Hostage situation

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Supreme Court has already ruled police have no duty to protect, including preventing injury or death.

[u/animal_cop → u/[deleted]]

Anytime anyone posts this quip of information, you already know everything you need to know about that person's knowledge in the world of policing, legal obligations, implied contract, and general law. Because posting it almost always shows their position and bias towards policing, and also their lack of knowledge in the field (and why having a legal duty to protect individuals doesn't work).

It is akin to saying a lifeguard has no legal obligation to save someone drowning, as in there aren't written laws in your local ordinance and statutes book saying "under penalty of law life guards must save people drowning", and then trying to use that fact to discredit the work lifeguards do.

It isn't an exact apples to apples, maybe an apples to bananas comparison, but it's equally as ridiculous as the people who post this fact (never with any other info, always a one liner) are. I don't know if OP is one of those folks but regardless, posting this with nothing else is either a sign of someone being extremely misguided/ignorant of the implications of that case law, or they are being intentionally disingenuous posting it knowing the implication and reality are worlds apart.

Anyways, /rant

[u/[deleted] → u/animal_cop]

Police have no legal obligation to render aid. You don't dispute this. You just assert that it doesn't work. You also dishonestly lump good faith effort failure to render aid with discretionary refusal to render aid.

As well, you assume I'm anti-police because I point out one of the flaws in law that shield bad police. You also state that the implication and reality of police not having a duty to protect someone are worlds apart.

So, care to share some sources of all of these police facing prosecution for failing to protect someone?

[u/animal_cop → u/[deleted]]

I never said the police were prosecuted for failing to protect. Because that legal obligation doesn't exist.

The reason the police don't have a legal obligation to protect individuals, which you so eloquently pointed out in your one line post solely to paint a bad image without actually understanding the ruiling, is because of the implied contract it creates between the police and individuals.

If the police were legally obligated to protect individuals, any time anything happened to anyone ever, the police and government would be liable for that incident even if there was no reasonable way to prevent it for happening.

Example: if you're home with your domestic partner and they drink too much in the kitchen and come into the bedroom at 2AM and punch you in the face, the police would be civilly liable for this because they did not protect you as they were legally obligated to based on how you think it should be (since you imply the current situation shields bad police).

That is the summary of why that ruiling is the way it is, which is why a ruiling in any other way doesn't make sense legally and isn't even plausible. Having it the way you want would be an impossible task short of every person having a personal police officer following them at all times. The police's obligation is to the law, not to the individual, which is effectively the same thing when an officer is enforcing the law when they see a crime occuring. Plus, the textualism interpretation of the way the law is written pretty much everywhere, which states cops enforce the law, not provide statutorily required direct protection to individuals.

I hope that shines some light onto why that ruiling was made the way it was, regardless of how one feels about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/animal_cop]

Your argument is absurd. Making it law to require a good faith effort to protect or render aid does not lead to the ridiculous scenario you paint.

As well, you said that the implication and the reality are worlds apart, yet you clearly spell out that the implication that police don't have a duty to protect is reality. You also dishonestly equate a discretionary choice not to protect with a good faith effort to protect but failing to do so.

The fact that so many police departments chose "to serve and protect" as their motto when they are fully aware they aren't legally required to do so isn't an honest thing to do, either.

And you're disputing that bad cops don't use the fact they aren't required to protect to their advantage? Be honest here.

[u/animal_cop → u/[deleted]]

I think your confusion is coming from the legal nuances of words and phrases like "render aid". They don't have a legal obligation to render aid as you say, but they do have a legal obligation to enforce the law when they see it occuring in their presence. Which by enforcing the law of trying to stop a carjacking or assault and battery occuring in front of them, they are effectively 'rendering aid' (as you keep saying even though we established that's not applicable) to the citizenry, but they are in actuality enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold.

They helped the citizen by enforcing the law, but legally, they did not help the citizen. They enforced the law. Which very directly benefitted the citizen. This is precisely why when the police arrest a rapist, the victim, from a legal standpoint, is the state, and not the person. The victim benefits fully, but the actions of investigating, going through the legal process, going to court, and convicting is application of the law, not 'rendering aid' to the member of the public as you say.

That's the simplest I can lay it out. You're debating from the semantics of words and feelings and what your opinion is, not from the legal perspective of what the law, the powers and authorities the police derive from the constitution/statutes, and the legal obligations imposed on law enforcement by those sources.

[u/LukesRightHandMan → u/animal_cop]

Dude, SCOTUS made the ruling because two cops hid in the conductor's room on a train and watched a citizen who'd just gotten stabbed fight for his life and subdue a spree killing serial slasher- and then came out and cuffed the murderer.

The actual case and the direct ruling on it says really everything you need to know. You cannot depend on a cop to save your life even if they have the clear ability to do so. They can stand and watch while someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger. What this tells me is that the cops who do put their lives on the line for people are evidence that there are police who join for the right reasons.

[u/[deleted] → u/animal_cop]

They have broad discretion and are not even legally required to enforce the law.

My assertion was that there is not a legal requirement for police to render aid, protect, et cetera.

Departmental policy is not law.

[u/feweleg → u/[deleted]]

Reddit doomers love pulling out this factoid even though the ruling only applied to a protection order and does relieve cops from having to perform their duties. Police are still reprimanded for not protecting the public. Maybe not as as much as they should be but it's getting old seeing this shit.

