PDA

View Full Version : Police not obligated to protect


WokMaster1
04-22-2009, 8:28 AM
What was the SCOTUS case? Anyone?

NiteQwill
04-22-2009, 8:31 AM
I believe it was Warren v. D.C.

AJAX22
04-22-2009, 8:32 AM
I wish they had included a concur in that case which opined that the police did have a responsibility not to hinder the citizenry who are attempting to go about their own defense :(

aileron
04-22-2009, 8:34 AM
I think your looking for.

Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

ETA: Ahh, NiteQWill you beat me to it. :p

5968
04-22-2009, 8:34 AM
I think it is Castle Rock v Gonzales.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 8:39 AM
I think it is Castle Rock v Gonzales.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales pertains to police protection under restraining orders, I believe.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 8:44 AM
I think it's not necessarily that they don't have to [do their job], but that they're not criminally liable if they, for some reason, fail to.

DDT
04-22-2009, 9:02 AM
I think it's not necessarily that they don't have to [do their job], but that they're not criminally liable if they, for some reason, fail to.

If there are no repercussions there is no obligation.

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 9:11 AM
I believe it was Warren v. D.C.

Yep. I believe it was ruled that police personel are not liable for a failure to provide adequate protection.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 9:48 AM
If there are no repercussions there is no obligation.
Just because one can't sue the police for a failure to protect them does not mean there are no repercussions, legal or otherwise.

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 9:54 AM
Just because one can't sue the police for a failure to protect them does not mean there are no repercussions, legal or otherwise.


Well then what does it mean when the court ruled that they are not liable?

DDT
04-22-2009, 9:56 AM
Just because one can't sue the police for a failure to protect them does not mean there are no repercussions, legal or otherwise.

Actually it DOES mean there are no LEGAL repercussions, in this case. As for other repercussions that is not the purview of the courts. Do you know of any department policies that specifically hold officers accountable for protecting individuals?

chiefcrash
04-22-2009, 9:57 AM
Besides the various SCOTUS cases, go take a look at California Government Code 845:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.
...

Roadrunner
04-22-2009, 9:58 AM
Maybe we can't sue them for failure to protect us, but I wonder; with Heller and now Nordyke, could we sue them for preventing us from protecting ourselves?

BobB35
04-22-2009, 10:08 AM
Besides the various SCOTUS cases, go take a look at California Government Code 845:


Exactly, and you can be assured that every LEO in this state is very aware of their obligations and responsibilities. It was covered in the academy I went to. The BS that is flung about regarding "the thin blue line", police running toward danger when everyone else is running away, it thier job to protect people is just BS.

Someday the people will understand this. Personally I think the rise in Shall issue CCW in the US is a direct result of Warren v. DC. You has some common sense legislature say "hey if the cops are for protecting people then they should be able to protect themselves"

I really hope Calguns foundations files suit quickly in regards to CCWs before someone else does and possibly screws it up.

5968
04-22-2009, 10:35 AM
Castle Rock v. Gonzales pertains to police protection under restraining orders, I believe.

You are correct!

RomanDad
04-22-2009, 10:39 AM
Maybe we can't sue them for failure to protect us, but I wonder; with Heller and now Nordyke, could we sue them for preventing us from protecting ourselves?

“[The Second Amendment exists for] when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”


Those who read Nordyke carefully will discover they use this quote from Blackstone, not once, BUT TWICE.... (First on page 4488 and again on page 4494) And they use it for two separate principles. To present the 2nd as a defense to tyranny by government, and as a defense to indifference by government as well.

homerm14
04-22-2009, 10:41 AM
All I can say is I took an oath to protect and that means something to me. It is my job and I will protect regardless of the situation. I can not speak for all LEO's, but if I did not do my job I would have a hard time sleeping at night. On the flip side I can't be every where all the time, and everyone has a right to protect themselves.

Roadrunner
04-22-2009, 10:45 AM
[The Second Amendment exists for] when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.


Those who read Nordyke carefully will discover they use this quote from Blackstone, not once, BUT TWICE.... (First on page 4488 and again on page 4494) And they use it for two separate principles. To present the 2nd as a defense to tyranny by government, and as a defense to indifference by government as well.

I'll take that as a yes.

