Skip to main content

Is It Negligent to Let Biological Males Compete in Girl’s Sports?

According to the courts and science, a transgender person is someone with “gender dysphoria” or who wants to be the opposite sex but isn’t. To preface this, we know that politicians, college campuses, and even the U.S. military have been pushing a theory that there is no biological difference between males and females since the election of President Biden.

We also know that the military has lower physical standards for females because, in general, biological women are nowhere near as physically powerful, aggressive, or as large as biological males.

“Men have a higher speed and physical strength compared to women. A meta-analysis was conducted on 47 separate studies that measured how far men and women can throw various things. The effect size, i.e., the size of the difference, was significant in this area. . . In many studies, men are both physically and verbally more aggressive than women, with medium effect sizes.” (Source.)

Men Competing as Women Dominate Female Sports?

We also know that biological males allowed to compete in female sports dominate and devastate the biological females they compete against, with very few exceptions. Speaking about these truths of male and female differences on social media will likely get you banned for hate speech.

The question many are asking is why? Why don’t they force biological females to pass the same physical standards as males in sports and the military if there are no differences? Why have thousands of years of science been flushed down the toilet in favor of this new, transgender participation rule that men and women are the same, these people ask?

Now, we have a young lady battered in a sports game by a biological male with what would be considered superhuman strength for most biological females to possess. On October 22, 2022, footage surfaced of a volleyball match at a high school in North Carolina where a transgender “girl” (a biological male with a gender identification issue) smashed the ball, striking a biological girl on the opposing team, resulting in severe head and neck injuries.

The ball’s estimated speed before it hit the female volleyball player at the Hiwassee Dam High School was around 70 mph, resulting in long-term concussion symptoms. According to the board, their decision to forfeit all games against the team that let males on their team was purely based on safety concerns as they danced around the controversial topic of allowing overwhelmingly powerful men pretending to be girls to compete in girls’ sports.

However, when such incidents lead to injuries, many people question, “Is it negligent to let biological males compete in girls’ sports?”

Some States Have Issued Laws to Ban Transgender Athletes from Playing in Sports Teams

Texas rules ban transgender students from competing outside their gender in sports teams. However, the loophole in the law allowed transgender athletes, who changed their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity, to still play against female athletes. Conservative lawmakers recently closed that loophole, making Texas the latest state to bar transgender girls and possibly other self-identified strains of LGBTQ youth from automatically participating in women’s sports.

18 state legislatures have enacted laws or rules on the transgender athlete ban. Although the bills passed in states protect fairness in sports, they contradict Biden’s executive order on combating discrimination based on gender identity. The executive order overturned Trump’s policies and the rules laid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. California is the only state that protects trans athletes, and more than 15 states have friendly policies toward transgender athletes (unlimited access allowing boys and nonbinary youth to compete against girls in sports.).

Does the Involvement of Transgender Athletes Prevent Participation of Female Students in Sports?

There was an argument that letting transgender athletes participate would drive women athletes away from high school and college sports on the playing field due to apparent, undeniable hormone levels. However, that is not the case, as female athletes rose more than 13% nationwide from 2018 to 2019. Even states that do not exclude trans kids from school sports in the university system saw an increase in girls’ participation.

The rise in female and male participation in sports was due to more schools offering comprehensive athletic programs. Creating opportunities for students will attract them and allegedly level the athletics playing field.

Now that we’ve debunked the notion that transgender athletes prevent girls’ participation in sports let’s go to the main issue.

Advocates and Lawmakers Argue That Male Participation Could Affect Women’s Opportunities

Some advocates and coaches believe that keeping biological males from participating in female sports may be a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 issue, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga case.

Title VIII pertains to the employment rights of individuals where they cannot be fired based on their sexual orientation. However, the main concern is Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, where legislation protects women’s right to participate competitively in education and sports.

Over the years, women fought for their rights to equal athletic opportunities mainly based on gender differences. Before Title IX, women often faced discrimination, depriving them of educational opportunities, and allowing males to compete directly with women could continue this discrimination.

Critics believe that young women are becoming spectators in girls’ sports and allowing transgender athletes to push back the progress women have made in the last five decades. Many girls do not like the idea of being forced to share the bathroom or take showers with boys “pretending” to be girls, either.

Arguments Against Participation of Transgender Girls in Female Sports Teams

Those advocating for biological males to participate as females believe that gender is a choice. If a biological male wishes they are the opposite sex, it must be that way. However, medical professionals and sports advocates disagree,

There Are Physical and Cognitive Differences among Genders

Among psychiatrists and other medical professionals, there is a consensus that if a man believes they are opposite sex, it does not make it accurate since it does not fall in line with the biological reality.

They believe that using drugs to suppress hormones does not alter biological sex or eradicate the certain physical advantages males will have against biological females.

Besides physical advantages, there are cognitive and behavioral differences, such as visuospatial skills and tracking objects, between sex differences.

It Could Also Be an Ethical Issue

Allowing transgender women to compete against biological females also becomes an ethical issue. Using drugs in competitive sports to alter the physical body is unethical.

The argument here is why drugs that counterfeits female biology should be given a free pass to offer girl protection to boys.

Constitution and Title IX Protects Transgender Rights: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020, preventing biological males from competing against females and preserving equal athletic opportunities for women in girls’ sports. These bills are seemingly based on the fear that transgender students or athletes will dominate over high school girls or biological females, even when there is little to no evidence that this has or will happen.

West Virginia also passed a similar law barring the male sex from competing against women, which gave rise to the case B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education. A school told their student, B.P.J., that she could not join the girl’s cross country or track teams because of the newly enacted bill and B.P.J.’s transgender status.

B.P.J.’s biological sex was male at birth, but she knew she wanted to be a girl from a young age. In 2019, she started taking puberty-delaying pills after the doctors diagnosed her with gender dysphoria.

All her classmates had accepted B.P.J. for who she was, but now, because of the law, things suddenly changed for her, prompting her parents to sue the West Virginia State Board of Education. The lawsuit stated that the law violated B.P.J. ‘s 14th Amendment rights and Title IX.

The court found that the law discriminated based on B.P.J’s transgender status and was discrimination under Title IX. These laws try to solve problems that do not seem to exist. There are multiple cases where the courts found that Title IX protects transgender individuals.

Can I Sue for Sports Injuries?

In the case where the trans woman smashed the volleyball at 70 mph, causing injuries to the other female player, the question “Is it negligent to let biological males compete in girl’s sports?” should not arise.

Regardless of gender, anyone can be held responsible for causing harm to others due to their negligence. In sports, if injuries arise due to a regular act of the game, then there is no liability. But, if a player crosses the line, the injured party can pursue compensation. However, if girls are forced to compete against more prominent, more powerful men pretending to be girls, liability may exist against those running the team. This is because girls never consented to play against males, so they joined an all-female team!

Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law to Discuss Your Civil Rights and Options to Compete in Sports Fairly

If you suffered sports injuries due to negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation. You may qualify for compensation.

Marine Stops Subway Threat CRT v Self-Defense Comparative Analysis

Investigation Continues as Legal Consequences Await

Date: May 6, 2023 – Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Queens, has been publicly identified as the individual responsible for the tragic death of Jordan Neely.

“…had a series of run-ins with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.” (Source, CNN)

Penny, the Marine, had remained unnamed until online sleuths discovered and revealed his information on Thursday night, prompting the press to follow suit. Authorities had previously refused to disclose his identity, adding to the case’s mystery.

Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, released a statement on Friday night asserting that Penny acted in self-defense and to protect other passengers after Neely began aggressively threatening them.

“When Mr. Neely began aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers, Daniel, with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived,” said Kenniff.

