# Another one for the good guys!



## thardey (Nov 21, 2008)

> The men climbed inside Waite's Chevrolet Tahoe parked outside and watched the man pull a handgun on the clerk inside the store. He bagged some cash and was on his way out when they decided to act.
> "We just looked at each other and decided to do something about it," Frost said. "I wasn't thinking about it at all. It still hasn't really hit me what we did."
> They grabbed the robber as he emerged from the store and wrestled him for the gun in his pocket. He tried to fight them off, but the men were able to gain control of his arms and freed the gun from his pocket. They stashed it inside Waite's Tahoe until police arrived.



Full story: 

Two UPS guys on their way home from work caught a robber holding up a liquor store.


----------



## Drac (Nov 21, 2008)

Good job guys..But as the police said there is a danger tackling an armed suspect...I just glad no one ( except the perp) was injuried...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 21, 2008)

Drac said:


> Good job guys..But as the police said there is a danger tackling an armed suspect...I just glad no one ( except the perp) was injuried...



Ditto good work.  However they also lucked out.


----------



## Drac (Nov 21, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Ditto good work. However they also lucked out.


 
Yes they did....That not withstanding they still did the public a service...


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 22, 2008)

good for them...nice to see people step up and do something.


----------



## KP. (Nov 23, 2008)

The constant refrain from the police "oh, you shouldn't have done that, it was dangerous . . ." is a big reason so many people choose to look the other way. They've bought into the idea that our self-defense is someone else's job.

It's not.

If the people of a community want less crime, this is precisely what they need to do -- band together and stop crime.

The police not only can't do it, they have no positive duty to do it. They're job is to catch bad guys, if they can, after the crime has occurred.


----------



## Drac (Nov 23, 2008)

KP. said:


> The constant refrain from the police "oh, you shouldn't have done that, it was dangerous . . ." is a big reason so many people choose to look the other way. They've bought into the idea that our self-defense is someone else's job. It's not.


 
Quite true...Cops say what they do cause we are supposed too..Kind of like you Mom saying " Take an unbrella cause its raining"...I for one have never said those words...



KP. said:


> If the people of a community want less crime, this is precisely what they need to do -- band together and stop crime.


 
100%..



KP. said:


> The police not only can't do it, they have no positive duty to do it. They're job is to catch bad guys, if they can, after the crime has occurred.


 
I don't know about where you live, but cops up here are supposed to do both...


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 23, 2008)

KP. said:


> The constant refrain from the police "oh, you shouldn't have done that, it was dangerous . . ." is a big reason so many people choose to look the other way. They've bought into the idea that our self-defense is someone else's job.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


Agree with Drac... 100% absolutely correct. If you're in a position to DO something about it then by gum do it! 
Yes, it's dangerous to try and take on an armed perp, but is it any LESS dangerous to let them get away with it and do it again where they might shoot someone next time because they resisted the robbery? Kinda like a Peter Parker syndrome going there. 

Way to go guys! :cheers:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2008)

I don't blame the LEOs for giving that advice, but it's good some people are willing to take the risk!


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 23, 2008)

Leo advice is always great, but at the same time it is great to see people that can make a difference.


----------



## KP. (Nov 23, 2008)

Drac said:


> I don't know about where you live, but cops up here are supposed to do both...



Not in the USA.

In the USA, court case after court case has resulted in the same conclusion: no specific individual has a right or expectation of public service from the police, fire department, or any other public safety department.

You can call 911, and the cops do not have to come.

You can be being robbed right in front of the cops, and they will incur no legal liability by doing nothing. 

There is tons of case law on this, but the Warren decision is one you'll find quoted quite frequently:



> [T]he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. ... Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.



The Deshaney case sets the standard for when the police have to protect you:


> . . . the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its  expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his  freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar  restraint of personal liberty.



In other words, unless the police have you in custody, then they don't *have* to help you. Period.


----------



## Drac (Nov 24, 2008)

KP. said:


> Not in the USA.
> 
> In the USA, court case after court case has resulted in the same conclusion: no specific individual has a right or expectation of public service from the police, fire department, or any other public safety department.


 
I must have missed that section while in the academy



KP. said:


> You can call 911, and the cops do not have to come.


 
Riiiight...I would LOVE to hera the explanation that some LEO up here would give to the Chief, Law Director, Mayor, etc...For NOT responding to a 911 call....Wait until the media finds out, they will be camped out on the stations door step..



KP. said:


> You can be being robbed right in front of the cops, and they will incur no legal liability by doing nothing


 
See the above answer..Someone being robbed and you DO NOTHING...You won't wear that badge very long..



KP. said:


> In other words, unless the police have you in custody, then they don't *have* to help you. Period.


 
Maybe where *YOU LIVE*, but not in Ohio...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 24, 2008)

In another discussion which I can't find at the moment, the question of "Do cops have to come when called" was brought up, and in some cases, it's a no. I believe it had something to do with limited manpower and prioritizing things, ie responing to a riot is more important than having your drunk neighbor turn down his tv at 4am.

There is also the matter in some areas n if you've paid the right folks for your protection.
From 1996, NYC cops were given a pass on responding if you hadn't paid your alarm fees, going so far as to keep a "No Response" list. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...7A15750C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Ah! Found something.


> *Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone*
> New York Times ^ | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse
> 
> Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:46:17 AM by Nathan Zachary
> ...



All the better to live in a Castle Doctrine state that lets you defend yourself and not one like NY that lets the crook sue you if his drink is warm while he's beating you.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 24, 2008)

Good job but like I posted before on a similiar subject its a double edged sword. It could have ended badly.


