“To protect and serve.” Arkansans grew up hearing that phrase, seeing it emblazoned upon police patrol cars. These four words gave a person a warming feeling, knowing our law enforcement officers were there to protect us from evil. But are law officers required to protect us under law? Is it a constitutional right to be protected by the police of this state? The answer is a resounding “no”.
To protect and serve
On January 18, 2005, Christina Springs received an order of protection from her husband, good for one year. On January 21st, three days later, she was dead. She was stabbed to death at the corner of Greenwood Road and Rogers Avenue, one of the busiest intersections in Fort Smith. Thomas Springs, her estranged husband, had rammed Christina’s vehicle from behind and then attacked her. The order of protection turned out to be only a piece of paper, not able to protect her from a violent death. Her only hope of self-defense was to depend on the Fort Smith Police Department to “protect and serve”.
Many mistakes were made that day. The people of Fort Smith and agencies committed to helping women such as Christina were horrified. In addition, two more events in the summers of 2008 and 2009 also opened the eyes of many Arkansas citizens. In August of 2008, the family of Christina Springs filed a lawsuit against the Fort Smith Police Department and individual officers, claiming they were negligent in protecting Christina. However, on June 6, 2009, Circuit Court Judge James O. Cox dismissed this lawsuit. He ruled the state has an obligation to protect an individual from danger only when the state has created the danger or when a special relationship exists between the individual and the state. In other words, Christina Springs was in no danger which had been "created by the state", and a “special relationship” did not exist between her and the state.
Christina was “on her own” that dreadful day; she was responsible for her own life and her personal self-defense when she was stabbed to death, and the state could not be held liable for it.
Judge Cox ruled correctly on the case. The Supreme Court of the United States decided a similar case a few weeks after Judge Cox’s decision, setting precedence over the Springs case. Several other state court cases also back up the decision, setting it in stone. It is fact: the law enforcement members of the United States have no responsibility to protect its citizens unless it is under very special circumstances.
This article is not being written with the intention of belittling the Fort Smith Police Department. These law officers put their lives on the line every day they leave home to go to work. Recent months’ events have shown how terribly dangerous their job is. However, the normal citizen of Arkansas does not have the right to defend themselves as the founding fathers have provided us with the Second Amendment, and this must be shown to the legislature of Arkansas. Arkansans are not allowed to carry firearms in self-defense as other states are (unless they pay more than $200 for a concealed handgun license). If an endangered person does have the money to apply for this license, they must wait at least 60 days to receive it, and state law says they may have to wait 120 days. This is not a right; it is a privilege granted by the state, one that is not an answer to an immediate need for self-defense.
Most legislators believe police protection in Arkansas is sufficient enough to protect us; these lawmakers should be better educated or be voted out of office. The people of our state deserve better.
Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles have been published. Just click on the "Subscribe" button above.
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German












Comments
Very good article. Very sad topic.
Even if the court ruled differently, LEOs cannot be everywhere. This "nanny state" mentality is doing nothing except hurt us. Now, this poor lady is a statistic.
District of Columbia ruled this in '81 after being sued by one of three women who were ganged-raped for 14 hours, after calling police twice in '75.
[The] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide ... police protection to any particular individual citizen, but, rather, duty to provide public services is owed to [the] public at large. [See Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1, (1981).]
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!