Kenniff emphasized that Penny had no intention to harm Neely and could not have foreseen his untimely death. The statement also highlighted Neely’s documented history of violent and erratic behavior and drew attention to the mental health crisis in the City. The incident occurred on Monday afternoon aboard an F train, where Penny was captured on video choking Neely.

See the Video Here:

The distressing footage showed Penny tightly gripping Neely’s chin above the neck while another unidentified man held his arms. The conductor and others on the train called for police intervention, and eventually, a bystander warned Penny about the potential consequences of his actions. Penny released what the media incorrectly are calling a choke hold, and Neely, who appeared unconscious, was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.

Penny, a West Islip High School graduate, enlisted in the Marines in 2017 and achieved the rank of sergeant before leaving the service in 2021. According to his lawyer, he is currently a college student. People who knew Penny expressed mixed sentiments, with some sympathizing with his circumstances and believing he acted in self-defense, while others mourned Neely’s tragic death.

As the investigation unfolds, the far-left, Soros-connected Manhattan District Attorney’s office is considering potential charges against Penny. The decision of whether to present the case to a grand jury will determine if charges should be brought. Legal experts suggest that based on the available video evidence, charging Penny with murder may be challenging under state law, which requires proving the intention to kill. The press’s irresponsible use of the term “chokehold” is also reminiscent of the political show trial of Rittenhouse.

Charges of second-degree manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide are possibilities if prosecutors can convince a more likely than not all Democrat Grand Jury that Penny was not reasonably acting in self-defense, potentially influenced by cradle-to-grave CRT influences. Their thoughts are unavailable, but their beliefs are why they have Alvin Bragg. To strengthen the case, authorities urge additional witnesses to come forward with firsthand accounts. Their testimonies will be vital in assessing the events and determining the appropriate legal course. The New York Police Department has encouraged anyone who witnessed the attack and has not yet come forward to share any information they may have.

Penny, represented by criminal defense attorney Thomas Kenniff, has not commented. The legal process awaits him as the community and authorities grapple with the tragic loss of Jordan Neely and seek a fair resolution in this distressing case.

Could Political and Racial Bias Against Whites Lead to Another Rittenhouse Situation?

In recent times, discussions surrounding the Critical Race Theory (CRT) narrative and the pro-self-defense argument have garnered significant attention. This has led to passionate debates and diverging perspectives over when a white male can defend himself or others and not be accused of racism, misogyny, etc. CRT, an academic framework that analyzes the influence of race on societal structures, has become a focal point in discussions about systemic inequalities.

Concurrently, concerns about personal safety and the need for self-defense have gained prominence among individuals who fear the consequences of rising crime rates and instances of violence. This article explores these narratives objectively, presenting different viewpoints and encouraging inclusive dialogue, attempting to find common ground and promote understanding.

Our most recent example is New York; subways have become a cesspool of lawlessness. A former US Marine, who happened to be melanated (white male), stopped a violent, black male with a history of convictions for violent crime. Because the Marine is white, the press, BLM, and civil rights attorneys are already sensationalizing this case.

I am also an inactive US Marine. I am an expert in martial arts and have studied judo, BJJ, boxing, and other fighting arts my entire life. I am going to discuss this use of force from a neutral perspective and not assume, as academics do, that this case has anything to do with systemic racism. Having watched the Marine, it was clear that the choke was not deep for most of the hold and that he was trying to restrain the attacker while other passengers held down his arms until help could arrive. No racial slurs were used. The passengers were terrified of this aggressor, and that is why he was taken down. For legal reasons, this should be an open and shut case in virtually any other country or state than NY, DC, or California. Granted, the New York Times is already fueling a racist narrative to besmirch the Marine.

The Marine has no money, so the family is barking up the wrong tree if they think there is money. They can’t sue the City, as the police have zero duty to protect anyone. Their job is to protect the government unless they assume a duty to protect you. Let’s take a look at his known training.

Examining the Use of Rear Naked Chokes in Marine Corps Combat Training to Enhance Self-Defense Skills and Maintain Public Safety

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is known for its rigorous and comprehensive approach to self-defense training. One technique taught to Marines is the rear naked chokehold, a grappling maneuver that has raised discussions around its efficacy, safety, and potential implications for public safety. This article delves into the use of rear naked chokes in USMC training, exploring their purpose, application, and ongoing debates surrounding their usage.

The rear naked chokehold, a submission hold commonly employed in martial arts and combat sports, is taught to Marines as part of their hand-to-hand combat training. Its primary objective is to quickly and effectively neutralize an opponent by restricting blood flow to the brain, rendering them temporarily unconscious. The technique relies on precision, control, and understanding of the body’s vulnerable points, making it a valuable tool in high-stress situations.

Advocates of including rear naked chokes in USMC training argue that it provides Marines with a non-lethal alternative in scenarios where the use of lethal force may not be warranted. The ability to swiftly subdue an opponent can help prevent escalation and minimize harm to the Marine and the aggressor. Proponents argue that thorough training and strict adherence to protocols ensure the responsible and judicious application of this technique.

However, critics raise concerns regarding the potential risks associated with rear naked chokes, mainly when used outside the controlled training environment. Questions have been raised about the potential for injury, mostly if the technique is not applied correctly or if the recipient’s underlying health conditions make them more susceptible to harm. Critics also caution against the potential misuse of this technique by untrained individuals who lack the necessary knowledge and experience to execute it safely.

In response to these concerns, the USMC prioritizes comprehensive training and emphasizes strict adherence to guidelines and protocols. Marines undergo extensive training under the supervision of qualified instructors who ensure the proper execution and understanding of the technique. Additionally, ongoing assessments and evaluations help maintain proficiency and minimize the risk of injuries during training and real-world encounters.

It is crucial to note that rules of engagement and ethical considerations strictly govern Marines’ use of rear naked chokes. Marines are taught to prioritize de-escalation and to use force judiciously, employing the technique as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. The focus remains on maintaining public safety while preserving the lives of all individuals involved.

As debates continue around the use of rear naked chokes and other self-defense techniques, ongoing research, expert input, and open dialogue are essential to ensure the responsible application of such methods. Striking a balance between practical self-defense and public safety remains a priority for the USMC, which continually evolves its training programs to adapt to changing circumstances and ethical considerations.

Sources:

  • United States Marine Corps Martial Arts Program Handbook. (n.d.). Retrieved from [link]
  • Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2004). On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace. PPCT Research Publications.

Based on the video, if you look at a Marine’s forearm, you can see space between the trachea, and at least one jugular is not fully compressed. In any event, the Marine is not a police officer trained in restraint for NY Metro. He is arguing that he killed what he had to eliminate a very violent many, also known to be dangerous to women. These are irrefutable facts. Now, right away, the woke DA and City are looking at this as white on black, so obviously, the white Marine is a racist. Hence, despite letting criminals out of jail, including the one that this Marine just killed, it is systemic racism that caused all of this. CRT guides the City government. So let’s discuss.

Understanding Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) purports to mimic the framework that originated with the Black Nationalist Movement and crept into legal scholarship. It has since expanded to various disciplines. It examines how race intersects with social structures, power dynamics, and systemic oppression.

CRT proponents argue that racism is not merely a personal belief or action but is deeply embedded in societal institutions and norms. By exploring the intersectionality of race, class, and gender, CRT aims to shed light on how power imbalances perpetuate systemic inequalities. This section provides an overview of CRT’s fundamental principles and perspectives.

Examining the Pro Self-Defense Narrative

The Second Amendment and Individual Rights

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The language of the amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual’s inherent right. This section delves into the motivations and arguments behind the pro-self-defense narrative, addressing concerns about personal security and the role of civilians in ensuring public safety.

