• pahlimur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • valek879
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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