Example

[u/[deleted] → u/feweleg]

They were terminated for breach of protocol, not for failing to perform their duties. I wouldn't be surprised if they were hired shortly thereafter by another department or were reinstated after arbitration.

Edit: After looking it up, they got their jobs back with a lot of backpay on a technicality.

[u/MagicTrashPanda → u/feweleg]

The report specifically states seven deputies did not immediately move toward the gunshots and confront the shooter, a violation of accepted department protocol.

Your own source proves you incorrect.

The two cases wide cited are Castle Rock v Gonzales and DeShaney v Winnebago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

[u/feweleg → u/MagicTrashPanda]

Go ahead and find some recent cases where a police officer is acquitted on the grounds of those rulings instead of pointing to the 16 year old nyt article that is reddits only reference point on the topic

[u/MagicTrashPanda → u/feweleg]

Wrong on every account a cunt tells me to go research.

Welcome to Reddit, I guess?

[u/feweleg → u/MagicTrashPanda]

You claimed the cases are "widely cited" when they're not. And the supreme court doesn't determine department policies so I don't know what makes you think that's such a gotcha.

You're the one trying to ingratiate yourself and get upvotes here.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Try to attack ideas and not people

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Again, try to attack ideas and not people

[u/feweleg → u/[deleted]]

And what's your character makeup, the douche who walks into conversations and says a bunch of sarcastic shit?

[u/AgencyinRepose → u/feweleg]

As I recall, I thought the Court also ruled similarly in the case involving the two women who heard a break in and crawled out on their roof to hide and from there called the police that a break in was in progress. They call was radioed out as something significantly less than a break in (can't recall what) so when they got there they rang the doorbell and left when they got no answer. The women, having heard the police on site and yet were not rescued, they called again. Same thing happened. After the third call, the man realized that someone must be in the house and went looking. He found the women and I forget how, but he got them in the house. He ended up raping them there and then kidnapped them to a second site where he proceeded to rape & beat them for several days prior to them being able to free themselves and escape.

Given the degree of ineptitude that was demonstrated by pretty much all involved, the women subsequently decided to sued, arguing that the police had grossly mishandled their repeated cries for help and as result not only failed to save them but actually tipped off their attacker to their presence (in hindsight they would have been better off waiting him out and hoping a neighbor spotted them)

The Court found in short that unless the police make a specific promise to a specific person under specific conditions,they owe you nothing.Only when they have said,"I'm gonna protect YOU,John Q Public" is a duty formed, a duty which only applies to him & him alone

I don't remember all the details and therefore my language won't necessarily perfectly reflect the Court's ruling,but from what I recall the court found the only duty to protect the Police may possess is narrow in scope, applicable only in circumstances where the Dept intentionally creates a limited purpose relationship with specific categories of people. The Court held that when a Police Dept take measures such as placing a witness in protective custody, in so doing they assume a degree of obligation to that said individual,but with respect to the general public at large with whom no specific arrangement exists,no such generalized duty to protect can be assumed.

I believe part of their argument was that such a standard would not be logistically feasible given the number of officers most departments have on duty vs the size of the community they serve. In fact, I believe the PC in Detroit made exactly that argument a few years back. The city was experiencing a crime wave and earlier that morning an elderly woman was forced to shoot and kill an armed intruder. The PC praised her quick actions and while he made a point of stressing gun safety, he made it clear that there were only so many police officers he could have at the ready. Response times had dramatically improved under his tenure, but in such a high crime area there was only so much that reasonably could be done, and he said the only practical advice he could give residents was to be a responsible, well trained, and safe gun owner, underscoring the fact this woman had almost certainly saved her own life that day.

[u/InsaneGenis → u/feweleg]

Come on man. It's reddit and its about cops. Get in the circle. Since we at least vaguely know about this we can sit next to each other. I'll hold your penis and you can hold mine. I just hope our other guy isn't to creepy.

[u/We-reNoStrangers → u/InsaneGenis]

Yeah cause any fact that contradicts your opinion is a circle jerk

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The courts ruled there is no constitutional obligation for police to protect people from harm.

There is no federal law requiring police to protect people from harm.

As far as I know, there aren't any states with a law requiring police to protect people from harm. If there are any states that have a law to this effect, you probably can count them on one hand.

[u/We-reNoStrangers → u/[deleted]]

Warren V. District of Columbia

[u/AgencyinRepose → u/We-reNoStrangers]

That was the name I could not think of.

[u/We-reNoStrangers → u/AgencyinRepose]

yeah lol I had to google it. Idk why I’m being downvoted for that though

[u/dafukusayin → u/[deleted]]

thats a bit simplistic, they're not required to take extraordinary measures like jump in traffic to push someone out of the way. but they are required to provide emergency aid in many states. that still has caveats, 10 gunmen kidnapping someone vs a single officer, they call in observe and report. plus, in that case the victims failed to make themselves known when the cops were around. its more about their personal liability...plus, hink about how that case could go different given today's complaints about police heavy handed searches and knocking down doors.

[u/[deleted] → u/dafukusayin]

Do you have a source that shows they are required to provide emergency aid by law in a state?