They argue that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to have the means to protect themselves, their families, and their property from threats, including acts of violence. The historical context of the Second Amendment provides insights into its interpretation. During the American Revolution, the colonists faced oppression and the threat of tyranny from the British government. The right to bear arms was seen as a fundamental safeguard against potential abuses of power. It served as a means for individuals to protect their liberties and resist oppression.

Court cases have further shaped the interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to possess firearms for self-defense within and outside their homes. This decision affirmed the individual aspect of the right to bear arms, recognizing self-defense as a core purpose of the Second Amendment.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that individuals have a natural right to protect themselves and their loved ones. They assert that the ability to possess firearms provides a sense of security and serves as a deterrent against criminals. They believe responsible gun ownership empowers individuals to take an active role in their safety. Supporters of CRT claim that since our founding fathers were white, the right to self-defense is also racist. Hence, there is no right to defend yourself since it is racist to do so.

Source:

  • Cornell, S., & Gruen, M. (Eds.). (1999). The Second Amendment on Trial: Critical Essays on District of Columbia v. Heller. The University of Massachusetts Press.

2.2 Empowering Individuals through Self-Defense

The pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the importance of empowering individuals to protect themselves. Supporters argue that self-defense is a fundamental human right that should not be restricted. They believe individuals have the inherent right to defend their lives, property, and loved ones from imminent harm.

Advocates argue that self-defense training and the ability to carry firearms provide individuals with the means to respond effectively to threatening situations. They contend that responsible gun ownership and proper training and education can enhance personal safety and deter potential attackers. By having the tools and skills to defend themselves, individuals can assert their autonomy and take control of their security.

Additionally, proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative highlight the potential benefits of self-defense in reducing crime rates. They argue that an armed and vigilant citizenry can serve as a deterrent to criminals, as they are less likely to target individuals who may be armed and capable of defending themselves. They assert that allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense can create a safer society.

Source:

  • Lott, J. R. (2013). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of Chicago Press.

2.3 Addressing Public Safety Concerns

Critics of the pro-self-defense narrative raise concerns regarding public safety and the potential risks associated with widespread gun ownership. They argue that increased access to firearms may lead to more accidents, acts of violence, or misuse of weapons. They point to incidents of gun-related tragedies and claim that stricter regulations are necessary to prevent such incidents.

Gun control advocates emphasize the need for comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands. They believe that a balanced approach to gun ownership, including responsible gun laws and regulations, is crucial to ensuring public safety while respecting the right to self-defense.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative acknowledge the importance of responsible gun ownership and advocate for proper training and education. They emphasize the need for individuals to be knowledgeable about firearm safety, handling, and storage to prevent accidents and misuse. They also recognize the importance of mental health evaluations and measures to control access to firearms for individuals with a history of violence or mental illness.

Source:

  • Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

(2016). Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. JHU Press.

  1. The Context of Encounter: Psychotic Individuals on Subways – Recognizing Mental Health Challenges

In discussing encounters with psychotic individuals on subways, it is essential to recognize the challenges posed by mental health issues. Psychosis refers to a mental state characterized by a loss of contact with reality, which can manifest in delusions, hallucinations, and disordered thinking. Individuals experiencing psychosis often require appropriate mental health support and treatment.

Here, the decedent,

Mental health disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, can contribute to episodes of erratic behavior. These conditions may lead individuals to exhibit unpredictable or disruptive conduct in public spaces, such as subways. It is crucial to approach these situations with empathy and understanding, recognizing that the individuals involved may need psychiatric assistance rather than criminalization.

Source:

3.2 Exploring Factors Contributing to Erratic Behavior

Various factors can contribute to erratic behavior exhibited by individuals with mental health challenges. These factors may include a lack of access to adequate mental health care, medication non-compliance, or the presence of co-occurring substance use disorders. Stressful life events, trauma, or social isolation can also exacerbate symptoms and contribute to disruptive behavior.

It is important to address these underlying factors through comprehensive mental health support systems. Providing accessible and appropriate mental health services, including early intervention programs and community-based resources, can help individuals manage their conditions effectively and reduce the likelihood of disruptive incidents in public spaces.

Source:

  • Kessler, R. C., Angermeyer, M., Anthony, J. C., et al. (2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6(3), 168–176.

3.3 Analyzing Perceived Threats and Fear in Public Spaces

Public safety concerns arise when individuals encounter psychotic individuals displaying erratic behavior in public spaces like subways. Recognizing individuals’ subjective experiences and fears in these situations is essential. Individuals may feel threatened or unsafe when confronted with unpredictable behavior, leading to heightened anxiety or fear.

It is essential to approach these concerns with sensitivity and address them through comprehensive strategies that balance safety and compassion. Promoting awareness and education about mental health conditions can help mitigate fears and foster empathy. Additionally, implementing training programs for law enforcement and public transportation staff can equip them with the skills to de-escalate situations involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Source:

  • Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., et al. (2012). Challenging the Public Stigma of Mental Illness: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Studies. Psychiatric Services, 63(10), 963-973.
  1. Comparative Analysis:

Critical Race Theory vs. Pro-Self-Defense

Approaches to Addressing Societal Injustices

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the pro-self-defense narrative offer distinct approaches to addressing societal injustices, albeit from different perspectives. CRT focuses on systemic racism and the impact of historical and structural factors on marginalized communities. It calls for institutional transformations and challenges the status quo to achieve racial equity and social justice.

In contrast, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual rights, particularly the right to self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment. It emphasizes personal autonomy.

It values personal autonomy and individuals’ ability to protect themselves and their loved ones from potential threats.

4.2 Emphasizing Collective Action vs. Individual Empowerment

CRT advocates argue that addressing societal injustices requires collective action and systemic change. They do this by silencing anyone they disagree with. They highlight the need for community engagement, policy reform, and challenging systemic structures perpetuating racial disparities. CRT focuses on the interconnectedness of social identities and aims to dismantle oppressive systems such as merit and earning things based on hard work, as hard work is racist. They do this through collective efforts, infiltrating public schools, colleges, and local school boards.

On the other hand, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual empowerment and personal responsibility. It highlights the role of self-defense as a means for individuals to assert their autonomy and protect themselves. Proponents argue that empowering individuals to defend themselves contributes to overall public safety.

4.3 Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The debate between CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative raises questions about balancing rights and responsibilities within society. CRT emphasizes the responsibility of institutions to address systemic racism and ensure equity, arguing that individual rights should not overshadow the collective well-being of marginalized communities. Conversely, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the right of individuals to protect themselves but also acknowledges the responsibility of owning firearms. Proponents often advocate for responsible gun ownership, including proper training, background checks, and adherence to laws and regulations.

4.4 Finding Common Ground for Social Justice

Despite their different perspectives, CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative can find common ground in addressing social justice issues. Both recognize the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and advocating for policies that promote safety, equity, and well-being. By engaging in constructive dialogue and understanding the underlying goals of each perspective, it is possible to bridge the gap and work towards comprehensive solutions. This may involve addressing both the faith-based, academic systemic factors contributing to alleged racial disparities and implementing measures to ensure responsible gun ownership that prioritizes public safety over skin color.

Sources:

  • Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
  • Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. A. (2007). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 30(2), 649-694.

, who had

Can I Film Police in California?

The answer is YES in most cases. So long as law enforcement officers are engaged in performing their duties or are otherwise in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, you are good to go.

Police are public employees, paid with taxpayers’ money to enforce laws. They do not have the right to privacy while on duty. Therefore, you can film them without their consent, which is your natural right or under civil rights law.

Even when they aren’t performing their duties, for example, if police conduct has attracted substantial public interest and is newsworthy, you can film off-duty police in California as well.

How To Film Law Enforcement Officers In California And Stay Out of Jail

It is legal for suspects and bystanders to video record a police officer while suspects are being questioned in California.