JDoe
04-22-2009, 10:46 AM
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

BamBam-31
04-22-2009, 10:47 AM
Good on ya, homerm14. :thumbsup:

Too bad you're not in SoCal. :(

homerm14
04-22-2009, 10:51 AM
Good on ya, homerm14. :thumbsup:

Too bad you're not in SoCal. :(

I'm not but my little sister is, and I would hope if she needed help it would be there for her.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 11:08 AM
Well then what does it mean when the court ruled that they are not liable?
They aren't liable for damages. But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer.
Look, I agree that it sounds wrong that they aren't held legally responsible for the public safety, but I also agree with the logic of the ruling. If an electrician installs faulty wiring and, as a result, your home burns down, that person can be held liable for the damages. But if someone breaks in, holds you and your family hostage, and the police don't respond or fail to perform a thorough check, who's really at fault here? It's disgraceful conduct which diminishes the public's faith in LEO's, but the police didn't cause the criminal to victimize you through their action or inaction. Why should they be sued? And, would fear of being sued make them perform their duties better?
Actually it DOES mean there are no LEGAL repercussions, in this case. As for other repercussions that is not the purview of the courts. Do you know of any department policies that specifically hold officers accountable for protecting individuals?
Just because there can be no civil suit on the part of the victims does not mean there are no actions taken against the officers involved. I think we are agreeing here; maybe I misworded (yes, I just made that term up) my response earlier.
Policies? Don't know of any, and never claimed to.
I'm not sure, but there may be some rule similar to the military's "conduct unbecoming" in LE agencies.

jamesob
04-22-2009, 11:10 AM
they told that to us in the academy but can't remember the case.

BobB35
04-22-2009, 11:19 AM
This is all fine and good. I don't really care if the Police are responsible for my protection or not. I just don't like it when LEOs pretend that they are responsible and then use that as a reason for not allowing me to defend myself (no CCW). Kind of circular logic. As far as not being an LEO anymore, bet the union would have something to say about that and officer safety always comes first.

In reality unless we are willing to pay for a police force that is 1/2 the size of the population there is no way that government could take responsibliity for each citizens safety. So fine, let's call it as it is. LEO are responsible for the general public order. YOU are responsible for your own protection.

Spread the word, I bet not 1 in a 1000 people is aware of this (1 in 100,000 democrats). Every chance I get I inform people of this little fact and it is amazing the responses I receive.

They aren't liable for damages. But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer.
Look, I agree that it sounds wrong that they aren't held legally responsible for the public safety, but I also agree with the logic of the ruling. If an electrician installs faulty wiring and, as a result, your home burns down, that person can be held liable for the damages. But if someone breaks in, holds you and your family hostage, and the police don't respond or fail to perform a thorough check, who's really at fault here? It's disgraceful conduct which diminishes the public's faith in LEO's, but the police didn't cause the criminal to victimize you through their action or inaction. Why should they be sued? And, would fear of being sued make them perform their duties better?

Just because there can be no civil suit on the part of the victims does not mean there are no actions taken against the officers involved. I think we are agreeing here; maybe I misworded (yes, I just made that term up) my response earlier.
Policies? Don't know of any, and never claimed to.

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 11:21 AM
They aren't liable for damages. But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer.

Well that's an assumption that they're no longer LEO's because it relies heavily on the department's guidelines, how closely they were followed, and their own rules as far as what disciplinary actions may be taken. However, according to the court no laws were broken by their actions, or lack of. I totally agree with you that it is disgraceful conduct and the court decision shielded them and the department from legal actions.

javalos
04-22-2009, 11:24 AM
There's also been a few lower courts decisions ruling that police do not have an obligation to protect citizens.
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5
Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674
Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332

JDoe
04-22-2009, 11:40 AM
Wow! There are a ton of cases out there! Picked up the following from Googling around...

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.);

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]

Heard also that "Dial 911 and Die (http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-Richard-Stevens/dp/0964230445)" is an eye opener.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 11:50 AM
...As far as not being an LEO anymore, bet the union would have something to say about that and officer safety always comes first. This is why I'm against police unions. Well, actually, unions in general.

In reality unless we are willing to pay for a police force that is 1/2 the size of the population there is no way that government could take responsibliity for each citizens safety. So fine, let's call it as it is. LEO are responsible for the general public order. YOU are responsible for your own protection.

