3 ms·

With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening, and will instead focus their attention on after-the-fact data gathering and reportin

With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening, and will instead focus their attention on after-the-fact data gathering and reporting. I can't blame them, but quality of life for law abiding citizens is likely to suffer. In high crime areas, I can understand police considering certain neighborhoods as "no go" zones. Why take such a risk with your own life to stop a crime against somebody else?

Craighead 6y ago
... thats the job description?
cwmma 6y ago
Because it's literally their job to take such a risk with your own life to stop a crime against somebody else. To say that you'll refuse to do your job if there is a possibility of being liable if you commit a crime without explicitly being told it's a crime then maybe it isn't the job for you.
- eplanit 6y ago
  Exactly, but if the city doesn't have their back, and they're liable for any mistake -- why take the risk? It's hard to have it both ways.
  - cwmma 6y ago
    Qualified immunity is unrelated to whether the city will cover the settlement for the cop (which they usually do) this is about whether if a cop does something illegal to you, that hasn't explicitly been called illegal in identical circumstances, can you sue them like you could any other person that violated your rights.
whymauri 6y ago
>With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening They already do this and are legally protected to do so. [0][1] The TL;DR is: the police is not legally required to help you, protect you, or take any action, really. Honestly, Lozito v. NYC makes me wonder what exactly the police is required to do, if anything. I'm certain that individual city's City Attorney's office decide this in their contract(s) with the police, but those provisions are unlikely to be directly related to the day-to-day job of officers AFAIK. [0] Lozito v. New York City [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0

Craighead 6y ago

... thats the job description?

cwmma 6y ago

Because it's literally their job to take such a risk with your own life to stop a crime against somebody else. To say that you'll refuse to do your job if there is a possibility of being liable if you commit a crime without explicitly being told it's a crime then maybe it isn't the job for you.

eplanit 6y ago
Exactly, but if the city doesn't have their back, and they're liable for any mistake -- why take the risk? It's hard to have it both ways.
- cwmma 6y ago
  Qualified immunity is unrelated to whether the city will cover the settlement for the cop (which they usually do) this is about whether if a cop does something illegal to you, that hasn't explicitly been called illegal in identical circumstances, can you sue them like you could any other person that violated your rights.

whymauri 6y ago

>With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening They already do this and are legally protected to do so. [0][1] The TL;DR is: the police is not legally required to help you, protect you, or take any action, really. Honestly, Lozito v. NYC makes me wonder what exactly the police is required to do, if anything. I'm certain that individual city's City Attorney's office decide this in their contract(s) with the police, but those provisions are unlikely to be directly related to the day-to-day job of officers AFAIK. [0] Lozito v. New York City [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0