Another “Dirty Little Secret” … About Calling 9-1-1.
The Dirty Little Secret: Call 911 and probably, you will DIE.
In an earlier contribution to the Defense Actions blog, I mentioned the “dirty little secrets” I share with students in Utah Concealed Firearm Permit courses. The one that gets the most attention and even shocked reactions is when I point out that the police do not have to even show up if you call for help using the 9-1-1 emergency phone system.
I’ve been aware of this for a long time and find that this fact is not well known and even hidden in some areas. Where I live, there are billboards that proclaim “Save a Life, Report a Fire, Stop a Crime: Dial 9-1-1”. With the facts I will present below you will quickly learn that this billboard and most police agencies mis-lead the public they supposedly serve, about their “duty to protect”.
Concerning whether the police and/or the government can or will protect you; Yes, Truly, a Dirty Little Secret
:
From “Taking Chances or Making Choices” by Elizabeth J. Swasey, American Guardian Magazine, (now First Freedom) May 1997 issue, page 26:
“As courts have held’…a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection to any particular individual citizen…”
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 AA.2d1(D.C.App181)
Or put another way, “[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
Bowers v. Devito, 686F.2d 616 at 618 (7th Cir. 1982).
From “Safe, Not Sorry” by Tanya K. Metaska, page 160, Supplement 1:
Using more than thirty cases to make the point, the standard U.S. legal reference American Jurisprudence (57AmJur2d 441), puts it plainly: “In the absence of special circumstances, there is no duty resting on a municipality or other governmental body to provide police protection to any particular person and the government may not be held liable for its failure to do so…”. In a related section (446) it adds, “even where a person has anticipated harm and requested police protection.”
From “Effective Defense, the Woman, the Plan, the Gun” by Gila May Hays, page 12:
These were eye-opening courts cases and statements. Here are further facts about 911 calls:
“Gun control proponents have argued that Americans should give up their armaments and rely on the police to protect them. Realistically, however, police forces are installed to patrol, maintain peace, and investigate crimes after the fact, not prevent the crimes. (Emphasis added) In 1975, three women were raped, sodomized, and terrorized for fourteen hours in Washington D.C. The police were called in the initial moments of the attack, and four cruisers were dispatched. None of the victims was able to answer the door, and after five minutes, the officers left. A second call received a promise of help on the way. It was later determined that officers were never dispatched to answer the second plea for help. Fortunately, the women survived. Lawsuits followed, and in 1981 the Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. ruling on Warren v. District of Columbia, wrote that under American law the “government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
This was the landmark case that blew the cover off of the dirty little secret. In my area I’ve picked up literature from local law enforcement agencies that basically tells victim
s to “give in” to their attackers and not fight back and to relay on the police to help them. As an email a friend of mine sent me says, “Why do I carry a gun? Because I can’t carry a cop.” Another one I received pointed out that police response times are measured in minutes or longer in certain areas, and a bullet can travel 1250 feet per second. This is one of those “Do the Math, Idiot” statements.
Recognized author and expert Don B. Kates wrote the following: From Don C. Kates Gun Rights column “Gun Permits and the (Non) Right to Police Protection” Handguns Magazine, February/March 2006 issue, page 34:
“Whenever cities are sued for failure to protect individuals, the mayors send forth their lawyers to invoke the “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen,” though that quote happens to be from a District of Columbia court. The same rule is accepted in every state—see Braswell v. Braswell, 410 S.E.2d 897, 901 (N.C. 1991): “The general common-law rule, known as the public-duty doctrine, is that a municipality and its agents act for the benefit of the public, and therefore, there is no liability for the failure to furnish police protection to specific individuals.” (Emphasis added)
See also Castle Rock, Colo. V. Gonzalez decided by the U.S Supreme Court on June 27, 2005. The Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that “individuals have no right to police protection under the Federal Constitution.”
The Colorado case was particularly disturbing in that the woman’s three children were murdered by her ex-husband who had violated restraining and protective orders. When she sued, the court ruled as noted above.
The earliest I recall reading about this was in Guns and Ammo magazine’s July 1992 article entitled “Dial 9-1-1 and Die” written by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JFPO). This article was expanded in to book form with the same title, written by Attorney Richard W. Stevens. In it my home state got a tombstone or failing grade after research in a number of cases where the system did not work and the police did not respond in a timely manner or not at all. I have in years since met family members of the victims of one of the crimes in the book. It is sobering to hear their stories. The book is available from www.JPFO.org. I often will ask people why the Jews would be interested in preserving the ownership of firearms. Sadly, few younger people even have a clue as to why this is so important.