Spread the word, I bet not 1 in a 1000 people is aware of this (1 in 100,000 democrats). Every chance I get I inform people of this little fact and it is amazing the responses I receive.Agreed. I'm very pro-personal responsibility. I look at these rulings as affirming that standard. It also makes the defense of concealed carry and firearm ownership stronger. Plus, who wants a police force that is held responsible for the individual's safety at all times. The more responsibility we give them the more control they'll have.

Well that's an assumption that they're no longer LEO's because it relies heavily on the department's guidelines, how closely they were followed, and their own rules as far as what disciplinary actions may be taken.Well, I have no control over that. I just prefer to look at it with a positive mind-set, and hope that their CO's will do what's right. Public out-cry in these situations can be a motivating factor.

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 12:05 PM
Well, I have no control over that. I just prefer to look at it with a positive mind-set, and hope that their CO's will do what's right. Public out-cry in these situations can be a motivating factor.

My point is that repercussion is assumed and not necessarily happened, so to say that there's repercussion without providing proof is meaningless. What happened in the case of Warren vs District of Columbia is that the department and the officers are not liable under the laws.

DDT
04-22-2009, 1:43 PM
They aren't liable for damages. But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer.

Why would you assume that? There are no legal repercussions and you just admitted that you know of no departmental policies. So, if a cop doesn't respond in a timely fashion or doesn't thoroughly investigate when he is no site why do you assume he will be held accountable by his department?

Look, I agree that it sounds wrong that they aren't held legally responsible for the public safety, but I also agree with the logic of the ruling. If an electrician installs faulty wiring and, as a result, your home burns down, that person can be held liable for the damages. But if someone breaks in, holds you and your family hostage, and the police don't respond or fail to perform a thorough check, who's really at fault here?

the person who failed to do their job is responsible. In the first case the electrician installed wiring improperly, in the second the police investigated a reported crime improperly. Now; if the electrician had installed the wiring properly and the house still burned down because the wiring was manufactured wrong or a kitchen fire or an overloaded circuit caused the fire he would be in the clear. If the cops had DONE THEIR JOBS but someone still lost their life there is no reason for the cops/department to be held liable.

And let's not kid ourselves. The department is way more likely to be sued than the beat cop. "What? It took 12 minutes to dispatch to a home invasion call?" That is most likely a problem with the department and/or dispatcher, not the beat cop.

It's disgraceful conduct which diminishes the public's faith in LEO's, but the police didn't cause the criminal to victimize you through their action or inaction. Why should they be sued? And, would fear of being sued make them perform their duties better?

Yes, the fear of a suit would force them to do their jobs better. More importantly it would force the departments to properly staff, train and outfit their employees. The CHP 911 system for cell phones is disgusting and is truly a hazard to people who are led to believe it is a safety net. Do you not think they would find the money to invest in improving the system if they feared they would get sued if someone lost their life because no one answered or responded to their 911 call?

In fact, the reason the fruits of an illegal search are generally excluded is not to protect the "bad guy" as you might think. The reason the fruits are excluded is because it is punitive to the police which will help prevent a similar abuse in the future. This was actually heard this past year by SCOTUS when they decided to NOT exclude evidence where exclusion would not prevent future searches from occurring. (Herring v. US)

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 7:45 PM
My point is that repercussion is assumed and not necessarily happened, so to say that there's repercussion without providing proof is meaningless. What happened in the case of Warren vs District of Columbia is that the department and the officers are not liable under the laws.

I never claimed that your idea of justice is carried out every time.
I was pointing out a potential scenario (one more likely than you're willing to admit) that people here have been too cynical to even conceive. Is it improbable...maybe, from a certain point of view, but not impossible. I'd rather we not be so antipathetic to these rulings. I stated already that I believe that the more responsibility law enforcement has the more control they have. I personally would rather it not be that way. In the case of Warren v DC, the officers did not kidnap, rob, and rape those 3 women, nor did they witness it and allow it to happen. They did not place those women in danger either intentionally or unintentionally. To sue them would be like suing the fire dept. if they were unable to respond in time to save your house from burning in large wildfire.

dfletcher
04-22-2009, 8:02 PM
Shouldn't we be glad, benefits to the gun control issue aside, that the police do not have a duty to protect us? It seems to me if they had a duty to protect us then it must follow that we provide them the means to protect us such as monitoring our every move, limiting where we can go, when we can go there and what ever it is we might do when we get there? That we would in effect be required to comply with law enforcements "reasonable" methods to carry out that duty to protect?

