Do the Police Have an Obligation to Protect You?

By Brian Massie, Citizen Journalist, A Watchman on the Wall

My recent encounters with the Mentor and Mentor-on-the-Lake Police Departments led a reader to send me the following article:

I paid particular attention to the last line of the article: “If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will.”

As the saying goes, “Hope is not a strategy”. If the communists, and their useful idiots, are successful in eliminating our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, how do we protect ourselves, and our families, from the evil doers and the government? We will become the “Wild West” again.

Our encounters with the local police departments is only a first step in getting the prosecutors and law directors to do their jobs and ensure that the local school districts are abiding by the Ohio Revised Code section 2907.321 “Pandering Obscenity to Minors. We are not asking anyone to risk their lives.

Our question is: “Who will step up and protect Ohio’s children?”


Here are some excerpts from the article:

“Unfortunately, families of the victims have little legal recourse against the police because police officers are typically protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity. Police occasionally face consequences for their actions, like when Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd. But criminal charges against police officers who fail to protect the public are extremely rare.”

“The motto, “To Protect and Serve,” first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer’s legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?”

“The answer is no.”

“In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbiathe D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general “public duty,” but that “no specific legal duty exists” unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005’sCastle Rock v. Gonzalesa woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.”

“Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.”

“So, the next time you see a police car roll by with “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on the door, keep in mind they have no constitutional obligation to do that.”

“If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will.


Additional LFC Comments: We are not advocates of the “Defund the Police” movement, and a national police force led by the United Nations is certainly not the solution to fix the ills of our society.

When we destroy the family, babies and morality a society will collapse. No police department protocols can fix that problem, and churches that promote the “love conquers all” approach to problem solving are foolish and deceptive. Only a return to Biblical truths can put us back on the narrow, righteous path.

If we are to err, we will always err on the side of protecting the children. We will gladly be the “millstone” for those that cause children to sin or stumble.


Categories: Free Speech Zone, Uncategorized


Discover more from Lobbyists for Citizens

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading