So as much as I think the response was bullshit and all those cops deserve a place in hell, how can we bring charges against any of them for failing to protect the kids?
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) find that police have no duty to protect. He heard gunshots and it was scary so he ran away. Sounds like what I expect from our boys in blue.
The police have no duty to protect the public has only been tested under orders to protect from what I understand. Being charged with murder for not enforcing a restraining or protective order that led to a murder is sort of ridiculous, so I understand not forcing the police to act on every protective order.
Being part of an active shooting where it was obvious children were dying hasn’t been ruled as not part of a police officers duty to protect. I hope this doesnt set new precedent because that would be insane.
Thanks for the clarification and pointing out that we’re testing this now. I guess the implications are super yikes if it is found they have no duty to act in an active shooter situation. Seems like we have enough of those here that it would become a problem pretty quickly.
In Lozito v. New York City a judge ruled that police had no duty to protect victims in an active stabbing on the subway while they (the police) were hiding from the perpetrator. It was a state supreme court case in a different state, but my impression is it’s not uncommon for state judges to refer to similar cases in other states
So as much as I think the response was bullshit and all those cops deserve a place in hell, how can we bring charges against any of them for failing to protect the kids?
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) find that police have no duty to protect. He heard gunshots and it was scary so he ran away. Sounds like what I expect from our boys in blue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
I’m not saying it’s right just that it feels impossible to actually prosecute.
The police have no duty to protect the public has only been tested under orders to protect from what I understand. Being charged with murder for not enforcing a restraining or protective order that led to a murder is sort of ridiculous, so I understand not forcing the police to act on every protective order.
Being part of an active shooting where it was obvious children were dying hasn’t been ruled as not part of a police officers duty to protect. I hope this doesnt set new precedent because that would be insane.
Thanks for the clarification and pointing out that we’re testing this now. I guess the implications are super yikes if it is found they have no duty to act in an active shooter situation. Seems like we have enough of those here that it would become a problem pretty quickly.
In Lozito v. New York City a judge ruled that police had no duty to protect victims in an active stabbing on the subway while they (the police) were hiding from the perpetrator. It was a state supreme court case in a different state, but my impression is it’s not uncommon for state judges to refer to similar cases in other states