The Government Has No Duty to Protect You

by | Feb 26, 2018

The Government Has No Duty to Protect You

by | Feb 26, 2018

stoneman douglas school shooting gun control

We recently learned that four armed Broward County police officers, including the School Resource Officer at Stoneman Douglas High School, stayed outside and did not attempt to stop the murderous rampage. Just as appalling as this inaction, however, is the fact that they may not have had a legal duty to attempt to stop the carnage. Courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes no duty on the state to protect an individual from private violence.

In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, the Supreme Court held that a duty to protect an individual only arises when an affirmative special duty is created with that individual. This affirmative duty does not arise when the state learns of an individual’s danger, or even when it expresses an intent to help that individual. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Colorado police took no action to enforce a permanent restraining order against the dangerous husband of Jessica Lenahan-Gonzales. After the husband violated the order and took their children, Jessica called the police repeatedly and even visited the station in person. The police did nothing. The husband finally showed up to the police station himself and began a shootout. After the officers killed the husband, they found the bodies of their three murdered daughters in his trunk. Even with these facts, the Court ruled 7-2 that the restraining order created no affirmative duty to protect Jessica and her children.

In the case of Stoneman Douglas, the School Resource Officer, unlike his fellow Broward County officers hiding behind vehicles, arguably did have a special duty to protect. The Department of Justice describes School Resource Officers as “sworn law enforcement officers responsible for safety and crime prevention in schools” (emphasis added). Under the rationale of DeShaney, those of us who spent time in government schools would argue that a school should be considered a limitation on freedom imposed by the state, like a prison, which would potentially create a special duty to protect.

Even if a special duty were found in this case for this one officer, it would be the rare exception. In Warren v. District of Columbia, a case that was decided en banc by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals during DC’s long-standing handgun ban, three women were asleep in their Northwest DC home when they were awakened by the sound of their back door breaking. Two men forced their way inside and up to the second-floor bedroom of one of the women. The men raped and assaulted her. The two other women, hearing the commotion, called the police for help. When officers arrived at the house, one officer drove by the back of the house without stopping, getting out, or even leaning out the window to look around. Another officer may have knocked on the door but left after he received no answer. The officers spent no more than five minutes “investigating” before leaving. The two men then forced all three women back to an apartment where they were robbed, abused, and raped for 14 hours.

The Court ruled that the officers did not have any special duty to protect these women. A police officer’s only duty is to the public at large, not to the individual. Judge Keating aptly criticized this concept in a dissenting opinion in Riss v. City of New York: “Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.” Before we eliminate our means for defending ourselves and before we outsource our security entirely to the state, I suggest we consider the fact that the state unambiguously assumes no duty to protect us as individuals absent a specific “special duty.”

Ian Paquette

Ian Paquette

View all posts

Our Books

libertarian inst books

Related Articles

Related

TGIF: What Free Market in Health Care?

TGIF: What Free Market in Health Care?

Contrary to a popular article of faith, America has no free market in health care—far from it. Consider this: the largest lobby in Washington, D.C., is—wait for it—the health care and health insurance industries. Last year, they spent 5.8 times the amount the...

read more
A Critique of Practical Hasbara

A Critique of Practical Hasbara

Immanuel Kant published The Critique of Pure Reason in 1781. It was the same year the Rebel Alliance triumphed at Yorktown, Virginia. The victory at Yorktown made possible the decline of the British “liberal” empire and the eventual rise of Washinton DCs “non-empire”...

read more
The Switzerland Summit: Peace Through Delusion

The Switzerland Summit: Peace Through Delusion

Ukraine has been at war for over ten years, and even the political establishment wipeout in the European elections has not managed to shock the Western ruling class back into coherence. Nothing could provide a clearer example of their clownish nature than the recent...

read more
Smashing the UK’s Statist Mindset

Smashing the UK’s Statist Mindset

Mainstream British political thought processes contain an epidemic of dreadful reasoning. Witness the average political interaction between “popular” British parliamentarians and voters, think through the reasoning of the topics discussed, and you will know exactly...

read more
Will Trump Learn from Bump Stock Battering?

Will Trump Learn from Bump Stock Battering?

The Supreme Court last Friday struck down one of the most controversial gun control edicts in recent years. The ruling on bump stocks is being widely hailed as a victory for an expansive reading of the Second Amendment. But it is also a stark rebuke to Donald Trump’s...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This