What Are Some Reasons Someone May Wish To Tape, Film, or Snap Pictures of a California Police Officer?

There are various reasons why someone might decide to record a police officer. Perhaps they believe that an officer has stopped them unjustifiably while driving or that an officer is making false allegations against them of a trumped-up violation for being black or another profiled minority.

In this case, citizen journalists may be documenting what a police officer is doing to another party that they believe breaches the law or the other person’s rights, even using excessive or unwarranted deadly force in some cases.

When Is Filming Police Officers Interfering Under Penal Code Section 148?

In most situations, filming a police officer is not against the Law. However, if you want to film a police officer legally without being charged with “interfering with police,” there are several conditions that you must adhere to when you film police officers.

3 Tips To Film Police Officers Engaged In Legitimate Law Enforcement Operations

  1. If you do film, it’s a good idea to ensure that your interactions with the police are designed to de-escalate the situation. At the same time, you can lawfully object to police misconduct. It’s best to do so politely, directly, and without using profanity.
  2. Don’t taunt the police. It is best to record the police without saying anything at all.
  3. If you have information about the situation, explain just that: I have information that can help with your investigation. Police have been filmed handcuffing the victims of crime in circumstances that suggest racial profiling. In those instances, it’s best to address the police firmly, informing them, “I was a witness, and the person you are arresting is the victim.”

Basic Rules of Lawfully Filming Law Enforcement Officers in California

Citizens of California are permitted to film police officers under specific circumstances and restrictions, as determined by the state as follows:

  • Citizens can film or videotape police officers during their official duties as long as the individual filming does not interfere with the officer’s ability to do their job.
  • Filming or recording a police officer so the officer knows it remains legal.
  • Although you have the right to remain silent, you could tell the police officer that you are defending your First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Those trying to film cops should maintain a calm demeanor at all times. Always ask if you’re free to go unless a law enforcement officer has reason to arrest someone suspected of committing a felony or has already done so. (See also, George Floyd case)
  • When police officers wish to know who is filming them, they frequently demand identification from those doing so. As a result, it’s essential to inquire if you’re being detained. Police officers in California may not require anybody’s I.D. unless they believe the individual is about to or intends to commit a crime. However, if a police officer is conducting an inquiry, providing identification might assist in defusing the tension. While you may be confident that you have not broken the Law, there could be extenuating circumstances you are unaware of. Therefore, it is always best to follow police instructions and communicate with government officials carrying out their duties politely and respectfully when videotaping police officers. If the police officer warns you to stay at a safe distance, do so!
  • When videotaping the police, avoid baiting or insulting them. The tape may be used as evidence in a criminal trial or a civil rights lawsuit, where the Attorney is attempting to hold the cops accountable for their actions. Avoid saying or doing anything that could harm the case inadvertently.
  • If a police officer tells someone to stop filming or demonstrates that photographing police officers is illegal, explain that filming cops are a protected right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It is never acceptable to point a camera or smartphone at a police officer in such a way that they could be considered to be holding a weapon or firearm. Never give the cops probable cause to arrest or harm you.

It’s unfortunate, but it’s true: If you’re recording the police, you’ll almost certainly be arrested. Many police officers are put off by being filmed. While this is an illegal arrest with no criminal wrongdoing, it does happen. If it does, keep your cool and protect your rights under the Fifth Amendment.

File a Motion to Review the Confession by Requesting to See when you stated you exercised your right to remain silent. Contact a personal injury attorney in Los Angeles, CA, who specializes in police misconduct law at your earliest opportunity.

When Is Filming California Law Enforcement Officers Prohibited?

You are prohibited from secretly filming anyone, including police officers, in public restrooms, such as using a peephole camera, for one! (See California Penal Code Section 647) It remains a felony under this statute to film a police officer wearing a hidden camera. Penalties include up to one year in jail and $1,000 in fines.

There are other cases, such as when an off-duty law enforcement officer or government officials are on their private property. In that case, private property rules dealing with the Constitutional right balancing test would apply.

Police officers are people like any other Americans who are entitled to the same rights. If a police officer is not on duty, you may not film or video record them under specific circumstances. It’s also forbidden to audio record someone secretly or privately unless they consent or under minimal legal exceptions in California’s penal code.

To summarize, you may not impede a police officer while they are performing their official responsibilities. For example, a film crew attempting to obstruct a police officer and a suspect might have broken the Law.

Taking pictures and videos of things visible from public places is a constitutional right. Federal buildings, transportation facilities, police, and other government officials performing their duties are all legitimate examples of legitimate photos and videos. Unfortunately, law enforcement personnel frequently demand individuals stop taking photographs or filming in public areas, sometimes harassing, detaining, or even arresting them.

So long as you are in a public place and the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, hidden cams are ok. Even a drone would be permissible, generally speaking. The problem with the video and audio recordings is whether or not the officer or a jury believes no expectation of being filmed existed.

If not, California is a “two-party” consent state, which means recording a conversation is prohibited as a Constitutional right without the permission of all parties unless an exception applies.

Yes, You Can Film A Police Officer!

On Your Side, the Law Is in Sight states that you may film police lawfully if you follow proper procedure. As a result, you have the right to film any interaction with a police officer in California as long as you follow the legal requirements above.

However, some cops are unaware of the rules and will still arrest someone for filming them. If you’re arrested for videotaping a police officer, keep your cool and say that you’re exercising your First Amendment rights and right to remain silent. In the worst-case scenario, you’ll spend a night or two in jail while things are resolved.

Although most courts have recognized the right to film or record the police, qualified immunity, which protects government employees from liability unless they have violated established constitutional rights, remains a problem.

It would help if you also remembered police have no duty to protect private citizens, so don’t expect the other officers to help you as the rogue cop snatches your cell phone recording devices and smashes them to pieces.

But You Can’t Film Police If You Are resisting, Obstructing, Or Delaying a Police Officer in Their Official Duties.

If you resist arrest in any manner, you may be charged with resisting arrest under California Penal Code Section 148(A) P.C.

The battery of a Peace Officer (California Penal Code Section 243(b) P.C.) or Evading an Officer (California Vehicle Code Section 2800.1 VC) is a crime that might be committed against any police officer, regardless of the circumstances. Understanding that any violence or force against a police officer may result in a charge is critical.

If you’re arrested, remember that you have the right to remain silent. Even when detained, try not to be rude or violent.

Contact Ehline Law Firm to Start a Civil Rights Lawsuit Against the Police for Retaliation

Suppose you were arrested without cause and filmed by a police officer violating another’s First Amendment rights. In that case, you might have a viable case under 42 USC 1983 for depriving your civil liberties. (Examples include filming a sexual assault by a bad cop on a public street.)

You don’t have to stop taking photographs of government officials in plain view. But you could be charged with a false crime by corrupt government officials in public spaces, despite the Law. Bad cops arrest innocent people all the time. We hold corrupt government officials accountable who try and falsely claim you tried to eavesdrop or wiretap them, for example.

According to the Fourth Amendment, arguing that the right to film using cell phones has been violated unconstitutionally or unjustly is also conceivable. So, seeking answers to this commonly asked question is not just a loss of free speech.

The following criteria will be used to assess the strength of your argument:

1—the facts and circumstances of your situation and where the arrest occurred.

Schedule a Free Consultation With Experienced California Civil Rights Lawyers Today!

Were you charged with a crime related to filming a police officer or arrested for resisting arrest due to your involvement in such activities? Were you injured or harmed in any other way due to individual police misconduct or excessive force?

Do you have a general or specific question about pending charges for filming police? You should immediately contact an expert police misconduct lawyer at Ehline Law Firm to defend your Constitutional rights.