In the end, each of us individually is in charge of our own personal safety. We are the “First Responders” when evil appears and cannot depend on others to do it for us. This is why we train and prepare, practice and educate. History has shown repeatedly that the police will not be there and they have no duty to protect you as an individual. That is why you no longer see the “To Serve and Protect” logo on police vehicles, other than in TV shows and in movies. They patrol, and respond AFTER something happens. My many law enforcement friends remind me regularly that they cannot be everywhere, and they pick up the pieces and investigate after something happens. The good ones realize that. We should recognize our personal responsibility and prepare for whatever comes. Now this is no longer a “dirty little secret”. It has been revealed to the light of day. Learn from this and prepare accordingly. Become the sheepdog.
Until next time, stay safe and check six often.
A very sobering article. While it is all true, those like yourself will continue to face an uphill battle to preach the truth. Many, many Americans grow up with the notion that the Police and Fire departments will always be there to save us. Being saved by the state is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Being able to keep and bear arms is though. So ultimately it is up to us, the individual to protect and care for us and those around us.
As always, good work Steve (and Damon)!
Hi man! Awsome blog! I really liked reading it.
My wife and I live about 130m from the proposed site and we have 2 small clrhdien.The proposed location is a minute commercial area in the midst of a large residential area. I fear that this technical non-residential status will trump the reality of the residential location which includes schools and child-care centres.Everybody I have spoken to who has lived near a rehab centre tells me they bring loitering, anti-social behaviour and needles in the street. I’m also concerned about Brockley becoming a centre for drug users, more dealers moving in and there being violent conflict between them and with existing drug dealers.If these concerns make me a nimby then so be it. If it was your neighbourhood and your kids you might also have concerns.At the consultation meeting last Wednesday, the advocates told us that in their experience of running 150 such centres, there would be minimal problems and we would barely notice the centre’s existence. They emphasised that service users would be a self-selected sample committed to recovery and could be holding down jobs, have clrhdien and/or only suffering from a mild problem with cannabis use. When it was suggested that some of the users would only be attending because of court orders, there was muted assent.The rosy picture painted by the advocates also stood in contrast to testimony of residents who had worked with the client group in question, others I have spoken to who have lived near rehab centres, and the impression given by CRi’s own risk assessment. According to this document, there is a moderate likelihood of moderately severe agression from service users towards staff, volunteers, peer mentors, peer advocates, service users and visitors. This risk will be reduced by issuing all staff with personal alarms. Risks to local residents and passers by are not assessed, but I think we can assume they won’t be issued with personal alarms.The general impression was one of a meeting divided between advocates and residents, with no honest broker to mediate or give unbiased information. Also sorely lacking was anybody from the organisers who knew how to chair a meeting. This alone went a long way towards undermining the effectiveness of the consultation.My faith in the consultation process was further undermined by the consultation document’ that advocates said had been distributed to 1000 local residents. Few people in the immediate area say they received the document although many who actually received it may have ignored it because at first sight it looks like a general consultation with no relationship to the local area. Only in the small writing on page 2 would readers find out that a rehab centre is proposed for Shardloes Rd. No street number is given, no map is given and there is no photo of the building.The document includes a questionnaire that doesn’t ask residents how they feel about having a rehab centre on their doorstep, it only asks them if they want better drug treatment services in the area. There are no quantifiable options that could be used to register opposition. Only one of the text boxes could conceivably be taken as an invitation to voice opposition. This box is at the end, the responder would have had to go through the nauseating series of leading questions to get that far, and any contents would not contribute to the hard statistics’ that end up being presented to the mayor. As an object lesson of how to lie with surveys, it’s only failing is that its shifty guile is all too blatant.The above considerations seriously undermine my faith in the rest of the assurances from the advocates, including the assurance that this really is the best location. If it really is, then fair enough, it has to go somewhere, and it’s just my bad luck if it turns out badly. However, it’s difficult to believe any assurance when it’s being offered up alongside obvious flim-flam.
Rique…
Great insight to the problem at hand. I agree with you on so many levels. There is one fact that can help quite a bit, when focusing on personal protection; that is the fact that ALL of us are responsible for our own protection. As a father, I can imagine how much you have thought of this and the potential problems that can arise. Teaching your kids the essentials of being alert and aware, coupled with having a family safety plan of action is essential. I would recommend a couple of things for you: First, check out our Ready Kit, that will help you and the entire family plan better and help with prevention and aftermath. If you really want to purchase the Ready Kit, and that price point is difficult, then I’ll make you a deal on it. Second, read these two books: Predators – by Greg M. Cooper and Mike King, and the other one is The Gift of Fear by Gavin DeBecker. These are essential for everyone to read and know and practice. The other thing is this… I provide a book list for my students that I’ll gladly send to you if you send me a “Reminder Email” so I can attach it for you. It’s in a Word document, so you can just print it out and start some good, solid reading for you and your family. (Send to: admin@defenseactions.com)
Good luck and thank you so much for the comments and input.
Damon