The Myth of Police Protection

CCTelander

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
9,173
I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

During the early morning hours of March 16, 1975 two men (Marvin Kent and James Morse) broke into a house occupied by three women in Washington DC. They found Mrs. Miriam Douglas and her four year old daughter asleep, at which point "...The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forcer Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her." (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)) This happened in front of her daughter.

The two other women in the house, Carrolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, heard Douglas' screams and called the police. Within 3 minutes four squad cars were dispatched to the house, but the call was radioed out as a "Code 2," a lower priority call than the "Code 1" usually used for crimes in progress.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled out a window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to show up. When the police arrived, they knocked on the front door, received no response, and just left.

The two women crawled back in through the window and called the police AGAIN. The call was logged as "investigate the trouble," but no officers were dispatched.

The men then kidnapped all three women. They forced the women at knifepoint to go to Kent's apartment where "...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 Kent and Morse." (Id.)

The three victims sued DC and the officers involved for negligently failing to provide adequate police protection, but their case was dismissed. No jury ever heard any of the evidence.

The court stated that "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection." According to the court, this rule "rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Id. emphasis added)

The Supreme Court itself ruled that one has no constitutional right to state protection in DeShaney v. Winnebego County Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989). Every jurisdiction in the country has upheld similar rulings. It's part of the "qualified immunity" that government claims for itself. It's one of the most well-settled issues in American Jurisprudence.

Government, AT ANY LEVEL, has no positive duty to protect your life, liberty, or property. They tell you flat out, if you bother to look, that this is the case.
 
Quite right. At least they admit it.

Law Enforcement is NOT for the protection of any individual citizen.

It is there to protect the interests of the state over the individual citizens.
 
The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.
 
horrible story

as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away (or never show)
 
Quite right. At least they admit it.

Law Enforcement is NOT for the protection of any individual citizen.

It is there to protect the interests of the state over the individual citizens.

Exactly.

I always thought, since I first learned about this stuff, that the fact that they are NOT under any positive duty to protect an individual's rights, it begs the question who exactly ARE they there to protect?

Your last comment, in bold, hits the nail right on the head.
 
The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.

And when you do so the odds are pretty good that YOU will be branded the "criminal." Justice for all? Riiiiggghhht.
 
And when you do so the odds are pretty good that YOU will be branded the "criminal." Justice for all? Riiiiggghhht.

Yup. They can't have the people thinking they can protect themselves, afterall, how will you get people to support increased budgets for police and the expansion of the state if they realize that they themselves are their own security?
 
If anyone is interested in more information on this topic, I'd suggest getting the book Dial 911 and Die available from JPFO and probably also from Amazon. It's a good introduction to the whole sordid mess.

Also, Marc Stevens has more info on this issue specifically and many other legal/constitutional issues at his site here:

http://marcstevens.net/

I'd also recommend his book Adventures in Legal Land for more eye-opening information.
 
A "more perfect government" is a "necessary tyranny"

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

"Necessary tyranny" is organized crime. Organized crime is nothing more than good and bad men working together to exploit the masses. That is why we need to hold the Civil-Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny, the self evident and unalienable Truth above the stark reality we perceive with our five senses, and the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers above even the supreme law of the land.
This means not using our government as much as possible. We need to shut as much of it down as possible. The government needs to go back to doing what it use to do best -- picking up the garbage.
 
Last edited:
I can sit through extremely graphic movies, but even so much as reading about rape makes me queasy.
 
So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?
 
So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?

Fuck with him severely, because you are sober!;)

And have a cam recording to a remote location so you can sue the city after he has tasered you.

In all honesty the choice is yours. The best answer is NO answer. Simply tell him that at the advise of your legal counsel you are under no obligation to answer his questions regarding any information excepting establishment of identity.
Then ask him if all the paper work you have given him (DL/Registration) is in proper order. If he replies in the affirmative ask him if you may proceed or if you are being detained.
 
I think we need a new forum called "Law Enforcement". There are way too many police abuses everyday and it would be great if there is a place to go to be aware of what's going on. We could also have advice from different people, like the lawyer who made that video advising not talking to the police if one doesn't have to.

"Law Enforcement" forum. What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top