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 8:11 PM
I was pointing out a potential scenario (one more likely than you're willing to admit) that people here have been too cynical to even conceive.

It wasn't my idea, it was your suggestion that those possibly those officers are no longer employed by the department. The potential repercussion you pointed out is nothing more than hoping for someone to discipline those officers. Unless you can somehow point out those negligent officers were discipline, no repercussion occurred.


Is it improbable...maybe, from a certain point of view, but not impossible.

Possible for it to happen but did it happen? If it didn't happen, no repercussion on the negligent officers.


case of Warren v DC, the officers did not kidnap, rob, and rape those 3 women, nor did they witness it and allow it to happen.

Hence they were not sued for kidnapping, robbery, and raped.

To sue them would be like suing the fire dept. if they were unable to respond in time to save your house from burning in large wildfire.

A large wildfire would be an equivalence to a riot where police won'tt be able to save everyone, or the fire dept won't be able to save every house. This was like a single home fire where the dispatcher didn't forwad the call with the proper degree of urgency, the firemen did a drive by saw no smoke and drove away, and another one knocked on the door but no one ran out to yell fire so they left. :(

KylaGWolf
04-22-2009, 8:19 PM
They aren't liable for damages. But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer.
Look, I agree that it sounds wrong that they aren't held legally responsible for the public safety, but I also agree with the logic of the ruling. If an electrician installs faulty wiring and, as a result, your home burns down, that person can be held liable for the damages. But if someone breaks in, holds you and your family hostage, and the police don't respond or fail to perform a thorough check, who's really at fault here? It's disgraceful conduct which diminishes the public's faith in LEO's, but the police didn't cause the criminal to victimize you through their action or inaction. Why should they be sued? And, would fear of being sued make them perform their duties better?

Just because there can be no civil suit on the part of the victims does not mean there are no actions taken against the officers involved. I think we are agreeing here; maybe I misworded (yes, I just made that term up) my response earlier.
Policies? Don't know of any, and never claimed to.
I'm not sure, but there may be some rule similar to the military's "conduct unbecoming" in LE agencies.

Here is the big problem with your argument that they would not remain LEOs much longer. If they do not respond to the call then they do what is called dispose of the call which means to not act then its taken care of as far as the brass is concerned and no repercussions what so ever. And this information was told to me by an LEO to boot. Sad thing when they admit they ignore a call on the basis they don't think it is important enough to respond.

I know all too well that the police do not have to protect us I have had four times where I have called the police and they never bothered to show up. So now I just don't rely on them to. I still make the call but I also know that if it comes down to it I will do what I have to to protect those I love.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 8:35 PM
Why would you assume that? There are no legal repercussions and you just admitted that you know of no departmental policies. So, if a cop doesn't respond in a timely fashion or doesn't thoroughly investigate when he is no site why do you assume he will be held accountable by his department?Not assuming, just throwing it out there.
the person who failed to do their job is responsible. In the first case the electrician installed wiring improperly, in the second the police investigated a reported crime improperly. Now; if the electrician had installed the wiring properly and the house still burned down because the wiring was manufactured wrong or a kitchen fire or an overloaded circuit caused the fire he would be in the clear. If the cops had DONE THEIR JOBS but someone still lost their life there is no reason for the cops/department to be held liable.

And let's not kid ourselves. The department is way more likely to be sued than the beat cop. "What? It took 12 minutes to dispatch to a home invasion call?" That is most likely a problem with the department and/or dispatcher, not the beat cop.You're bringing up two different examples that don't relate to mine. If an electrician installed something wrong which caused the house to burn, they are at fault. That person's negligence caused the house to burn. Since if it were not for their shoddy work, the house would be very likely be just fine. The officer's slow response time and careless investigation did not cause those women to be kidnaped, rapped and robed. They did not put the rapists in the house of those three women, nothing the officers did or did not do compelled those men to commit their crime. They failed to stop the crime in a timely manor, but they did not cause it to happen in the first place.



