police officers have absolutely no legal duty to protect you.

The leading case on the topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) when the Court stated that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

In that case, police were directly alerted by Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro that they were being held hostage by Marvin Kent and James Morse. Warren called police twice. But police never intervened and Warren, Douglas, and Taliaferro 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—for over 14 hours.

The appellants argued that because police were alerted—twice—that police had a specific duty to protect them from the harm to which they were alerted. However, the court ruled in favor of police following “the well-established rule 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.”

On top of this case is another from the Supreme Court dating back to the 1930’s which established the guidelines for federal government protection of citizens. In short, there is none. In the case of Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, the Court stated “there is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.”

In fact, the only case establishing that police have a duty to protect individuals states that those individuals must be under direct responsibility of police at that time.

In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)), the court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

Comments (6)
No. 1-3
DNW
DNW

If that's the case, I'm grateful to them for going above and beyond the call of duty every single day.

IseeWhereThisIsGoing
IseeWhereThisIsGoing

this is common knowledge.... and yet, many will go out of their way to protect the public, even those low quality individuals that would condemn any actions that they take.

Just look at what happened at the BLM rally in Dallas.... the protesters had no idea what the actual facts were, yet, when the shooting started, the cops were the first ones to step in and take action to protect the rally attendees.

So what exactly is your point?

SmileAndWave
SmileAndWave

And yet most still will and do, even people who don't deserve it like you.