Disinformation - Do the police have to protect you?

[BloatedSensations]

I don't know if it's the same in the U.S., but in Canada not only are the Police not legally obligated to protect you, but you ARE legally obligated to protect the Police. There was a case in the 90's, in the city I was living in at the time, where an Officer was attempting to arrest someone and the suspect started fighting back, got the upper-hand, lay a beating on the officer and got away. A couple of bystanders who had been watching were charged and convicted for failing to help the Officer.

[SeverityOne]

Well, this is clearly a legal issue. If the police were to be held liable if they didn't protect a citizen, every Tom, Dick and Harry could sue them for damages.

So how he comes to the conclusion that you're better off owning a gun is a bit of a mystery.

[OfficerNelson]

Unfortunately, this is true. We are not required to protect people from danger specifically. However, this is clearly inflammatory, because we are required by law to arrest and prosecute those who have committed felonies and we are required to respond to reports of felony activity.

As for the ever-popular 45 minute response told by revdraco, breaking and entering is a misdemeanor in California (thus does not warrant expedited response) while ADW or murder is obviously a felony.

[RxXxRawrrxXx]

Is it just me or does he look like he has devil horns when they do the shot from far away...? 0:52

[enlytnd]

truth is police are the cash confiscators & extortionists for local municipalities.

[PatriotEnoch]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was wondering why I never got help when people shoot at me, or assault me. Geuss I better purchase that firearm.

[214MLI]

The police are to enforce the law and arrest those that break it, they are not personal body guards. I would have thought this to be obvious, why do you call this series disinformation? You've said nothing enlightening

[diablogamer45]

perhaps tnot to those well informed, but i'd bet it would come as a shock to those anti-gun liberals who would disarm you from protecting yourself and to rely on one who has no duty to protect you, just catch the criminal. The police are a necessary part of society, but they will not substitute for a gun in the hand.

A pistol in the hand is worth 50 assault rifles 30 minutes away.

[214MLI]

Which is exactly why I carry a pistol 24 hours a day 7 days a week and normally have an assault rifle in the same room as me ready to go. This country was won by citizens with firearms, not people that are to scared to fight for what's right.

Those who turn thier gun iron into plows will end up plowing for those who do not.

[mapache11]

@214MLI ...the US War of Independence was not won by a bunch of civilians with guns. It wasn't until there was a fully trained army, and a lot of help from the French (unbelievable but true) that the British were defeated.

Are you really saying that a bunch of farmers and shopkeepers with shitty muskets won the war?

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 the american army which was made up of shop keepers and farmers defeated the british a few times this is what made the french decide to join them

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ...so it's that simple is it? No behind the scenes arrangments and promises, just a simple "Well, look how well the shopkeepers are doing, let's send our navy and army over and help out."

Sure.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 they decided based on that ability to bother the british which is what the french were looking for a distraction of the british so they could do things elsewhere. basically proxy war fighting without nuclear weapons

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ..I hope you are from Quebec because if not, you are an embarrassment to Canada.

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ..the "American army"as you call it, had already been fighting for about two years before the french joined in. It was no longer an army of shopkeepers ready in a minute. They were trained soldiers.

Read a fucking book and stop bothering us here, the adults want to talk.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 They had to resign soldier alot and lost alot to desertion they were constantly training farmers and shop keepers. Do remember this was at the time when farmers had to shoot indians and alot of other groups to protect their own homes plus to hunt food. Farmers and shop keepers were not the un trained rabble you expect them to be. Go read a fucking history book and let the adults speak now go to sleep boy.

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ...of course they had to use conscripts. By your short bus riding logic, the British, German, Russian and American armies in the First and second world wars were not well trained just because they had to use conscripted soldiers too. The Continental army was as well trained as the British by 1778.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 sorry but they were not conscripted they were an all volunteer force

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ...there are countless sources that prove you wrong. Although conscription wasn't the favored method of building a fighting force, it, as well as threat of compulsion was used.

You are still an embarrassment to Canada.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 How does one force people to fight against a government? I could see the british side using consription. But guess what mass conscription did not occur till the napoleonic wars before that professional armies of volunteers. The british navy shanghied people by getting them drunk and having them sign a contract then kidnapping them when they were passed out. You are a disgrace to your own nation. I am not a disgrace to mine

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ...you need to go back and read some more. The Continental army ALWAYS had trouble filling their ranks.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 That is because they were a volunteer force in the middle of a revolution. And most volunteer forces are under filled. Especially when most of the people did not support the revolution in the early phases never mind they were using farmers who wanted their crops to grow and their familes to be safe.

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ..look fuckwit, there is ample evidence that the Continental army used conscripted soldiers. They didn't do it often, but they did it. Just admit that you are wrong and go back to diddling your mom.

[MASTERARTGOD]

@mapache11 where is this ample evidence? If they had issues filling their ranks and were not willing to use SS methods to make their people stick around why would anyone who was conscripted stick around in a rebel army when they could just run away and tell the Legit government where their enemies were.

[mapache11]

@MASTERARTGOD ...how be you google "continental army concsripted soldiers"and see what pops up.

[garym33]

Because their logo is "To serve and protect". Can you blame people that have not thought past this to know any better

[Kenzofeis]

Does it say anything about who they serve and protect?

[enlytnd]

@214MLI Wait a minute.isn't assault, breaking & entering, kidnapping, rape, etc, against the law?So shouldn't the govt protect 'the people' are police not a part of the government or are they are an occupying force that work for a corporation.Ask to see their I.D.-I bet it has a tax ID on the back of it.Read ur states enabling act DOI & US const. on purpose of govt.to secure the rights of the people.Police must not be govt.-we kno they r a sanctioned gang & we better protct rselve even from them

[214MLI]

@enlytnd you're clearly retarded, stop wasting my time with your random BS....

