that a police officer, like a private citizen, has no legal duty to come to another person’s aid.  An officer who undertakes to help, however, can be sued for certain types of carelessness or misconduct that makes the other person’s situation worse.”
The police are under no legal obligation to protect you because you have the inalienable right to protect yourself.  That right comes from God not government.

 This right is enshrined in many State Constitutions.  The first section of the California Constitution states:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
The next time a big mouth statist, especially a woman, tells you that government should restrict or ban individual firearms ownership because the police are under a legal obligation to protect you, kindly shove the above information in their face.  Not only will it put a smile on your face, but you will be amazed at how fast it shuts them up and makes them go away.
Note-I believe this principle should be used in every case where an individual applies for a concealed carry permit.  If the police are under no legal obligation to protect you, then where do they get the right or power deny you the right to protect yourself?  If they deny the permit and you are damaged at a later date by their decision, I believe it can change the relationship that immunizes the police from damages as stated above.

 Your comments and feedback are welcome!
Now PoL has its own forum at The Mental Militia! Check it out

Some other, related reading:

The Flawed Second Amendment Debate

The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

Would the Repeal of the Second Amendment Empower the Federal Government and Negate the Right to Own a Firearm?

Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right

A Question For The Supreme Court

Book now Available! See Editor's review here.

"The Bill of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights"
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth

$10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax.

1547 Palos Verdes Mall PMB #160
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [at] yahoo.com

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

lease see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer.


The 2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

There Is a "New" Declaration of Independence, Mr. President

The FairTax and The Sixteenth Amendment

The Federal Government is using the General Welfare Clause to Steal your Money

FairTax or No Tax?

The General Welfare Clause is the Enemy not the Sixteenth Amendment

The Tea Party Movement Needs a Shield and Some Tactics

The NEW 2009 Declaration of Independence

Civil Disobedience and the Census

The Constitution does not Grant the Federal Government
the Authority to Establish a so-called National Health Care Program

A Re-Write of the Bill of Rights through the Preamble

Are the Additional Questions on the Census and American
Community Survey just Another Usurpation of Power?

My Response to the 2010 Census Form

The Census Bureau is Violating the Privacy Act of 1974

Will the “Contract From America” Reform Government or Simply Validate the Usurpation of Power?

The Contract from America should have Focused on the Separation of Power

My Plan to Restore and Preserve the Federal System of Government

The States have the Constitutional Authority to Protect their Borders From Illegal Aliens

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade