By John Q. Hosedrinker The notion that police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals is a chilling realization that should reverberate through any discussion about public safety and law enforcement. I find myself grappling with the implications of this principle, especially when lives are on the line, as evidenced in cases like that of the murder victim in question. The fact that police actions—or lack thereof—can be influenced by personal relationships, like providing free services, underscores a disturbing reality: the public’s welfare can sometimes take a backseat to informal ties and benefits.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales casts a stark light on the responsibilities, or rather the lack thereof, of law enforcement agencies. When the judiciary states that police do not have an inherent obligation to protect citizens, it raises the question, why do we have police at all? What are we, as taxpayers, funding if not the promise of safety and justice? It angers me to think of the countless hours of my hard-earned money that flow into budgets for officers who, as history has shown, may not come to our aid when necessary.
This situation forces a reevaluation of our expectations from the police. If they aren’t required to enforce protective orders—orders that are intended to shield individuals from danger—then who exactly is looking out for those who find themselves in peril? The idea that police can justify inaction through legal precedent is mind-boggling. The weight of such a conclusion is hard to bear. It implies a system where, despite the presence of law enforcement, individuals remain largely responsible for their own safety—a dangerous and daunting sentiment.
Interestingly, I find myself wrestling with an unpopular belief in the wake of this realization: the need for personal defense, including armed self-defense. If we accept the premise that police are not obligated to protect us, we must also acknowledge that every person has the right to be their own first responder. The decision to arm oneself should not be a radical notion, but rather a sensible response to the understanding that waiting for help might mean waiting for an event to unfold that could cost lives.
Reflecting on recent events, such as the Uvalde School tragedy where police seemed more concerned with protocol than immediate action, reinforces the idea that relying solely on law enforcement for safety can be a grave misunderstanding of the situation at hand. It’s disheartening to recognize that in moments of crisis, the call to protect and serve can often turn into a delayed response that falls short of what citizens need when they need it most.
The contradiction between the expectations we have of police and the legal precedents shielded by qualified immunity creates an environment of distrust. Citizens are mandated to assist officers but are offered no reciprocal guarantee of protection from those same officials. This imbalance begs us to question the ethics and effectiveness of law enforcement as it currently exists. Why should individuals feel obligated to comply with an institution that has no corresponding obligation to protect them?
These reflections conjure a disconcerting vision of a society where authority figures wield power without responsibility. As the courts have repeatedly ruled, police have little obligation to safeguard the public. In this context, it feels almost absurd to continue funding a system that operates under such principles. I frequently wonder what true reform could look like if it were built on a foundation of real protection for the community, rather than on upholding the status quo.
Trust in public institutions is eroding, and these rulings only serve to solidify that loss of faith. The idea of policing must evolve if it is to regain legitimacy in the eyes of citizens. A system in which officers are held accountable for their inaction, just as citizens are held accountable for their actions, is crucial for restoring that trust. We require a law enforcement framework that prioritizes individual safety over legal loopholes and bureaucratic red tape.
The growing dichotomy of expectations and reality affirms my belief that it is essential for individuals to take their safety into their own hands. We cannot rest all hope on a system that has made it clear that our protection is not their responsibility. As we continue to engage in meaningful conversations about police reform, we must also acknowledge the responsibility to educate ourselves about self-defense and to advocate for policies that ensure the right to protect oneself. We cannot afford to remain passive; our lives may depend on it.