To Help Or Not To Help.

[MJS]

Usually, any time a discussion comes up and LEOs are mentioned, its usually said that an officer is under no obligation to help you. The following quote was taken from another thread:

If you study the case law regarding these issues, organizations such as fire, police, and military are under no legal obligation to help individuals. They are there to protect the general order of the country/city/state /county. Therefore, it benefits no one person over another (or at least, its not supposed to).

The following was taken from the site of a PD here in CT.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Our Mission

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is the mission of the New Britain Police Department to provide quality policing services that emphasize fairness, integrity, and professionalism, to protect lives and property and by using the community policing philosophy, to enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods by partnering with citizens.[/FONT]

And this from the same site.

So reading that, it would seem that it is part of their job to 'serve and protect' the citizens of the town/city. So if we look at stories like this, did the officer actually have to stop and help or could've he just driven on? Did they have to run into that building? I suppose they could have just let them stay in the water.

So, IMO, and perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but while they 'may not be obligated' it seems to me that they do in fact help. Thats why I'm surprised to see comments such as the one that I found on the other thread.

Thoughts?

 

[KenpoTex]

While most of them will (and do) help in any way they can, case law is clear that they are not under any type of legal obligation to do so.

Personally, the reason that help from anyone else is not a factor in my plans for self-defense is that I don't want to be one of the rare cases where an incompetent or uncaring officer or dispatcher fails or refuses to do anything.

 

[jkembry]

While most of them will (and do) help in any way they can, case law is clear that they are not under any type of legal obligation to do so.

Perhaps no legal obligation to become involve. But I would think there is a Moral Obligation to assist. If there isn't they shouldn't be a police officer.

Personally, the reason that help from anyone else is not a factor in my plans for self-defense is that I don't want to be one of the rare cases where an incompetent or uncaring officer or dispatcher fails or refuses to do anything.

Agreed!

 

[jks9199]

The legal fact that an officer has no obligation to help a particular person at a particular moment exists to save cop's butts, both fiscally and literally. It prevents someone from suing a cop who, possible for very valid reasons, didn't directly intervene or stop a crime from happening. For example, when we're doing surveillance, we may well observe minor offenses where no one is endangered, and not intervene. We note the offense, and will probably charge them later -- but we're not going to blow many months of work over a petit larceny... Or I might be in a bank, alone, in plain clothes, when a robbery occurs. Yes -- I could try to stop it, but I might feel that I'm actually creating more danger by acting. Which highlights the physical butt saving... I'm not required to run into a house and get burnt to a cinder (nor is a firefighter); sometimes, as hard as it can be, the best option is to back out of a situation, and take cover while waiting for backup.

Note, though, that most LE agencies have policies that generally require officers to act, and an officer ignoring offenses needs to be able to justify his actions, at least administratively.