The attorneys at Ehline Law provide free consultations and will be happy to answer any questions about your situation. For more information on what steps you should take next or book a free consultation, contact the attorneys at Ehline Law at (213) 596-9642 to guarantee your legal rights are preserved.

What is the Difference Between a Protest and a Riot?

Peaceful Protests vs. Riots

The unrest sweeping the country shows a deep disconnect in the direction of the United States. Some examples, like the protest in Palos Verdes Estates, are peaceful and represent people’s legitimate concerns. The control of powerful police unions has enabled a lack of accountability, which results in many things—including violence, as we saw in Minneapolis. However, this is not the entire story. Furthermore, a look between protests and riots shows the overall picture much better and more transparently.

The crowds are sending two clear messages in significant cities. Many protests are peaceful and follow the general guidelines of dissent. They are constitutional and mainly during the daytime. However, as we’ve seen in LA, Minneapolis, and DC, some very different things happen during riots and looting.

Understanding the Differences

Several significant factors are at play in dividing the two waves of civil unrest. On the one hand, the two may seem the same. However, elements are driving the violence and looting in some major cities.

  • The strength of local leaders. Some local leaders, like the Mayors of Atlanta and St. Paul, MN, called for calm and civil protest. However, some leaders, like the Mayor of Minneapolis and the Governor of Minnesota, have been asleep at the wheel. This goes double for the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio.
  • Antifa. This newly declared terrorist organization does not have a significant presence in every major city—however, the cities where they do have seen some of the worst violence. Portland comes to mind. That city is beset by upper-middle-class white young people urging violence among whites and blacks. Several YouTube and Twitter videos showed Antifa members stoking violent actions.

Politicians Creating Hardship?

Combine these factors with the strain of the Coronavirus, and the temperature reached a boiling point. Where we head from here is not yet clear. However, in all likelihood, it will be up to citizens to solve these issues on their own. Keep it here for more updates and legal analysis.

Fact Check: Do Police Have a Duty To Protect Individuals?

NO! Generally, The Police Have No Duty To Protect You!

Says more than one Landmark Case at the US Supreme Court Case, Including Castle Rock and Deshaney

You probably can’t sue police for failing to protect for this exact reason, to the dismay of many personal injury attorneys. The Supreme Court says police are only required to protect the government, aka the “community.” Most police officers and the public think the thin blue line will stand faithfully between private citizens and evildoers as modern-day Knights Templars. Growing up on 1-Adam 12 and Dragnet, we Gen-Xrs were trained to adore police, who will always come to our aid. Alas, we were wrong. We soon learned that one set of rules applies to politicians and their agencies and the other to you and me. (See also Deshaney v. Winnebago County, et. seq.)

Does the government care about me?
Does the government care about me?

And until the government holds itself to the same standards it holds taxpayers to, don’t expect the police to intervene during your crisis. Police carry guns to defend themselves, not us.

Introduction to Self-Defense and Police Protection

Americans have no general civil right to sue the police for failure to provide protection. In a nutshell, you cannot sue a government agency or a school district unless done within a certain period after suffering an injury or loss. You can only sue the police or the Department of Social Services for certain things.

And providing you with your personal protection services is not law enforcement’s function. Since these are the King’s men, they are his sovereign representatives, shielded under the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Time and time again, left-wing politicians have argued that we don’t need private guns since we have police while simultaneously asserting we must also defund the police because of “systemic racism.” In a nutshell, their advocates at the New York Times, Atlantic, Washington Post, CNN, Mother Jones, etc., argue that socialism and a welfare state are incompatible with self-defense rights.

Those on the right argue we have a Second Amendment to guard against a corrupt government and to protect our families and businesses. In the middle, everyday people try to make sense of it all. I am Michael Ehline, a personal injury attorney in Los Angeles.

I am a world-famous, award-winning attorney, honorably discharged U.S. Marine, legal historian, and expert on gun laws and firearms safety. Below, I will present the law of municipal police and cover why police have no general duty to protect individuals. Let’s go!

Government Agents Have No General Duty To Protect People Under Deshaney Case?

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Jessica Gonzales sued for the death of her three daughters when the State refused to help her save them from their murderous father. The late Justice Antonin Scalia restated the ancient common law rule in Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989): “A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”

In Deshaney, supra, a four-year-old boy had been continuously abused by his father. The County Department of Social Services knew about it but neglected to take the child into protective custody. The boy’s mother sued CPS after the child became vegetative. Ms. Deshaney argued the County of Winnebago violated her son’s: “liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father’s violence.”

Similar to Jessica Gonzales, after her case made it to the Supreme Court, the majority in Deshaney relied upon common law and found that government workers had zero duty to protect 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney from physical assault or violence. Hence, as was the case with Ms. Gonzales, the government did not owe or breach any substantive constitutional duty to the young boy or his adult guardian. Deshaney v. Winnebago County should have alerted parents to take this role more seriously. But alas, the mainstream press doesn’t cover these stories about Ms. Gonzales or Ms. Deshaney very well.

Ever since the original Watts riots of 1965 and before California, personal injury lawyers have tried every back door to defeat qualified and sovereign immunity rules after police failed to protect citizens from rioters. And these were people already known by authorities as hellbent on killing and destroying people’s lives. No one has won based on the theories argued and the parties seeking relief.

Why Is The Government Trying To Make Guns Illegal For Private Citizens If They Refuse To Protect Me?

Proponents of the Second Amendment have argued, among other things, that since the police have zero affirmative duty “to protect and to serve,” citizens must take steps to protect themselves. Opponents of self-defense rights counter that we must call 9-1-1 because the police will protect us against “imminent threats.”

Suppose your attacker is patient enough to wait for 15 minutes or more for police protection, or your elected politicians didn’t abolish your police department or release violent felons as a form of reparations and “social justice.”

In that case, the police or unarmed social services worker may show, eventually. Perhaps our founding fathers were right when they went to war after the King of England tried to seize our gunpowder. How can parents feel safe after the Uvalde police stood around arresting and pepper spraying parents? At the same time, a known, violent man executes their children, knowing many in their government want to disarm them immediately. As social media explodes with calls to disarm law-abiding citizens and disarm legal adults, let’s look at why Americans have enshrined gun rights into their constitutions.

“The first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia (All males 16 and over are AUTOMATICALLY “irregular militia”), there would be less of a threat to their control.” – The Morning Call.

So, we know that our founding fathers wanted to avoid a communist Chinese-style dictatorship. They restated the common law rule that all “Freemen” should be armed and well-trained. So, the case below makes more sense when you understand that it has always been your duty to protect yourself, despite all the nonsense non-lawyers are arguing on social media.

Police Rarely Have a Duty to Protect?

True, Unless police have assumed a duty to protect you, they don’t have one.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody” …” [Emphasis] – Mises Institute

An Armed Society Is A Polite Society When Police Fail To Protect You?

We saw the only businesses that made it out of the Rodney King riots with minor damage were those guarded by heavily armed Korean-descended shopkeepers. These brave, many newly proclaimed US citizens were armed with standard capacity, semi-automatic centerfire rifles like AR 15s, AKMS 47 clones, and handguns. These people protected themselves from looters, rioters, and anti-Asian, African American gangsters.

  • What Do Some Korean-Americans Say About Police Assistance?

An NPR news reporter was surprised to learn that armed Korean store owners were the only people who stayed safe during the L.A. Rodney King riots. His interview with one of them was telling.

MARTIN: Sure. You were trying to create a protective barrier, and you succeeded in saving your store.

