Will the lack of a Duty To Protect® doctrine Deep-Six® this lawsuit?

[damien]

This makes me angry and I support the guy's lawsuit, but I think that unless the SCROTUS reexamines their prior Duty To Protect® rulings, he doesn't have a chance.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/28/florida.murder.kidnap.911/index.html

Woman's frantic 911 call helps convict her killer

(CNN) -- A Florida plumber was found guilty Friday of kidnapping and murdering a police detective's daughter at a trial in which his victim's voice filled the courtroom as her desperate 911 call was played to the jury.

Denise Lee's frantic 911 call was the centerpiece of her killer's trial.

Jurors deliberated just two hours before finding Michael L. King, 38, guilty of first-degree murder, kidnapping and sexual battery in the January 17, 2008 abduction and slaying of Denise Amber Lee, a 21-year-old mother of two.

Lee's family, including her father, Charlotte County Sheriff's Det. Rick Goff, cried as the verdict was announced; King showed no reaction.

The jury must next decide whether King, who was a stranger to Lee, should be executed for his crimes.

According to testimony during the weeklong trial, Lee was taken from her home sometime after 2 p.m., driven to King's home, sexually assaulted, then shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave in a marshy vacant lot.

King's attorney, Jerry Meisner, did not present any witnesses. But prosecutors told the jury that Lee's ring was found in King's car, and hair matching hers was found on duct tape found at King's house.

According to testimony and court records, Lee fought frantically for her life, banging on the windows of King's green Camaro, screaming for help and begging one witness, "Call the cops."

Several people reported seeing something suspicious and called 911. But authorities didn't find Lee in time, and allegations that dispatchers mishandled the calls have led to criticism of the local 911 system.

Lee's body was found on January 19 near where police stopped King's car some six hours after the abduction.

The jury heard two 911 calls -- Lee's and one from a concerned witness.

Lee used one of King's cell phones to call 911 as she was driven across three counties. As the six-minute tape was played for the jury, her voice sounded tremulous at times, and frantic at others.

The call came in at 6:14 p.m. on January 17. A 911 operator repeatedly said "Hello," and Lee was heard pleading with her captor: "I'm sorry. I just want to see my family. ... I just want to see my family again. Please. ... Oh please, I just want to see my family again. Let me go."

The man, whose voice was identified in court as King's, curses at her for trying to attract attention. A radio plays loudly in the background. The 911 operator asks her address. Eventually, she says, "My name is Denise. I'm married to a beautiful husband and I just want to see my kids again. ... Please, God, please protect me."

The 911 operator asked where she was, and then whether she knew the man. The operator asked if she knows her location. "Please just take me to my house. Can you take me home?" Lee said. The connection was then lost.

Sixteen minutes later, driver Jane Kowalski called 911 to report what she thought was a child abduction. She said she was stopped at a light and could hear screaming from another car "and not a happy scream, a get-me-out-of-here scream."

She testified that she saw someone banging on the car window, slapping her hand hard to demonstrate. "It was very loud," she told the jury. "It was completely horrific, terrified, panicky. I can't think of enough words, it was terrible."

She followed the car for a while, but lost it.

Police quickly traced Lee's call to King's cell phone, and were looking for him. But Kowalski's call was never passed on to officers.

The breakdown was blamed on a shift change and two dispatchers were suspended, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

Other witnesses also helped establish the timeline for the terrifying final hours of Lee's life.

Lee's former neighbor, Jennifer Eckert, 24, testified that she saw the green Camaro circle the block three or four times between 1 and 2 p.m. and pull into the Lees' driveway. She said she was certain of the time, because she was watching her favorite TV soap.

King's cousin, Harold Muxlow, testified that King stopped by his house between 5:30 and 6 p.m., and asked to borrow a flashlight, a gas can, and a shovel.

He testified that a "girl's voice" from the car asked him to "call the cops" but Muxlow said King told him, "Don't worry. It's nothing."