[214MLI]

@enlytnd your clearly retarded... stop wasting my time with your random BS.... The Police are there to help not to babysit...

[enlytnd]

@214MLI so wait which part of what I said was retarded?Which part of protecting(=securing) against rape, assault, breaking & entering, etc. is babysitting & which part isn't helping? Just curious of your intelligible stance and dissernment.calling the police about a lost dog or cat stuck in a tree or stubbin your baby toe or more real (as it has happened) calling police about a mistake in an order at a restaurant are cases of "babysitting" as u call it. peace

[Genenku]

OOOO SHOCKING. Again, just like the stupid US Nuking span, Canada, and Texas video its all shock effect. How often have you heard of police officers not protecting people? Now tell everyone Santa Clause is not real, you might shock some kids reading this.

[rickyguerra4]

Santa Clause is not real... O shit!!!

[diablogamer45]

this is to inform that it is not their duty genenku. They may do it, but they don't have to. Will you trust the character of every single person in the police department, or will you trust your own ability to fire a weapon in self-defense of your property and life?

[nicce1982]

Sarkasm is not a good respons to serious issue like this. It's not about how often have you heard it's about how little we the people that elected the goverement to serve and proctect us actually know about what's going on behind closed government doors and who really controls the country! The government no longer servers the people it was created to serve instead it servers itself.

[taylorcola]

thats like saying doctors out in public arnt legally obligated to help you, that is sad becuase if they do help you and they die in your care YOUR FUCKING SUED, but if you dont do anything and deny you ever saw it, then someone dies and you dont get punished kinda fucked up huh

[josh885]

Since the ratio of police to non police is at least 100 to 1 in most cities It is impossible for them to protect everyone. If they were held accountable for not protecting individuals every police department in the world would be completely bankrupt. So instead it is widely accepted that while they need to protect the community as a whole, they are not responsible for your personal safety. This is just one of the many reasons to get training and own a firearm.

[DJSedSo]

That's right.  And something to add here: As of this past July 2008, the U.S. population is numbered at 303,824,640 (as confirmed by the CIA through their website). The police force combined in the U.S. is only roughly 500,000. What this means, with regards to individual/personal protection, is that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE for the police to protect the remaining 303,324,640 individuals (meaning us) living in the U.S. alone. Like you said, it is impossible for them (the police) to protect everyone.

[revdraco]

I read a story once. A man called the cops, told them he was watching 3 men break into his tool shed. They told him it would be 45 minutes before they could get out his way.

He hung up the phone, watched for a few more miutes, then called them back, saying, "There's no reason to hurry, I shot them"

The cops, etc, were there within 5 minutes. They gave him a hard time because he told them he shot the criminals. His response? "I thought you said it would be 45 minutes til you got here?"

[Dylboz]

MadOldMan is full of it. That "well known" fact is a lie, invented by the Brady Campaign and others by including murders and assaults in with accidental shootings. Conflating intentional crimes with accidents and calling it a fact is real disinformation. Bottom line, get a gun, learn to use it and don't count on the state, including the cops, for anything. Ever.

[cocacola37911973]

Murders and assaults of family members with guns aren't cool either... and it is easier to do with a gun than a knife. Accidents are bad too, but saying that the statistics are skewed because they aren't accidents fomented by lax gun control, but only are murderers enabled by uncontrolled fire arms... uh... bottom line, Mad Old Man has a few points.

People use what they have. If they have logic, they use logic. If they have handguns, well, maybe they get used.

[emperorzong]

Unfortunealty the average American isn't responsible enough to own a gun, that's why they shouldn't have them.

[Dylboz]

@emperorzong And you can say this with certainty... how? Don't project your own fears and inadequacies on the rest of us. As the old bumper sticker goes, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns combined. I know plenty of "average Americans" who own guns and are quite responsible with them. Fortunately for gun owners (and liberty in general), you're not an actual "emperor," so your opinion of what other people should or shouldn't have is irrelevant.

[MadOldMan]

"you are better off owning a gun and learning how to use it" WTF this sounds more like disinformation to me. It is well known that gun owners are more likely to shoot family members than attackers.

[214MLI]

So by your logic licensed drivers are more likely to die in a car crash than passengers in cars. What I'm saying is in your statement an "attacker" is by definition a gun owner, legally or otherwise, thereby making gun owners the only people capable of shooting anyone. To die in a vehicle accident you have to first be in a car. Statistically more often the driver is killed because they are the only one in the car. It's not the cars fault it crashed just as it's not the gun's fault you got shot.

[parabear1]

most gun violence is committed by persons who are prohibited by law from owning or possessing firearms in the first place. Gun control, obviously has been an epic fail in terms of reducing gun related crime... meanwhile private gun ownership, has a direct impact on crime... Look at the states with the worst crime problems, and look at gun ownership in those states... you will notice a trend....

[214MLI]

I absolutely agree with you. I'm an avid firearms owner and enthusist. What I was trying to say is it's not the firearms fault it's the criminal using it, the firearm just gets the bad wrap because lord knows the person can't be held responsible. It's a bunch of crap. Firearms aren't the problem, criminals are.

[zedword138]

thats fucking bullshit.

i guarantee you that wyoming has one of the highest gun owners per population and there is hardly any gun related crime.

gun control for the most is a failure tho.

[idreamofmyself25]

haha 1:13 devil horns!

but in all seriousness that is the stupidest law that police dont have 2 protect you

BULL SHIT somebody get off their ass and freaking fix it!!!

[takotheoktopus]

And knowing is half the battle.