Yes, the fear of a suit would force them to do their jobs better. More importantly it would force the departments to properly staff, train and outfit their employees. The CHP 911 system for cell phones is disgusting and is truly a hazard to people who are led to believe it is a safety net. Do you not think they would find the money to invest in improving the system if they feared they would get sued if someone lost their life because no one answered or responded to their 911 call?

Fear of a lawsuit will not imbue the department with the power to create miracles. It wont give them a bigger budget or more staff, and if they don't have the money or the manpower, what can we expect them to do?. If they could fix it, they would. Let's not sit here and accuse them of ignoring the problem.

In fact, the reason the fruits of an illegal search are generally excluded is not to protect the "bad guy" as you might think. The reason the fruits are excluded is because it is punitive to the police which will help prevent a similar abuse in the future. This was actually heard this past year by SCOTUS when they decided to NOT exclude evidence where exclusion would not prevent future searches from occurring. (Herring v. US)
This is different since this applies to an officer who directly violated the fourth amendment right of a citizen. And further, I'll disagree that this is effective at preventing future violations since this does not directly punish the officer.

DDT
04-22-2009, 8:49 PM
Not assuming, just throwing it out there.

Oh, well if you're just throwing it out there that there might be other repercussions that's all good. I will concede that it is possible that a bolt of lightening will come out of the sky and strike them down. Since there is no evidence of any other repercussions and you've shown none but to say "I'm just throwing it out there."


You're bringing up two different examples that don't relate to mine. If an electrician installed something wrong which caused the house to burn, they are at fault. That person's negligence caused the house to burn. Since if it were not for their shoddy work, the house would be very likely be just fine.

I actually used your example so I don't know how your comparison of an electrician doing their job to a cop doing his is appropriate where mine would not be.

The officer's slow response time and careless investigation did not cause those women to be kidnaped, rapped and robed. They did not put the rapists in the house of those three women, nothing the officers did or did not do compelled those men to commit their crime. They failed to stop the crime in a timely manor, but they did not cause it to happen in the first place.

The officers' careless investigation permitted the activity to continue when a proper investigation may have ended it. No one is blaming the cops for the bad guys getting in the house. Also, if the cops performance didn't cause the women damages they would lose the suit so they wouldn't need to rely on the out of not being required to actually do their job.



Fear of a lawsuit will not imbue the department with the power to create miracles. It wont give them a bigger budget or more staff, and if they don't have the money or the manpower, what can we expect them to do?. If they could fix it, they would. Let's not sit here and accuse them of ignoring the problem.

Why do you say they would fix the problem if they could? They have no incentive to fix the problem. Their goals aren't to prevent crime or to protect the citizens. Fear of a lawsuit will not imbue the department with more money but it will force them to maximize the effectiveness of what they do have. In private industry there is competition to create such a drive, in this case there is no competitive force so there is no desire.

This is different since this applies to an officer who directly violated the fourth amendment right of a citizen. And further, I'll disagree that this is effective at preventing future violations since this does not directly punish the officer.

I think you missed my point. Legal penalties are levied against a police force for the specific reason to prevent similar behavior in the future. A big lawsuit would force departments to train their officers better if for no other reason than to provide them with a strong defense in the next case.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 9:26 PM
It wasn't my idea, it was your suggestion that those possibly those officers are no longer employed by the department. The potential repercussion you pointed out is nothing more than hoping for someone to discipline those officers. Unless you can somehow point out those negligent officers were discipline, no repercussion occurred.
I toss out one possible punishment for the sake of discussion and now it's up to me to prove it occurred?:confused:


Possible for it to happen but did it happen? If it didn't happen, no repercussion on the negligent officers. Whether it actually happened in this case is not the point, it was only a general statement. And in case you're forgetting, it's up to debate here whether or not these officers are accountable for criminal negligence. As we already know, as far as the SCOTUS is concerned, they aren't.

Hence they were not sued for kidnapping, robbery, and raped.Yes, but they were sued for negligence in failing to prevent/stop those acts. In order for the officers to be held criminally negligent, among other things, it must be shown that the officer's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the innocent party. They were being robed and raped before the officers/dept. personnel failed to perform their duties thoroughly.
Part of the reason it was ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals is because it's simply unrealistic. And more importantly, what benefit would there be if everyone in a situation where the police failed to act sued? There would be too much potential for abuse, and people would just be taking money away from the people that they expect to protect them.



