How many people knew this: Police are not there to serve YOU!! Never have been!! BY law that is!!

While writing another thread I came across an article and in it a fascinating little fact.

Most people this that police are there to PROTECT AND SERVE as their little badges say. However, this is all a little misunderstanding because their only job is TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

Police DO NOT work for you and never have been required to. They work for the state or government of the state. Enforcing LAWS.

What do you guys think about that. Surely that has some sway on those who hate cops. They are not legally required to protect you as you have always thought. They DO NOT work for the citizen, even those who pay tax!!

n 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no duty to protect any individual. Their duty is to enforce the law in general. More recently, in 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...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... but it does not violate... the Constitution." Later court decisions concurred: the police have no duty to protect you.

reply to post by projectbane


Well ... I guess I did. How many times have I said, "Never call the cops."

Cops are there to clean up the mess. If you don't make a mess, it's an easy paycheck they earn. Make a mess ... and you're gonna deal with someone who resents you for making it.

reply to post by projectbane

DP ... So I'll add: There's a LOT of resentment over the actions of a few bad apples. There's justified hatred over the fact that the bad apples are obviously tolerated.

Instead of wasting your efforts resenting what is, understand that the only way to get rid of the problem is to vote for elected officials who promise to reduce the budgets of their police forces. Get rid of the ones who would perpetuate the status quo.

reply to post by Snarl


LOL I have been, for the past five or so years, been referring to law enforcement as civil janitors. I am responsible for my own safety, thank you.

reply to post by projectbane


I read the same a few years ago, and that's why I'm amazed that people are against the right to bear arms. I think the police should openly campaign this fact so that others too know that when it boils down to it, you yourself are responsible for your safety.

I also believe the U.S. in general should have a universal defense of habitation law. We shouldn't protect the criminals!

I don't hate cops. They provide a service, in it's ideal. to uphold the law. That's a big deal, imo. That some people misunderstand their role, is a detriment to social understanding.

Notice they don't say who they protect and serve.

People just assume it's the citizens.

Yeah, the police don't exactly work for us, even if we do pay their salaries. They work for the state/government.

They have laws on state and the federal level. And they need people to enforce those laws. What would be the point of instituting laws if there was nobody around to enforce them? Which is why we have the police.

And which is why the government has agencies/programs that carry out regulations set forth by the government. They need more people to carry out separate and more specific goals and conducts. Ex: EPA, FDA, ATF, TSA, CIA

The police are there to help catch criminals. But they almost never arrive on time. It's not like they are your personal body guards. There isn't nearly enough policemen/women that could pull that off. Your basically on your own for the next 10 minutes or so. And 10 minutes is plenty of time to get killed in a dangerous situation, and plenty of time for the purp to run off into the moon light.

It was a great deception to move from a "Peace Officer" to a "Police Officer". Since "Peace Officer" is no longer used, I like to refer them as what they really are, and that is "Officer of the Law".

Your quoted text is correct; they are not there, nor were they ever meant to be there, to "serve and protect" or be there when a crime is being committed. There job is to be the long arm of the law in keeping the peace. If that means detaining another, it is so granted and that person can attest or deny the accused claims. If it means administering "law" on demand, it is completely wrong; they cannot administer justice, but only judgement in maintaining peace pertaining to the laws that are relevant on hand to a situation.

Probably an old-world view of it, but it should be this way in my opinion.

After that '82 ruling I remember seeing cops peeling the "To protect and serve" stickers off their cars. I believe most of them have replaced it with "seat belt enforcement" or some such. I've always been a big believer in laws and their enforcement but only if there's equal application of the law and there most definitely is NOT. It's been my sad observation and experience that cops don't KNOW the law and are therefore incapable of enforcing it. Also, the laws don't seem to apply to them as they do to the rest of us, creating an "us verses them" mentality.

NuclearPaul
Notice they don't say who they protect and serve.

People just assume it's the citizens.

The police are actually there to protect and serve the state for whom they are employed. The state makes it laws and the police are there to protect that law from being broken. Also, they are there to protect the federal laws that the member state is required to uphold as part of its duty of being a state of the United States of America.

The individual state has overall power to protect those laws governing state and federal. It's why (baring certain types of case ie missing children etc) the state police investigate federal laws broken within its jurisdictional state. Murder is a federal crime but the FBI can't come in and investigate without permission or being asked to by the state police (like I said barring certain situations).

So overall, the police are there to ONLY serve it's state government and carry out their orders as dictated by state law makers, politicians and federal command.

I submit that if a law is broken by a member of law enforcement, as a citizen of the state you are in, you legally have the right to uphold that law and protect it. The state supreme court should back you. However, easier said then done.

Those who blithely reassure you about police protection are doubly wrong. Not only is protection not the officers' job, they may well be the ones who victimize you. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, correctly observes that the American legal system is based on the English Common Law. The modern American policeman dates back centuries to the role of the English Sheriff, who was paid by and accountable to the government, not the community. As the JPFO states, the main purpose of the Sheriff was the "enforcement of government decisions," such as seizing property. "Maintenance of public order" was of secondary concern. Indeed, if the two concerns collided - as in the enforcement of victimless crime laws - the government invariably won.

projectbane
So overall, the police are their to ONLY serve its state government and carry out their orders as dictated to.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

The other way is to see the police standing between the citizens and the state ... while the state reaches around and picks the pocket of the citizens.

Hey, when I was a kid cops 'seemed' a lot better than they do today. People were also just coming to grips with how out of control the government could be ... wrecking hippies and whatnot.

Never call the cops. Plain good advice from a retired federal LEO. Spade!!

ownbestenemy
It was a great deception to move from a "Peace Officer" to a "Police Officer". Since "Peace Officer" is no longer used, I like to refer them as what they really are, and that is "Officer of the Law".

CNN

It's still used when it's convenient. In defense of his police clients beating a homeless mentally ill man to death:

"These peace officers were doing their job. They had no malice in their heart," said John Barnett, an attorney for Ramos.

Word games and semantics. Just how gun-control proponents call 18-24 year old gangsters "children" for their statistics.

When you want to encourage fear it's "police officer" and when you want sympathy it's "peace officer."

This is why emotion needs to be separated from the meaning of words. People have attached all this extra value to terms, words and phrases based on their own biases even when tone and context do not support those biases.

Here people are biased to view "peace officers" in a positive light and "police officers" with a negative tilt so the attorney uses that knowledge to play the people.

Even though a word or phrase may be often used with a negative or positive tone do not assume that every usage of that word or phrase is carrying the tone you expect it to be. Helps to avoid the semantic trappings of newspeak.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


How could the jurors have acquitted those animals?

reply to post by projectbane


Cops are REDCOATS.. in EVERY sense and manner.

the only difference is they now serve the corporation (owned by the crown) instead of directly employed BY the crown

reply to post by whitewave

They don't know the law, they only feed people to the courts, which is where the actual law enforcement occurs.

I really don't understand where the term "Law Enforcement Officer" came from, maybe it's only because the abbreviation for it is "LEO", like they consider themselves some kind of fierce critter from Africa...

They are not law enforcement officers though, law enforcement occurs once it gets to the courts, a county clerk is more involved in enforcing laws than these posers are.