----------



## KP. (Nov 24, 2008)

Drac said:


> I must have missed that section while in the academy
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight...I would LOVE to hera the explanation that some LEO up here would give to the Chief, Law Director, Mayor, etc...For NOT responding to a 911 call....Wait until the media finds out, they will be camped out on the stations door step..



Go look up Warren v Washington, D.C.

While there might be administrative penalties, there are no legal liabilities. The police have no affirmative duty to protect anyone except those in direct custody. Period. It's established case law. 




> See the above answer..Someone being robbed and you DO NOTHING...You won't wear that badge very long..



Again, administrative actions do not equate to legal liabilities. I can provide dozens of citations if you want. 



> Maybe where *YOU LIVE*, but not in Ohio...



Yes, in Ohio. And in every other state in the USA. Those quotes I provided are directly from federal court rulings.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 24, 2008)

There was a discussion on this recently...IIRC, it was Deaf Smith who posted a link to a site with a reference to all the cases that ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 24, 2008)

You are on your own.

SCOTUS has ruled many times the police have no duty to protect any one individual. Society as a whole, yes, individuals, no. 

And thus if you call 911 and no one comes, to bad. Does not matter how many times you call, how bad you are off. You are SOL if they can't come. And in many many places, there are so few cops, well, it will be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes for them to come.

You are on your own!

Notice in hurricanes and riots, the officials say they cannot do anything and will not come? They are not suicidal (and I don't blame them.)

You are on your own and always have been. 

The only question is, have you thought ahead as to what you can do (or would like to train so you can do.) Are you good at first aid? Are you good with your hands and feet? Are you good with a reasonable weapon (knife, gun, stick?) Do you know how to operate machinery (besides the remote?) Do you know how to identify different types of fire extinguishers and how to operate (PASS any one?)

Besides being in our companys HAZMAT team, I'm also CPR and First aid certified. PADI divemaster, expert or above in IDPA, 5th dan TKD. Graduate from over 10 shooting/SD schools. Driven school busses on down to motorcycles. I also know how to use a remote 

It's not a brag, it's something I feel strongly about. I feel every good man, and many a woman, should have such skills and more. And most importantly, guts to use them when needed.

Now as for the people who stopped the robbery, I say excellent. It's a risk, but life is a risk. I can tell you from my own experince that such as what they had happen in front of them happens fast and unexpected. You have to react quickly and with some confidence in your skills.

They steped foward when it counted. And that means something.

Or as Robert Heinlein said, "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. *And usually easier*."

Deaf


----------



## KP. (Nov 24, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> You are on your own.
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled many times the police have no duty to protect any one individual. Society as a whole, yes, individuals, no.



Absolutely true:  South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito,  Castle Rock v. Gonzales, DeShany v. Winnebago County, etc.

Moreover, if one looks into state statutes, most states have actually codified as law general immunity from liability for the state failing to provide specific services to any individual.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 24, 2008)

And on that note, I just found out we have a local ordanance that says If I call for assistance, I will be billed a fee of 60 dollars per vehicle that responds.  

I'd be ok with that if I had the choice of calling someone who I know is gonna come protect me, rather than someone with no obligation to do so.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 25, 2008)

In many states if a rescue squad comes, they can bill you for the 'rescue'. Never mind you paid taxes to finance the squad. Never mind if they are to late. Never mind if they do anything wrong (good samaitan laws absolve libility.)

You, and your loved ones, are on your own. The government is a 'maybe'.

Deaf


----------



## KP. (Nov 26, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> (good samaitan laws absolve libility.)




No, they don't.

Good samaritan laws apply to those not professionally engaged in rescue operations. State and local statutes sometime exist seperately to absolve those employed by the government engaged in rescue operations, but in all cases legal precident declares that there is no expectation of quality of service -- unless there is a positive act of negligence.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 26, 2008)

KP,

I doubt if gross negligence is absolved even with a good samaritan law. Texas statue supposedly covers me teaching CHL classes, but that's for simple negligence. 

Deaf


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 26, 2008)

KP. said:


> No, they don't.
> 
> Good samaritan laws apply to those not professionally engaged in rescue operations. State and local statutes sometime exist seperately to absolve those employed by the government engaged in rescue operations, but in all cases legal precident declares that there is no expectation of quality of service -- unless there is a positive act of negligence.


To my understanding of the Good Samaritan law is that because of my training in First Responder and First Aid that if I come across the scene of an accident I HAVE to stop and help until EMS arrives... the loophole is that they have to prove I was there at the scene and if they do they have to WANT to press charges against me... for not helping when I could/should've.


----------



## KP. (Nov 27, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> To my understanding of the Good Samaritan law is that because of my training in First Responder and First Aid that if I come across the scene of an accident I HAVE to stop and help until EMS arrives... the loophole is that they have to prove I was there at the scene and if they do they have to WANT to press charges against me... for not helping when I could/should've.



Yes, but you are also absolved from any legal liabilities unless you do something beyond your training.

For guys who are EMT's, or other professional rescue workers, good samaritan laws do not apply to them. Such laws apply to lay people who happen upon the scene. 

Gross negligance is not covered by good samaritan laws, if you attempt to exceed your training or engage in reckless endangering behavior, you are no longer covered. (at least in most states).

If you're training level is to  'first responder' and you decide to give someone a trach, you're getting sued, and you're losing. Attempting procedures beyond your training is grossly negligent.


----------