A large wildfire would be an equivalence to a riot where police won'tt be able to save everyone, or the fire dept won't be able to save every house. This was like a single home fire where the dispatcher didn't forwad the call with the proper degree of urgency, the firemen did a drive by saw no smoke and drove away, and another one knocked on the door but no one ran out to yell fire so they left. :( I honestly don't understand what you expect at this point. The first time they responded they got there in 5 minutes of receiving a call. Should the officers have broken in after not hearing any cries for help the first time they investigated?

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 10:00 PM
I toss out one possible punishment for the sake of discussion and now it's up to me to prove it occurred?:confused:

Or at least when you throw it out there, don't say that it's someone else version of what may happen.

And more importantly, what benefit would there be if everyone in a situation where the police failed to act sued?

Like others stated, it will help the department to review their own guidelines and disciplinary policy to avoid negligent lawsuits in the future.



I honestly don't understand what you expect at this point. The first time they responded they got there in 5 minutes of receiving a call. Should the officers have broken in after not hearing any cries for help the first time they investigated?

Like I stated before the complaints were 1) The call was not forwarded with the properly degree of urgency. 2) A buglary call should have been handled more throughroughly. 3) At least dispatch the 2nd call. I think those are reasonable expectations for those who took the oath to protect and serve right? If they did at least all that then it would be unreasonable for the victims to sue them for negligent. But then again, it's Washington DC with a complete handgun ban so I don't expect any better. Maybe I just expect too much common sense from people.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 10:01 PM
Oh, well if you're just throwing it out there that there might be other repercussions that's all good. I will concede that it is possible that a bolt of lightening will come out of the sky and strike them down.-would that satisfy you? Since there is no evidence of any other repercussions and you've shown none but to say "I'm just throwing it out there." I don't see the harm in presenting it in a situation where people behave as though police act with impunity.



I actually used your example so I don't know how your comparison of an electrician doing their job to a cop doing his is appropriate where mine would not be.The situation you presented in your example was different than the situation in mine. I gave a scenario where an electrician's negligence caused someone harm and compared it to Warren vs DC where the officers carelessness didn't cause anything. I think maybe you're not understanding what it means to 'cause' something.



The officers' careless investigation permitted the activity to continue when a proper investigation may have ended it. No one is blaming the cops for the bad guys getting in the house. Also, if the cops performance didn't cause the women damages they would lose the suit so they wouldn't need to rely on the out of not being required to actually do their job. That case is were the "out", as you call it, came from. It wasn't used in the ruling of the case, it was the ruling. And FYI, accusing someone of criminal negligence is "blaming" them.





Why do you say they would fix the problem if they could? They have no incentive to fix the problem. Their goals aren't to prevent crime or to protect the citizens. Fear of a lawsuit will not imbue the department with more money but it will force them to maximize the effectiveness of what they do have. In private industry there is competition to create such a drive, in this case there is no competitive force so there is no desire.The bold statement makes clear that you are biased against LEO's. And, how on earth would we as citizens benefit from a society where police work faced market competition? This would only fuel over-zealous policing and the violation of civil liberties. The less responsibility police have to me as a citizen, the less power they have over me.



I think you missed my point. Legal penalties are levied against a police force for the specific reason to prevent similar behavior in the future. A big lawsuit would force departments to train their officers better if for no other reason than to provide them with a strong defense in the next case. It's a poor deterrent and it's going to be hard to find time and money for training when a huge chunk of your tax-payer funded budget has gone to pay off a lawsuit.

ChrisXD45T
04-22-2009, 10:27 PM
Or at least when you throw it out there, don't say that it's someone else version of what may happen.What?

Like others stated, it will help the department to review their own guidelines and disciplinary policy to avoid negligent lawsuits in the future.Or it will force the police to further distance themselves from the 'civilian' population and increase the occurrence of civil liberty violations by officers to eager to 'catch the bad guy.'




