Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (326582)	12/7/2002 9:55:54 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Quick Google: Although government has taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect individuals.15 For example, New York State’s highest court ruled in 1968 that a victim who was attacked after seeking police protection to no avail had no right to protection. The court refused to create such a right, saying it would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. For the most part, federal courts have agreed. The Supreme Court held in an 1856 case that local law enforcement officers had a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person.16 In 1982, a federal court of appeals said: . . . [T]here 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 against such predators, but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.17 These rulings are probably consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people would largely be responsible for their own safety.18 They note that under English common law the sheriff’s main jobs were collecting taxes and enforcing government decisions. Keeping public order was a secondary duty. "Courts have ruled that government does not have a specific duty to protect individuals." ncpa.org