"To Control and Investigate"

1103 Views 10 Replies 8 Participants Last post by rodfair, Mar 11, 2013

jonrjen

Discussion Starter · Mar 11, 2013

I know this is not new. But this subject came up in my latest CHL renewal class. I'm talking about the fact that our nations highest court as deemed that the old thought of the Police duties being to Protect and Serve are no longer a statement of fact. But, rather to "Control and Investigate".

I guess for some reason when this gets passed along in an educational setting whose purpose it to bring you up to date on current CHL Law it hits home a little harder.

Save

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

chicharrones

· #2 · Mar 11, 2013

When police are called to a scene of a crime or altercation, they do have to gain control of whatever situation is going on. Then they would investigate. That's what I've seen time and time again.

Since a CHL class usually covers the possibility of a CHL carrier being involved in a situation that ultimately involves the police, is that what the class was referring to?

Save

jonrjen

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 11, 2013

No, the manner in which it was presented, is that the Police are not required to protect the individual citizens but to control the scene. This stemmed from lawsuites filed against local police departments for having not been in a position to protect or prevent bodily injury or death at a given time.

The subject matter did surface during the portion of the class covering CHL holder either having to pull their weapon or use it and how handle themselfs in the investigation and interview process

Save

chicharrones

· #4 · Mar 11, 2013

My first personal experience with police controlling a scene was in 1983. I've seen police controlling scenes ever since, which would leave me to believe the policy has been going on even before that. If it weren't for Los Angeles police cars in old TV shows when I was a kid, I would have probably not known of "To Protect and To Serve". http://www.laobserved.com/assets/lapd-car-left.jpg

Save

piratesailor

· #5 · Mar 11, 2013

The scotus has ruled that it is not the responsibility/duty of the police to "protect".

Save

chicharrones

· #6 · Mar 11, 2013

piratesailor said:
The scotus has ruled that it is not the responsibility/duty of the police to "protect".

I guess they are just making official what has long been standard operating procedure?

Save

911DISPATCHER

· #7 · Mar 11, 2013

In my job I see time and time again, when the Police arrive the incident has already happened and there is nothing to do but investigate. Determine who was the aggressor and what laws may have been broken. And 9 times out of 10 nobody wants to talk or nobody "saw" anything. Very seldom are Police on the scene at the time a incident is happening to "Protect" anybody. That was a catchy phrase put on squad cars but not very realistic. As far as the "Serve" part I see that every day.

Save

Reactions: 1

GunsandNoses

· #8 · Mar 11, 2013

Simply put the police are there to enforce the laws that government creates.

Save

wizard_of_ahs

· #9 · Mar 11, 2013

When ONLY police have guns, it's called a Police State !!

Save

Old_Sp5

· #10 · Mar 11, 2013 (Edited)

jonrjen said:
No, the manner in which it was presented, is that the Police are not required to protect the individual citizens but to control the scene. This stemmed from lawsuites filed against local police departments for having not been in a position to protect or prevent bodily injury or death at a given time.

The subject matter did surface during the portion of the class covering CHL holder either having to pull their weapon or use it and how handle themselfs in the investigation and interview process

The issue was settle many years ago that police have no duty to protect anyone. If there was a "forced duty" then everytime someone was injured because police did not react in a certain amound to time, the lawsuit would never end.

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

This is why the 2nd Amendment should not be altered or repealed in any manner.

Save

Reactions: 1

rodfair

· #11 · Mar 11, 2013

IMHO. LEO's, to generalize, DO try and "Protect and Serve", BUT if they are not informed about suspicious situations etc then they can only investigate. If they stopped getting all these BS calls ordering pizza etc, they could do more protecting.

Save

Reactions: 1

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month