Like I stated before the complaints were 1) The call was not forwarded with the properly degree of urgency. 2) A buglary call should have been handled more throughroughly. 3) At least dispatch the 2nd call. I think those are reasonable expectations for those who took the oath to protect and serve right? If they did at least all that then it would be unreasonable for the victims to sue them for negligent. But then again, it's Washington DC with a complete handgun ban so I don't expect any better. Maybe I just expect too much common sense from people.I don't feel that you are comprehending what it means to be criminally negligent. Police have a general duty to the public at large, but no specific duty to any one individual. This is common sense. It has been upheld time and time again.
Help me out here. I believe in personal freedom and individual responsibility, explain to me why I would want the police to have that much power as to be responsible for the safety of all individuals?

Vtec44
04-22-2009, 10:47 PM
What?

Or it will force the police to further distance themselves from the 'civilian' population and increase the occurrence of civil liberty violations by officers to eager to 'catch the bad guy.'

How further can they distance themselves from the "civilian" population when they taken up the oath to serve and protect but not liable?



I don't feel that you are comprehending what it means to be criminally negligent.

Actually in this case, I wonder the same about you.



Police have a general duty to the public at large, but no specific duty to any one individual. This is common sense.

That's the court ruling and not necessarily common sense. Common sense is you don't put a hot cup of coffee between your legs, but the court disagreed and sided with the victim because the coffee was hotter than other restaurants, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Ask any one you know what do they expect when dial 911 in a life and death situation. You and I both already know what the answer will be.

explain to me why I would want the police to have that much power as to be responsible for the safety of all individuals?

You and I don't expect them to protect all individuals, but I do expect them to 1) route the call with the proper ugency 2) investigate a burglary call properly 3) dispatch the call.

DDT
04-22-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't see the harm in presenting it in a situation where people behave as though police act with impunity.

In this case the police did act with impunity. There is no compelling reason to assume that departmental policies have since changed. If you have evidence that they have please feel free to post it. Are you a LEO? If so, what policy would you have violated had you been the first responder in Warren?


The bold statement makes clear that you are biased against LEO's. And, how on earth would we as citizens benefit from a society where police work faced market competition? This would only fuel over-zealous policing and the violation of civil liberties. The less responsibility police have to me as a citizen, the less power they have over me.


You are reading something into that statement which is not there. I am anything BUT biased against LEOs.

Your argument about LEOs having less power when they have less responsibility is interesting, dfletcher already brought it up earlier. The issue, in this case, was about irresponsible police work AFTER the police were notified that there was a problem and responded. This is a far cry from suggesting that by holding the accountable when the screw up professionally you must then give them power over you.


It's a poor deterrent and it's going to be hard to find time and money for training when a huge chunk of your tax-payer funded budget has gone to pay off a lawsuit.

I think that you will find very little sympathy in this forum or many other places in suggesting that suing the government for wrongdoing is bad because of the cost to the tax payers. In case you hadn't noticed one of the major areas of interest in this section of the forum specifically is working against governmental abuse through the judicial branch.

As for how effective a deterrent a lawsuit is or suppression of evidence is listen to the federalist society SCOTUScast on Herring. They make it pretty clear that judicial action against police (in these cases) is primarily aimed at deterring future abuses.

ChrisXD45T
04-23-2009, 12:19 AM
In this case the police did act with impunity. There is no compelling reason to assume that departmental policies have since changed. If you have evidence that they have please feel free to post it. Are you a LEO? If so, what policy would you have violated had you been the first responder in Warren?
Here's what I've said: ...But, depending on the circumstances, they may not be LEO's for much longer....
...Just because there can be no civil suit on the part of the victims does not mean there are no actions taken against the officers involved...How many times do I have explain that these were generic comments about the legal rule that officers don't have any legal obligation to protect an individual. I only made these statements as a general example of what action may be taken as punishment against careless officers. They were meant to illustrate the point that something could be done to the offending officers. These statements were never made directly pertaining to the officers involved in Warren vs DC. I never meant that it had happened to those officers, I never meant that it will happen. Why are you continuing to argue as if it was anything other than that?


You are reading something into that statement which is not there. I am anything BUT biased against LEOs.

Your argument about LEOs having less power when they have less responsibility is interesting, dfletcher already brought it up earlier.
Actually he was agreeing with and stating more perspicuously a comment I made prior to his in post #29: Plus, who wants a police force that is held responsible for the individual's safety at all times. The more responsibility we give them the more control they'll have.And just so we're clear, this another one of those general statements about society.

