An officers immunity from a suit extends only to not having to protect an individual.
An officer CANNOT refuse to act if the situation seems dangerous or there or other priorites. If an officer is on scene of a situation like this and he turns and leaves, then he and is department IS liable. Several states also have crimanal penalties for suchs acts. I also assure you his job is over and license revoked.
The drivel your are spilling is mind boggling.
I've been trying to keep this on the high road but you're trying me. I'm not sure why you feel a need to launch insults at me with every post.
The police are always free to retreat or withdraw if they deem the situation too dangerous to themselves. The special relationship exception, if it comes into play, does not mandate heroic action. Moreover, simply responding to a crime does not create the requisite special relationship with the suspect or potential victims unless the victims are minors and subject to earlier state supervision for neglect. Usually they can't just go home for the night if there's a guy shooting up the town, but then again maybe they can. Look at New Orleans, where most of the LEO's either skipped town or hunkered down in fortified buildings. And they can also decide there is no crime, which they might have done here.
For example, I called the cops when I heard what I thought for sure was one man brutally beating another in a room of a hotel in Spenard. The cops came and it was ONE DAMN GUY who was so nuts he was beating himself up WHILE BEGGING HIMSELF TO STOP! The cops left after warning him to keep the noise down, since he's free to beat the crap out of himself as long as he does it quietly. And so he did. If you know Spenard, you know I'm not making that up ;-)
A classic case for retreat would be a DV call where the husband has a rifle and keeps his family hostage. The responding officers can (and probably should) deem the situation too dangerous to themselves to attempt to enter the house even if that choice dooms the family.
Since we're talking about Oregon, the case of Buchler v. State By and Through Oregon Corrections Div., 853 P.2d 798 (Or. 1993) discusses these principles when addressing potential liability for crimes of an escaped convict. See also McAlpine v. Multnomah County, 131 Or.App. 136, 883 P.2d 869 (1994)where the court held that the police owed no actionable duty to arrest a suspect under investigation after warrant was issued in a case where the suspect had injured the plaintiff after the warrant was in effect. Going to investigate a crime does not place the suspect "in custody" to the extent that the police are responsible for harm he causes under the Restatement principle of special relationship to third parties.
In a hypothetical case, the police who are called to a potential suicide can also decide no crime is at issue. Though as a practical matter a guy screaming and running around with a knife may be reasonably seen as a threat to others depending on circumstances. I have no idea if that's what took place here or not.
ya think? i've seen a spoon run through a guys neck all the way through.
A shiv/spoon or a dull dinner spoon? Did the guy do it to himself?
In any case, what crime exactly would a person be committing by trying to slash their own neck open? It's not a situation where calling 911 is proper unless they're threatening someone else. If they're just jabbing themselves, that's their business not yours.