Lee's husband, Nathan, has launched a foundation bearing her name that works toward 911 reform. He plans to file a lawsuit next month, a family spokesman said.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

It was terrible the way things happened... been watching the trial on TV this past week...
But....
If they followed policy as best they could, they shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of the murderer.
If policy was violated, then maybe there are grounds... sounds like it was a multi-jurisdictional thing...
I think they should go after the murderers cousin criminally and civily; he could have done more just by being a decent human being, which I'm assuming he's not being related to the murderer... and by his actions.
Hopefully the murdering rapo gets the needle... quickly... but I'm sure it'll prolly never happen and he'll have a web page espousing his innocence within a month of getting sent to the pen. Especially if they give him death...

 

[Zoogster]

There is no duty to protect. Unless someone is in the custody of LEO then LEO have no duty to provide for the needs or safety of that individual.
That lawsuit will only work if they settle, which sometimes happens.




I think that alone should be grounds for a lawsuit that any prohibition or restrictions on the ability to carry arms capable of self-defense, forces dependence on those not legally required to provide protection.


You can scream, you can cry, you can call the police, you can try to fight guns barehanded, as a women, elderly person, disabled person etc.
In the end nobody but you is liable for your defense or lack thereof under the law and multiple SCOTUS rulings.

So shouldn't any law limiting your ability to carry a tool of protection be illegal, or at least result in a requirement of protection by those within the jurisdiction, building, or other area enforcing that restriction?
That would be a more worthwhile lawsuit than one on an issue the SCOTUS has resolved multiple times.

 

[highorder]

Unless someone is in the custody of LEO then LEO have no duty to provide for the needs or safety of that individual.

I must ask, as I do not know;

If you are in the custody of the Law, are they responsible for your protection/well being?

Examples?
Citations?

Thank you.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you are in the custody of the Law, are they responsible for your protection/well being?

Yes. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply to "special relationships". A special relationship exists between one under arrest and the police.

It's a violation of the 14th Amendment.

When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists. If a suspect is taken into custody by law enforcement, a duty to protect -be it at the scene, during transport, or at the jail-exists. The majority of courts require a person to be in physical custody of police before that person has a special relationship with police.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989) is the case usually referenced. That wasn't directly the subject of this case but the Supremes mention several other cases where this comes up.

From that case:

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 limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means."

 

[everallm]

The police have a duty of care when you are being arrested, are under arrest or in their custody.

High profile cases where the police failed and were sued for assault etc

Rodney King
Michael Minoe being sodomized by an NYPD truncheon

Just google (police department of your choice) police assault, hardly difficult.

 

[FullEffect1911]

There is no duty to protect. Unless someone is in the custody of LEO then LEO have no duty to provide for the needs or safety of that individual.
That lawsuit will only work if they settle, which sometimes happens.




I think that alone should be grounds for a lawsuit that any prohibition or restrictions on the ability to carry arms capable of self-defense, forces dependence on those not legally required to provide protection.


You can scream, you can cry, you can call the police, you can try to fight guns barehanded, as a women, elderly person, disabled person etc.
In the end nobody but you is liable for your defense or lack thereof under the law and multiple SCOTUS rulings.

So shouldn't any law limiting your ability to carry a tool of protection be illegal, or at least result in a requirement of protection by those within the jurisdiction, building, or other area enforcing that restriction?
That would be a more worthwhile lawsuit than one on an issue the SCOTUS has resolved multiple times.

That is well put and makes alot of sense, however irrational fear of guns forces people to dismiss rational thought. I can still hold out hope anyway.

 

[mljdeckard]

Add it to the list. The police DO NOT have to protect YOU specifically.

 

[TexasRifleman]

That is well put and makes alot of sense, however irrational fear of guns forces people to dismiss rational thought. I can still hold out hope anyway.

It's a great argument. I am amazed almost weekly when I will tell someone that the police have no duty to protect and they look at me like I just told them aliens landed.

Once I show them proof they kind of walk away mumbling to themselves. It's like in Matrix when Neo see's the real world for the first time. They just can't believe it's true.

 

[damien]

Once I show them proof they kind of walk away mumbling to themselves. It's like in Matrix when Neo see's the real world for the first time. They just can't believe it's true.

Keep dispensing that red pill.