The issue, in this case, was about irresponsible police work AFTER the police were notified that there was a problem and responded. This is a far cry from suggesting that by holding the accountable when the screw up professionally you must then give them power over you.I wasn't talking about anything being retroactive. I do not think nor want that we should put the police in a position were they are held absolutely responsible for an individuals safety. I think that would be detrimental to our individual freedom. I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Many, many judges have ruled on this standard in various cases. Just look at the list of cases people have presented in this thread alone.



I think that you will find very little sympathy in this forum or many other places in suggesting that suing the government for wrongdoing is bad because of the cost to the tax payers.Look at it again:
It's a poor deterrent and it's going to be hard to find time and money for training when a huge chunk of your tax-payer funded budget has gone to pay off a lawsuit.
I didn't say it was bad because it would cost tax payers. The phrase 'tax payer funded' is an adjective in this sentence. It describes the noun 'budget'. It seemed clear to me at the time, but hopefully now you understand that I was not claiming it's a bad deterrent specifically because it's tax-payer dollars, but rather because taking money from the department reduces the one resource which may help them make the necessary changes to improve their performance in the future.:confused:

In case you hadn't noticed one of the major areas of interest in this section of the forum specifically is working against governmental abuse through the judicial branch.I know what we're trying to do here.:mad:
The SCOTUS didn't just decide that the government and its agents are under no general duty to provide police protection to any individual citizen capriciously, and it wasn't a cop-out to avoid liability. This decision has been affirmed in many statutes and court rulings. Individuals must be responsible for their own immediate safety, with police providing only a general deterrent to crime. This is part of the reason why we have the 2nd amendment and why it is seen as an individual right.
I never meant to defend the actions of the officers involved in the case of Warren vs DC and I don't feel comfortable with being forced to either. I'm only agreeing with the courts decision that police are not legally obligated to provide protection to any individual, but to the public at large.

As for how effective a deterrent a lawsuit is or suppression of evidence is listen to the federalist society SCOTUScast on Herring. They make it pretty clear that judicial action against police (in these cases) is primarily aimed at deterring future abuses.It's goal is to deter abuse, I agreed with that point. But I disagreed with the claim that it actually is effective.

compsoftstation
05-09-2009, 12:04 PM
My business recently suffered a crisis where a douchebag friend decided to do shady things around the office and the warehouse when I am not around. Technically he is not working for me but helping me keep an eye out at the office when I am gone because he owes me money.
The day when I confronted him the stuff he pulled in the office asking for the truth, he went postal. Broke the phone system, server, computers, anything costly you can imaging around the office. He then came after me with a mag lite when I tried to stop him.
I would never thought anything like this would happen in a place of business. I keep the collections at home strictly for home defense. After what happened makes me think twice for that my buddies always urged me to keep arm in the business.
Make long story short, I tossed him around and subdued him with my Hapkido and Kung Fu that I picked up along the way ever since I was a kid. I was surprised how I suppressed a younger and stronger man in their mid twenties. I guess there are skills that you won't forget once you picked it up just like riding a bicycle. The Anaheim police "Anaheim Hills" came and saw the aftermath and told me that because the incident didn't cause any physical injuries or anyone getting hurt, you will just have to take him to the small claims court. It took two days and five witness to actually make the same officer to come back and file a report also promising that if the man comes near the business or the neighboring business, they will arrest him and take him in.
I asked the office if they will arrest him if I was laying in a pool of my own blood and got no response. I asked the office if I have the right to bare arm, he changed the subject.

GaryV
05-09-2009, 5:14 PM
Warren v. District of Columbia is actually not a SCOTUS case. It was decided by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. But SCOTUS has ruled on this question in cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. And the result has always been the same - the police have no legal obligation to protect individuals, only society at large.

The key misinterpretation here is that these cases are not about the police being legally accountable if they fail to do their job; they're saying that protecting individual citizens is not their job in the first place. This is why we have a 2nd Amendment. You can't sue them for failing to do something that is not their job, even if you think it should be.

Now, the disturbing thing is that the one case I know of where the question of being prevented from protecting one's self because of gun control was an issue, the plaintiff still lost. Fortunately it was a case before the New York Supreme Court, and not a federal case. I think there is a fair chance the ruling would go differently in a federal court post-Heller