[Mr.] HA: Yes.” – NPR, “Korean Store Owner On Arming Himself For Riots

Most of the firearms these men used are now declared illegal by our California state legislature under Roberti Roos, felonies to possess. Like the Uvalde school massacre, the LAPD stood around and did nothing but protect city property. Can you think of a reason why California is trying to abolish all semi-automatic, centerfire rifles and already restricting how much ammo you are allowed to own or have in your gun’s magazine? King George and Mao Tse Tung had many based upon well-settled history.

Since My Self-Defense Rights Are Questionable, Why Don’t I Have A General Right To Be Affirmatively Protected By Law Enforcers From My Attackers?

We have seen elected DAs filing murder charges against law-abiding citizens trying to defend their families, businesses, and homes with guns. (In the Rittenhouse matter, two progressive DAs argued he should “take his beating” rather than defend himself from a mob of convicted violent felons striking him with a skateboard, chasing him with a handgun, SHOOTING AT HIMS AND shouting “kill him.”) Eventually, the charges get thrown out in most cases, as was the case in the political show trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

But typically, using a firearm to defend yourself, even if it’s on tape (clearly defensive), will result in your arrest and bankruptcy defending false charges. And unless the police took an affirmative act in furtherance of some duty, they assumed to protect you. You are out of luck most of the time. You are left facing jail to invoke an unalienable right after saving your life, limb, and property. Parents faced this in Uvalde, Texas, who demanded police do something, or they would.

In that case, it took a parent with a gun to get the kids out. Since his child attended the school and his wife worked there, a federal agent (US Border Patrol) went in and got his kid out FIRST after breaching the Uvalde Police’s security perimeter.

The traditional notions of parents were shattered when they started reading this article and contacting me directly after the shooting. Sadly, the for-profit media does not report the truth. So, let’s learn some more about the over 600-year-old common history of the no “duty to protect” rule.

SCOTUS opined: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) 489 U.S. 189). (Read the case here.) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (DC Ct. of App. 1981) is the seminal US case that started it all. In Warren, three women were held hostage by two violent men. Although the women were able to phone the police department two times during their 14-hour gang rape, the police never showed.

The women were later discovered, beaten, robbed, and bloodied after enduring hours of painful vaginal, anal, and oral rape. SCOTUS sided with law enforcement, stating there is a “well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.” In other words, despite the imminent danger, the cops did nothing. Imagine if one of those women rape victims had a firearm? If she had used it in a town like Washington State or DC, she’d been arrested, called a racist by CNN and WaPo, and probably lost her job. That is the State of things today in America, where “illegal” is legal and right is wrong. (Orwell).

When Do The Police Have A Duty To Protect Me?

The late, great Johnny Cochran lost that argument once and for all back in 1996. And once again, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2005 decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

There, SCOTUS reminded us the only time police have liability to citizens for failing to provide police protection is:

  1. “Imminent Danger,”
  2. After police accept a duty to do something,
  3. When police deny you police protection based on your race or some related civil rights violation.

Otherwise, “police agencies are not obligated to protect citizens.”

Castle Rock was just one in a string of cases stemming from the original Watts riots and the later Rodney King riots throughout Los Angeles that spilled over nationwide. Those King riots began in April 1992, soon after a Simi Valley jury acquitted four Los Angeles police officers who severely beat black motorist Rodney King, a known, violent felon being pursued into the city by the CHP cruisers on the freeway. King was driving his vehicle above 100 mph. King was high on PCP. (Source).

  • If The Judge Acquits, Find Another Glove to Fit!

Two of the “L.A. Four who beat King were later criminally convicted for violating King’s federal civil rights. During the Rodney King Riot’s aftermath, the late Johnny Cochran – “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” – got creative, trying to create a loophole to sue the police. In that case, the plaintiffs urged, “State immunity cannot impinge on federal constitutional rights–the right granted to all citizens under the 14th Amendment to equal protection under the laws. – Eric Ferrer, Esq.

Attack victim Reginald Denny, a white man, (and others) alleged his constitutional rights were violated by selective LAPD enforcement policies, deliberately leaving minority neighborhoods to fend for themselves. The Denny lawsuit alleged that police and City Council members redirected essential resources away from locations “composed predominantly of black and Hispanic populations to areas in the city composed predominantly of Anglo populations.”

We are all entitled to equal protection under the law. These cases argued that police disparately denied police protection to some classes but not others. Because of this, African American gang member Damian Williams and his friends would not have thrown bricks at the white trucker Denny’s head, nearly killing him during the black gang member’s racially motivated attack against Denny.

Attacks against white people sitting in cars seem to be part and parcel of BLM tactics in 2020-2021. However, these plaintiffs’ lawyers failed to produce evidence of a police policy, practice, or custom to discriminate in officers’ deployment to protect people or things. (Monell claim)

“A federal appeals court has rejected truck driver Reginald Denny’s claim that racist police deliberately withdrew from the Los Angeles neighborhood where he was beaten during the 1992 riots. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals … upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss Denny’s $40 million lawsuits…” in 1998. – Source, AP.

Why Don’t Police Have A General Duty To Protect You? A Little History About Municipal Police Agencies

A little history will do you some good. Modern policing emerged in the US during the country’s period of growth, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Like reading law in a law office, our municipal police model was heavily based upon the British/UK policing model established beginning around 1829. In the US, our first tax-funded municipal corporations organized professional full-time police services in 1838 Boston. Soon after, New York started their civilian police force in 1844. A bit later, Philadelphia set up its police force in 1854.

Police are magistrates, similar to judges. Police officers have a broad mandate to keep the peace, including intervening to prevent someone from infringing upon another person’s freedom and property interests. When a cop pulls you over and detains you during a traffic stop, he is acting as your prosecutor, judge, and jury, conducting a mini roadside trial. The only absolute limit on their police powers has to do with incarceration powers, which is limited. A court fines and levies penalties based on the facts presented by the traffic magistrate surrounding the investigative stop.

Officers have broad discretion to let you off with a warning or throw the book at you. Police officers play many essential public functions, such as watchmen, patrolling, and legalistic, depending on how local governments deploy them. Police forces also bring significant revenue in traffic fines, criminal penalties, court assessments, and fees. This helps with their pensions and political aspirations.

Historically, police, including Sheriffs at common law, had no affirmative duty to protect citizens against individual attackers. However, they set up a posse and arrested these highwaymen and lawbreakers for criminal actions.

Modernly, it’s much the same: police investigate, usually after the crime has already occurred, and make arrests based on their investigations.

Whose Public Safety Interests, If Any, Do Police Serve?

Unless an exception applies, NOT YOURS! Municipal, County, State, and federal police remain a civilian force of “public servants” paid for by your local, State, and federal tax dollars. Courts have repeatedly ruled that their ONLY duty is to serve the party’s [a government agency] public safety interests that “employ” them.

Police have zero Constitutional duty to protect YOU. Police don’t work for you. Many of you older folks remember the 1992 Los Angeles riots, sometimes called the 1992 Los Angeles Uprising, where widespread looting, assaults, and arson happened due to King’s beating.

  • Rioters Are Free To Attack Me?

Absolutely. Your legal remedy is to obtain a weapon, like an AR15, defend yourself by running rioters over with your car, and pray CNN or Trevor Noah doesn’t accuse you of being racist, tainting the prosecutor or jury. Local cops only protected government property during the King riots, leaving rioters to attack primarily unarmed citizens. The US Supreme Court affirmed this fact in DeShaney vs—Winnebago County Department of Social Services and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. Over 100 small-business owners fared no better when insurance companies failed to pay them millions in business interruption and property damages claims seeking insurance payments. Most of these small businesses went under. “The fire was caused by inadequate police protection.”

  • As Long As Police Impartially Enforce Laws, They Owe You Nothing.

