• We’re winning the battle … for now

  • Urge President Trump to Rein in the ATF!

  • Help Fight Feinstein’s Backdoor Ban on High-Capacity Magazines

  • Speaker Ryan now asking ATF to impose gun control unilaterally

  • Republicans Yank Concealed Carry Reciprocity; Want to Discuss New Gun Controls

  • GOA On the Front Lines Defending Your 2nd Amendment Rights

  • Sen. Paul Moves to Stop Medical Data from being Used to Disarm Honest Gun Owners

  • Gun Rights Advance This Week in the U.S. House

  • Help GOA in the Upcoming Gun Battles of the Year

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

GOA News

  • Problem with Waiting Periods
  • Fake News on Waiting Periods
  • GOA Puts Ryan on Notice
  • Bump Stock Ban Leads to Other Bans
  • 10 Reasons to Oppose Ban

GOA Exposes the Problem with Waiting Periods

"The study ignores the fact that there are very real cases where waiting periods have actually facilitated homicide," Erich Pratt, executive director of the rights organization Gun Owners of America said.

Read More

GOA Counters Fake News Study on Waiting Periods

"The [anti-gun] study ignores the fact that there are very real cases where waiting periods have actually facilitated homicide," said Erich Pratt, executive director of the rights organization Gun Owners of America.

Read More

GOA Puts Ryan on Notice; Betrayal of the 2nd Amendment Will Be Remembered On Election Day

 

“The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.” -- GOA’s Erich Pratt

Read More

GOA to Paul Ryan: Bump Stock Bans Lead to Magazine Bans

“If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.” -- GOA’s Erich Pratt

Read More

GOA’s Erich Pratt: Ten Reasons Why Gun Owners Should Oppose a Ban on Bump Stocks

A ban on bump stocks will also prohibit other gun parts and magazines. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill (S. 1916) to ban bump stocks would ban any part or device in a firearm that “functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.”

Read More

The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

(Warren v. D.C.)


The Court's Decision: Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6). However, in a split decision a three-judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings.

The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

Appeal No. 79-6

The Gruesome Facts of the Case: In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a.m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a.m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" -- it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.

Appeal No. 79-394

No Duty to Protect: On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 p.m., appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head breaking his jaw.

A Metropolitan Police Department officer arrived at the scene. In response to the officer's direction, appellant's companion ceased any further efforts to obtain identification information of the assailants. When the officer then failed to get the information, leaving Nichol unable to institute legal action against his assailants, Nichol brought a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia.

The trial judges correctly dismissed both complaints. In a carefully reasoned Memorandum Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79-6 on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Holding that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants in No. 79-6, Judge Hannon concluded that no specific legal duty existed. We hold that Judge Hannon was correct and adopt the relevant portions of his opinion. Those portions appear in the following Appendix.[fn1]

Judge Pryor, then of the trial court, ruled likewise in No. 79-394 on the basis of Judge Hannon's opinion. In No. 79-394, a police officer directed Nichol's companion to cease efforts to identify the assailants and thus to break off the violent confrontation. The officer's duty to get that identification was one directly related to his official and general duty to investigate the offenses. His actions and failings were solely related to his duty to the public generally and possessed no additional element necessary to create an overriding special relationship and duty.[fn2]

Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims -- a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police -- adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation. See Falco v. City of New York, 34 A.D.2d 673, 310 N.Y.S.2d 524 (App. Div. 1970), aff'd, 29 N.Y.2d 918, 329 N.Y.S.2d 97, 279 N.E.2d 854 (1972) (police officer's Page 4 statement to injured motorcyclist that he would obtain name of motorist who struck the motorcycle was a gratuitous promise and did not create a special legal duty); Jackson v. Heyman, 126 N.J. Super. 281, 314 A.2d 82 (Super.Ct.Law Div. 1973) (police officers' investigation of vehicle accident where pedestrian was a minor child did not create a special legal duty to child's parents who were unsuccessful in their attempt to recover damages because police failed to identify drivers of vehicle). We hold that Judge Pryor did not err in dismissing No. 79-394 for failure to state a claim.

In either case, it is easy to condemn the failings of the police. However, the desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. In neither of these cases has a relationship been alleged beyond that found in general police responses to crimes. Civil liability fails as a matter of law.

Self-Defense Corner

  • CCW Holder Shoots Robber
  • Armed Texan Stops Sexual Assault
  • Church Shooter Stopped
  • Intruder Kicks in Wrong Door
  • Defensive Use of AR-15

CCW IN ACTION: Robbery Suspect Shot After Picking An Armed Target

BATON ROUGE, LA — In one of the least safe cities in the United States, one concealed carrier put a robbery suspect soundly in his place by taking the right actions when he was forced to.

Read More

Armed Texan Intervenes, Stops Alleged Sexual Assault of Female Jogger

Court documents filed this week claim an armed good Samaritan intervened and stopped an alleged sexual assault after hearing a female runner scream.

Read More

Tennessee Church Shooter Stopped by Good Guy with a Gun

A good guy with a gun confronted Emanuel Kidega Samson on Sunday and held him at gunpoint after he allegedly opened fire on congregants at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ.

Read More

Police: Intruder Kicks in Wrong Door, Dies from Gunshot Wound

Indianapolis police say 34-year-old Percy Walker kicked in the wrong door and was shot and killed by a father protecting two young children.

Read More

Defensive Use of AR-15, Man Kills Two, Wounds One Attacker

On May 6th, 2017, an armed man was sitting on his front porch in the 400 block of Glenburnie Drive in Houston, Texas. He had a concealed carry permit. His brother says that he goes to the range often. He was on his porch and had another firearm with him. An AR-15 type rifle.

Read More

GOA Media Clips

        

     

facebook_icontwitter_iconyoutube_icon






Select GOA with your purchase!

The Lie Behind Gun Free Zones | Video

2A Update