Dial 911 and Hope for the Best? The Harsh Reality of Police Duty.
Contrary to popular belief, law enforcement officers are generally not legally obligated to shield citizens from harm.
For those who grew up watching TV shows like ‘Adam 12’ or ‘Dragnet,’ police officers are often seen as brave protectors, ready to swoop in at a moment's notice to rescue those in distress, but the reality is quite different. Law enforcement agencies are not legally obligated to protect individual citizens. It may seem counterintuitive but is grounded in legal precedents in the United States. The general duty of law enforcement is to uphold and enforce the law and maintain public order, rather than to protect specific individuals from harm. Various court cases have affirmed this principle.
One landmark case that supports this idea is Warren v. District of Columbia, a 1981 case in which the Court of Appeals concluded that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine. This doctrine essentially holds that, because the duty of law enforcement is to protect the public at large, the police cannot be held liable for failing to protect individual citizens.
Another noteworthy case is Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of a restraining order against her estranged husband. The court concluded that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals, even when restraining orders are in place.
These legal decisions illustrate that law enforcement's primary duty is to the general public. Any duty to individuals is secondary and not legally binding in many cases. That is not to say that law enforcement agencies do not aim to protect individuals, but legally speaking, they cannot be held accountable for failing to do so in many instances.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity serves as a legal barrier, often preventing law enforcement agencies from being held accountable when they fail to protect individuals. This concept has its origins in ancient legal traditions, where it was deemed unlawful to bring a lawsuit against the monarch. Such legal protections raise critical concerns about the dynamic between individual citizens and governmental institutions. This undermines traditional assumptions about the societal role of the police, prompting reconsideration of its impact on personal safety and community well-being.
Progressive politicians champion stricter gun control, arguing that a well-funded police force is sufficient for ensuring public safety. Yet, paradoxically, some of these same politicians advocate for defunding the police, pointing to ‘systemic’ issues of racial bias and excessive use of force. On the opposite end of the spectrum, conservatives contend that the Second Amendment serves as a vital safeguard against potential government overreach and is crucial for individual self-defense.
If the state bears no legal obligation to ensure your protection, it raises certain questions: Where does this leave the average citizen in terms of their own safety and security? What is the real value of these political stances when the state, as represented by the police, has no legal mandate to protect individual citizens?
Current public policies create a misleading sense of security by establishing police forces, implementing emergency response systems like 911, and then passing gun control measures that limit citizen armament. This places individuals in a delicate dilemma: they are dissuaded from taking proactive steps for their own protection, while simultaneously being encouraged to rely on institutions that are neither legally bound nor necessarily capable of ensuring their safety.
The current framework makes the average citizen exceptionally vulnerable and enables the government to sidestep accountability, given that existing laws exempt them from the duty to protect individual citizens.
The existing legal and political frameworks place the onus for personal safety on individual citizens, not the state. This fact brings issues surrounding the Second Amendment sharply into focus. If the police are neither legally obligated nor practically capable of protecting every citizen, then one could argue that the individual's right to bear arms becomes a constitutional and practical necessity.
We often assume that the presence of law enforcement agencies means that violent crime can be eradicated or at least substantially reduced. However, statistical data paints a different picture. Despite having police forces and a criminal justice system in place, the United States has continued to experience high rates of violent crime. This reality undermines the belief that police presence alone is sufficient to ensure public safety.
As you consider what you just read, ask yourself: What are the implications for your personal safety? How does this reality shape your views on individual responsibility, state obligations, and collective social contracts? What does the state owe its citizens? But also, what do we, as individuals, owe to ourselves and to each other in the pursuit of a secure and just society?
This isn't merely an academic exercise but a call to examine the foundational assumptions underpinning our social and political systems. By dissecting the myth of guaranteed state protection, we can have a more honest and meaningful dialogue about the limitations and expectations we should have of our governmental institutions.
When you see the slogan, ‘to protect and serve,’ do you still believe that? If so, why?
Clayton Craddock is a devoted father of two, an accomplished musician, and a thought-provoker dedicated to Socratic questioning, challenging the status quo, and encouraging a deeper contemplation on a range of issues.
Subscribe to Think Things Through HERE, and for inquiries and to connect, email him here: Clayton@claytoncraddock.com.
To protect and serve means nothing, it’s propaganda at best.
Too many people don’t know this and don’t know their rights. We have a mass of uninformed citizenry.