True. When cops enforce laws, they must remain impartial. Police discretion won’t excuse exceeding proper force or falsely arresting a person. When police don’t discriminate in their idiocy, negligence, or impotence at enforcing laws, the Constitution does not require them to protect you. That is not their oath of office as police.

Can Any Lawsuits Prevail When A Cop Fails To Provide You Protection?

Yes. In any claim against the police for failing to protect you, your biggest hurdle will be defeating the sovereign immunity defense with the evidence you fit as a plaintiff. For you to allege negligence against anyone, they must first owe you a duty to do or not do a thing. Since police or government officials have zero general duty to protect you or your family affirmatively, most negligence cases like this are not winnable.

If the police assumed a duty (discussed below), that is one way to make a claim stick. And if you sue under the Due Process Clause, mere negligent conduct won’t be enough to go forward. You have to show police disparately refused your protection while not denying protection to others. (See Davidson v. Cannon (1986) 474 US 344.)

  • Sovereign Immunity and Qualified Immunity- What Is It?

This is why you have difficulty winning cases against the government. The underpinnings of this  arise for two reasons:

1. Governmental tort immunity when municipalities are engaged in governmental functions, including fire-fighting, police protection, etc. (According to our one Supreme Court, these remain almost universally governmental functions.)

2. The common law notion that absent a statutory duty, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for mere inactivity by public servants, even if you are damaged. After all, the police had no duty to act.

Besides that, no duty exists for police to protect you, even when police falsely imprison you or stomp on your smartphone. At the same time, your video records them; state law provides police/Sheriffs with sovereign immunity unless you can prove the police violated your rights.

Can I Defeat Sovereign Immunity When Police Fail To Protect Me?

Not exactly. You could use a public servant in their capacity if they were acting, frolicking, or detouring outside their police duties when failing to protect you. But it’s doubtful they owed you a duty unless through a contract or statute. The State remains sovereign, subject to suit in limited situations agreed upon in the Government Code. If you are lucky enough to get your government claim filed using the correct form with the right agency within the average six-month filing period, you can always sue for something. Supporters of more gun control don’t know this information or want more government control over their lives.

How Can I Successfully Sue Police Cloaked With Sovereign Immunity For Failing to Protect Me?

That is the right question you should ask. Legal experts say the pivotal US Supreme Court ruling in 1989, known as the DeShaney decision, will impact your success. In DeShaney, a small boy was killed by his abusive father. Government officials learned of the abuse but had completed their statutory, affirmative “mandatory” reporting duties to DSS. That case hinged whether DSS officials should have intervened to remove the child into alternative care. The case could have proceeded if DSS had insidiously failed to remove the child as a product of unfair discrimination.

  • Prove You Are A “Disfavored Minority”?

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist clarified that the government had no constitutional duty to provide individual citizens with executive-style protection. But he also said, “The state may not selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities.” White privilege appears to have drawbacks when a constitutional right is denied.

“‘It will be meager comfort to Joshua and his mother to know that if the state had “selectively den[ied] its protective services” to them because they were “disfavored minorities…”‘ (id.)

Since white people are not a “disfavored minority,” they could potentially be selectively denied police protection under this argument. In this case, it appears to pay if the victim remains in a protected class of perpetual, state-labeled, “disfavored” victims. If you prove that police selectively enforce rules disparately, you can sue police for failing to help you!

  • Be A Prisoner Or Subject To State Confinement

The State’s duties to you are spelled out even if you are a prisoner. They cannot guarantee you’ll be safe among inmates. They must not subject you to deprivations not generally authorized by their confinement. (See, e.g., WhitleDue Process Clause’s protections 327; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 US, at 316, (this case involved shackling a committed mental patient against their will);  Hughes v. Rowe (1980) 449 US 5, 11  (inmate removed from general prison population and confined to administrative segregation); Vitek v. Jones (1980) 445 US 480, 491-494.

Because an inmate is entitled to receive proper medical treatment, he can make an Eighth Amendment civil rights claim if he can prove the State showed “deliberate indifference” to their “serious” medical needs. (negligent or inadvertent failure failed to meet this burden; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US, at 105106; See also Whitley v. Albers (1986) 475 US 312.) Of course, when police abuse you, they are directly violating an affirmative right under Title 42 Section 1983 and other laws. Your whole argument hinges on whether the police had or took on an affirmative protection duty to you.

  • See If The State Assumed An Affirmative Duty To Protect You?

Several higher courts have ruled that a state’s knowledge of “special dangers” posed by a third party to an identified victim gives rise to legal and governmental liability. The State’s willingness or agreement to provide victim protection can create aspecial relationshipbetween the State and the victim.

Because of this, these courts ruled that the Due Process Clause mandated that police departments and their agents render adequate victim protection. (See, e.g., Estate of Bailey by Oare v. County of York (1985) 768 F.2d 503, 510-511; Jensen v. Conrad, (1984) 747 F.2d 185, 190-194, and n. 11 (dicta), cert. Denied, 470 US 1052 (1985); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept. (1986) 855 F.2d 1421, 1425-1426 (CA9 1988); Estate of Gilmore v. BuckleySeventh Circuit’s opinion cert. Denied, 479 US 882 (1986); Harpole v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 820 F.2d 923, 926-927 (CA8 1987); Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hospital, Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1034-1037 (CA11 1987).

  • Police Officer Discretion Isn’t Absolute

Police discretion to stand by while people die or get injured is not an absolute defense. As noted, police must protect people they have placed in danger. Let’s say a cop pulls you over in using his patrol car during heavy traffic and orders you out of your vehicle into an oncoming truck, killing you.

In that case, your survivors could sue the officer for wrongful death under the negligence law theory. Police officers can’t be liable for negligence for failing to show up and protect you. And believe me, our car accident law firm has sued plenty of negligent cops.

Can you think of other ways a police officer could develop a special relationship with someone requiring the officer to protect them? How about if you have a contract with an off-duty cop to provide you with paid protection? Perhaps. He is still a cop, and his department likely knows he works for you.

But you also have directly contracted for itemized protection services. How about a situation when an officer begins CPR but then wants to answer their cell phone as your pulse is coming back?

It sounds like that officer performed an act in furtherance to protect you and decided to abandon you, right? It would be no different than throwing someone a life preserver who fell overboard from your pleasure craft, tugging the line back, and letting the victim drown at sea.

So yes, if the cops are in the act of DIRECTLY assisting you (like returning gunfire and shielding you from bullets), they have assumed a duty to protect you. You can sue if they abandon you!

  • No Duty, No Right To Protection?

It will happen at the governor’s, mayor’s, and individual officers’ discretion. We saw it in Washington State as police stood by to let BLM and ANTIFA-inspired looters burn down and pillage businesses, taking over entire city zones by squatting. Even though the police must protect you against an imminent threat, they can decide what a threat is or isn’t.

In Washington, the police knew communists and upstarts in their leftist indigenous zone were beating and even shooting their political enemies. But the police did nothing to protect the citizenry despite this well-known, arguably imminent threat.

Have you heard of anyone suing the Washington or Minnesota cops for letting criminals attack them and torch their property? According to a string of state, federal, and US Supreme Court cases, cases like that get dismissed and affirmed. Most federal judges will dismiss cases such as this sua sponte on their own motion.

  • Other Examples Where Police Had No Duty To Protect

Here is an example from 2018 that may shock you. Fifteen students attending Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School filed a lawsuit against Broward County, Florida, city police for failing to protect the school’s children instead of hunkering down, giving the assailant free rein to murder 17 individuals inside.

In that case, the judge declared that local police had zero constitutional duty to protect someone unless they were in police custody. He was a cowardly law enforcement officer, but the Parkland, Florida police force employing him was too afraid of the police union to fire him. After all, according to state and federal district courts and SCOTUS, their officer had no legal obligation to help anyone.

