Good court case on police duty to respond

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

p35

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
999
Location
Puget Sound
Take a look at this:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=534491MAJ

This guy is apparently about to win a lawsuit against the police because they promised to show up when he called them about a lunatic breaking into his house and then didn't. Other interesting points:

He shot the guy several times and then had to fight him- needs a bigger gun!

He now has PTSD as a result of the whole situation- not something that's talked about a lot here, but some of the toughest men I know have PTSD from Vietnam, and it's no surprise that he ended up with it as well. Maybe Dirty Harry could walk away laughing from something like this, but most of us won't.
 
The USSC has rules many times that the Police or any LE Agency cannot be held liable for failing to protect individual citizens.

It’s not our job to protect the individual citizen it’s the job of LE to protect the citizenry as a whole. I believe WA is in the 9th Circus, if so it will go there and they will rule that LE was liable then just like clockwork the USSC will overturn them.

I believe that two big police liability cases came out of CA and the 9th, which were both overturned by USSC.
 
One of the most blatantly "results-driven"

decisions on this subject I ever saw was:

Warren, Douglas and Tagliaferro v. District of Columbia
444 A. 2nd 1.

This case and the one immediately following were extreme examples of the court paying lip service to the law regarding police response where an identified person was expressly promised a response and did not get it, while fabricating a transparent excuse for NOT applying that law. :barf:

You have to read the court's rationalization for denying compensation to three women who were robbed, beaten and repeatedly raped because the police said they were responding and the women waited for the rescue that did not come.

Hey, thank God guns are illegal in DC - someone could have been HURT! :what:
 
There have been several of these...

Usually, the court holds the police cannot be expected to provide an absolute degree of protection for all citizens under any and all conditions.

Or, as I have put it to various liberal friends, "If there are six available police units to cover your area and you are the seventh caller, guess who is going to wait?"

The good news about this is simple: The old 'the police will protect you' argument is gone right out the window. It's sad, but this decision is really pro Second Amendment.
 
I guess by the same standard, I'm not required to obey specific laws, I just have a duty to be generally upstanding.
 
I can see some logic in the court decision, since if it is the duty of the police to protect individual citizens, then every citizen could demand and get a police bodyguard 24/7, an obvious impossibility.

But it is the duty of the police to respond to a call from a citizen who clearly needs assistance at that specific time; to deny that is effectively to say that the police need do nothing but patronize donut shops and issue traffic tickets. While some cops would like that kind of "low risk" job description, most feel otherwise.

Jim
 
I think y'all are still missing the point of THIS lawsuit.

Even accepting the general premise that the police go not have a specific duty to protect each citizen 24/7, what this case is about is that. It also isn't about a failure to respond because all officers were previously dispatched to other assualts, murders, and various equally heinous crimes.

This case is about the fact that the 9-1-1 dispatcher specifically advised the victim NOT to evacuate the area in the face of an insane assailant because "the officers are on the scene" (when, in fact, the officers were NOT on the scene, they were nearby and discussing how to best approach being on the scene.)

Living where I live and knowing the staffing levels and travel distances and times in my town, I accept that the police cannot "protect" me at all times. But if I call for help and the dispatcher tells me to hole up in the bathroom because the officers are on site, by God there better be a patrol car parked within ten feet of my garage when he says that. Otherwise, it's what my late grandmother used to call "lying."
 
I understand that LE can't be everywhere, all the time, to cover our butts.
I don't think I'd be comfortable with that, anyway.

As I see it, there is a big difference between 'we'll try to get someone out there' and 'officers are on the scene, they will take care of it from here on'.

If I call for help from LE and they don't show up in time to help, they don't need to come at all, as I will settle the situation myself, if they aren't interested.
 
This is a very odd case. It sounds like the 911 service used by these departments is a dismal failure, as most outsourced 911 proves to be. They save money by hiring minimum wage McDonalds rejects and expect them to be a lifeline.
I have no idea what this departments policys are, but if I was down the street with other officers setting up or "stageing" while these events were occuring it would be the rear section of me. There is no excuse to stand by and wait unless you are alone and the only officer nearby. Otherwise you enter and secure the person. If there were multiple officers near and they chose not to respond, then they would be negligent and liable. If that is policy not to respond untill X number of officers get there, and X=more than minimum needed or more then could likely respond to any given situation then Dept. and policy is negligent and in serious need of review.
I do however agree that officers and departments should not be held liable for not protecting or responding in most circumstances, such as.
All officers on calls or in some departments 40 miles away. Someone breaks in and attacks you while you are on the line with 911. Not liable, there is nothing we can do. Again we cannot protect you 85% of the time.
Officers sitting at cafe while you scream for help. Liable and negligent.
Just my humble opinion.
 
The JPFO puts out a book on this exact subject called "Dial 911 and Die". The police and most government agencies can not be held responsible for failure to protect the individual citizen. The book covers examples in all the states. It cites actual cases and documents them and is well worth the read. About the only thing the 911 system is good for is, you dial it up, throw the phone on the bed as an open mike, and you can have a recording, and record of exactly what went on.
 