The ruling remains squarely in line with a 2005 Supreme Court decision exonerating police in Colorado for refusing to arrest a violent father who kidnapped his three young daughters in defiance of a court-issued restraining order. The man ultimately murdered his kids during the period their mother repeatedly begged the police station to act.

The case law is clear; even correctional officers and deputies have no duty to protect you from being anally or orally raped in the general population. But you could sue a prison bus driver for negligence in transporting you to Twin Towers jail, for example.

  • Police Have Discretion!

Writing for the majority in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, Justice Antonin Scalia understood that Colorado’s law required the police to arrest restraining order violators. Still, he found that “the well-established tradition of police discretion” will override state law. Officers have discretion.

We already know police must not use coercive powers to harm us. Many legal scholars argue that a “negative constitution” requires the government to guarantee free benefits to citizens, like health care and personal safety.

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the US Supreme Court found the Due Process Clause was not violated by DSS failing to protect Ms. DeShaney’s son from the coma and traumatic brain injuries caused by Joshua’s dad’s ongoing, known abuse.

The DeShaney decision was recently reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, overturning a federal appeals court allowing Jessica Gonzalez the right to sue Castle Rock City after the police refused to arrest her estranged husband, Mr. Simon Gonzales.

She told the police Mr. Gonzales kidnapped her three daughters sired by him, ages 7, 8, and 10. Since he violated a restraining order protecting her and the kids, the state law required law enforcement to arrest Simon at the Denver amusement park where he was using his cell phone.

After Ms. Gonzales begged the police for several hours to rescue her kids, her estranged husband appeared at the police department and began spraying bullets at the police. Later, police found the Gonzales kids’ lifeless remains in Gonzales’ car’s trunk, where they had been during the precinct attack.

Even though Ms. Gonzales’ protective order stated, ” You shall arrest” Mr. Gonzales, she had zero “property interest” under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause, which forbids the deprivation of property without due process.

As Cochran had tried in the Denny case, Jessica’s lawyers used procedural Due Process to attempt circumvention of DeShaney’s 1989 stare decisis precedent. But the US Supreme Court felt this, and the DeShaney case was indistinguishable.

Chief Justice Antonin Scalia found that Ms. Gonzales had zero “property interest” in enforcing the restraining order. He also quipped, “Such a right would not resemble any traditional conception of property.”

After reconfirming its earlier DeShaney precedent that the US Constitution guarantees no affirmative police protection, she had no legal recourse rights. This so-called “no duty to protect” rule remains the law of the land.

Fact Check: Did Police Remove Or Change Slogans By Deleting The Word “Protect” From Their Police Cruisers?

These rulings might explain why police agencies started distancing themselves from such an apparently obligatory pronouncement in the late 1970s. Although slogans like “Protect and Serve” or some variation have been painted on police vehicles for years, the Los Angeles Police Department coined the term.

In the past, the LAPD, including LAPD SWAT, led the way in law enforcement techniques, tactics, and traditions. So, it makes sense that patrol cars across America would borrow the idea of an emblazoned police cruiser slogan.

Many municipal police departments removed the words “to protect” from their police cruisers and motto. We have heard that many police chiefs and mayors feared citizens might sue them for “accepting a duty” for declaring they must “protect” you, which is false. 

But the evidence we could find does not support this gossip. It appears some departments are replacing slogans with newer ones, like New York City’s “courtesy, respect, and professionalism.Furthermore, no police agency’s “oath of office” includes the term “protect and serve, ” at least not in this country.

  • Modern Systemic Police Racism 

Modernly, even all black-run city and State police are accused of being systemically racist. No studies exist with evidence showing this to be accurate among the general public. However, it is conceded by most experts that the officer’s mood or temperament and aggressive policy enforcement directives seem to be the reason for most excessive use of force and homicide cases against officers.

For example, New York officers were told to aggressively enforce regulations against selling single cigarettes in public places. After all, the mayor and city council reasoned, Eric Garner, a poor African American, was not paying his sales taxes. “NYPD officers approached Garner on July 17 on suspicion of selling single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps

After Garner told the police that he was tired of being harassed and that he was not selling cigarettes, the officers attempted to arrest Garner. . . Garner repeated … “I can’t breathe” 11 times while lying face down on the sidewalk . .  lost consciousness, . . lying on the sidewalk . .  seven minutes . . . pronounced dead at an area hospital approximately one hour later.” -.

This failure to pay a cigarette tax case can be traced to the modern news media allegation accepted as truth by most, that all police forces are systemically racist. This is also where the biased press’s famous slogan, “I can’t breathe,” in the recent George Floyd case (high on crystal meth and Fentanyl), originated.

In Floyd and Garner’s case, the police had ancient discretion not to arrest, but local bosses made clear this policy was necessary for revenue collection in Garner’s case. Unionized police, elected chiefs, and mayors know taxpayers and not bums pay their pensions. Store owners pay local cigarette taxes; homeless street people on drugs don’t.

In Floyd’s case, the officers were correct to arrest the intoxicated, violent felon. But once Floyd was in custody, they had a duty not to suffocate him to death, the same as Garner. In both cases, the police appear to have breached their duty to use reasonable force.

Either way, had Floyd gotten in his van on the lethal doses of drugs he was on and killed bystanders, no one could have sued the police!

Alternatives To Law Enforcement Peace Officers

Some better-off folks receive help with law enforcement issues by seeking security or policing services from private police. A deal with a company like Los Angeles PROFESSIONAL SECURITY Alarm & Video Monitoring would save the city of Los Angeles and its citizens money and eliminate a significant rash of injuries and deaths to taxpayers who do not receive police help.

A company like this could potentially deploy helicopters with rappelling teams trained in military and police tactics to defend private businesses and homes from things like domestic violence at a fraction of the cost less trained government-loyal LAPD officers could.

Citizens Are Lying To Get Police Help?

It has gotten so bad! “Some agencies have reported that on busy nights, some citizens have had to wait up to two hours for officers to respond to non-emergency calls. In response, citizens with non-emergencies have been telling 9-1-1 operators that a gun or serious crime has occurred to obtain faster police response times!

And “…in many cities response time is still considered the key test of a police department’s effectiveness.”‘ (Source).

As red states begin turning blue, defunding their police, and crimes of violence skyrocket, don’t expect the few police remaining nearby to provide you with police protection. However, you can ask for help from your state legislature since several states retained their colonial police powers under our glorious Constitution.

Perhaps we should pass laws guaranteeing police protection or better firearms training laws, coupled with an easing in firearms restrictions on those few people wishing to protect themselves from harm.

Conclusion:

Though you may find it alarming, we maintain no affirmative right to police aid, even a helpless woman or child facing imminent danger relying on mandatory arrest statutes as in Delaney. The Supreme Court reminds us we all remain responsible for our safety, the main reason firearms rights activists expose the hypocrisy of ridiculous gun control ideas proffered by “the nanny state.”

The United States Constitution does not require police to protect you from an individual attacker. This has remained an unwavering rule since ancient common law history and won’t change anytime soon.

Michael Ehline is the lead counsel for the California personal injury law firm Ehline Law. In addition to being a world-famous cruise ship accident attorney, Ehline helps military motorcyclists recover money for on- and off-base car accidents.

He is a lobbyist for better transportation safety laws, legal researcher, inactive U.S. Marine, and journalist. Michael’s opinions, fact check, or legal team do not always reflect the views of the Ehline Law Firm, its wounded clients, or employees, including paralegals and receptionists.

We have provided this educational article for general information purposes only. We intended nothing here to be taken as legal advice because it’s not. Please reach out if you would like to request a free consultation from Mr. Ehline.

Citations:

  • Can I Run Over BLM Marxists With My Car?