Isn't it an interesting world when

The very guys that argue for the right of the police not to be held responsible when you are killed by police waiting around outside, will then argue that you don't need guns because only police officers need them. Implying that you will be protected by police.
The battle cry of civil service employees today, "We (cops) will all go home tonight" is the prime motivator it seems. Yes some are killed in courageous defense of lives and property, but most that are killed or injured are unforseen incidents. If, however, a police officer calls for help, there will be no such group waiting around outside for the incident to be over so that they can interview survivors and write the report in depth, so that statistics can be tallied. A police officer in trouble will get immediate help, even at the risk of the lives of fellow officers. That is as it should be. Everyone deserves the same response and dedication from those who "Protect and Serve". Columbine was the ultimate example of the sickness. While police waited outside, (Police who would have immediately prevented any concerned citizen or parent from trying a rescue) many children were slaughtered.
Now I'm not saying that we should require police to commit suicide, but we sure pay a lot of money for swat teams, special training etc to raid drug houses where targets are armed. You don't see them flinching from that duty, because they point to it as their reason for being. Citizens in danger deserve the same devotion.
Absent the requirement that someone MUST protect them, (and we spend an enormous amount of money for that) any citizen MUST be given the right to protect themselves. Also, it should be made clearto everyone what the police will do and be required to do if they find themselves in trouble. An informed citizenry will bring about changes needed. Maybe that change is the abolishment of a lot of police jobs. There are way too many police playing games making useless arrests, giving folks police records, when the arrestees are simply fined and let go, after spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money.
 
Gunpacker,

The situation you describe is in fact the Liberal concept of society--benefit to Society at large overrides individual needs. Benefit of the many vs benefit of the individual. This also puts all responsibility (rights) in hands of Society, not the individual. Society thinks for the individual. Ergo, Society is protected by LEO, not individuals. Society is also protected against potential of individuals with guns since the individuals are obviously not capable of responsible thought, that being the purvey of Society.

In true fact much of what LEOs do is cleanup and protecting Society by removing malcontents that have been identified trhough the sacrifice of individuals.
 
Most here want it both ways, they want hordes of cops ready to do violence on behalf of everyone, but they also want total privacy.

What keeps society in line is the threat of getting caught. Most people obey traffic laws for fear of who is lurking around the next corner. Most people don’t steal for fear of who is watching and what will happen because the threat of going to jail is indeed real.

Guy B. Meredith is right what most here describe and don’t even know it, is the very thing they want the least, a complete liberal collective state.

The price of individual rights comes individual responsibility and one of those responsibilities is to protect you, liberals don’t comprehend that.

:scrutiny:
 
Cheers,

I speed because I've got the fastest classic "rice-rocket" around - and I DON'T steal because it was the way I was raised - NOT because I'm afraid of being caught. If I get the wrong change from a clerk - I correct them - even if I was given $150 change from a $100 bill.

It's all about the way I was raised.

I don't lie, don't cheat - on my wife, EVEN, and am true to my word. My hand-shake is my bond. You don't need a piece of paper with my signature on it - if I gave you my hand, it's "carved in stone" - BUT - I expect the same from you. NOW, ain't that scarey!

My resume says "I will not lie: to you, for you, or about you and I expect the same in return." There are employers that don't like that and I'm sure I've lost some jobs because of it. No loss.

It's NOT fear of being caught - it's the pride of being true to my word. Maybe it's a Southern thing - but maybe it's all about pride and honor, and that's NOT regional.

Sorry, guess the wrong buttons got pushed.

Gentle winds,
cr
 
Trying to take great care with how I phrase this ---

The police are NOT there to protect individuals -- never have been never will be. They are there to protect the structure of a society, any society. They defend the will, mores, and values of the power structure of the society.

Now don't get me wrong, this is not a condemnation of police, far from it. We are all members of the society, the power structure. Police answer to the society, in our country through the elected officials we the voters put in place. The police protect that structure.

As part of protecting that structure, the police attempt to identify, arrest, and punish those that do damage to the society/power structure, as defined by the society. In this process, they protect many individuals as a by-product. But don't make the mistake of thinking that society employs the police/military/court structure to protect or defend INDIVIDUALS, it is there to protect the structure and the rules that the structure has. As we are all part of the structure, that means that it protects us only as long as we don't attack the power structure.

The courts understand this -- that is why they almost always rule that the duty of the police is to the society that created them, not to any individual. This is not to say that police will not be held accountable in some cases, when they either fail to perform the duties expected of them, or if they make some politician look bad. But don't expect the courts to change the rules -- they won't.

The above is, of course, meant to apply to the meaning and purpose of Police as an institution. There are plenty of cases where police officers, being generally a bunch of pretty good people, will put their lives on the line (and sometimes lose them) in heroic attempts to protect individual life. But that is not the reason for the existence of police departments
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top