4 ms·

> Generally speaking, courts have ruled that individual residents do not have a right to demand aid from their government. However, there is one important excep

> Generally speaking, courts have ruled that individual residents do not have a right to demand aid from their government. However, there is one important exception: when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. Judge Carter invokes this as the primary justification for his sweeping order: that Los Angeles created layers of structural racism that deprived Black people of opportunity, and it had an explicit policy of concentrating the homeless population in Skid Row and then depriving them of services. Seems like in limited circumstances where the government itself is implicated in harm, than yes.

temp8964 5y ago
> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his ideology. 1 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-created-danger-and-police-liability-38300 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-cr... 2 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2495&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > direct physical harm by individual officers No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).
  - temp8964 5y ago
    I didn't want to mean the harm was directly caused by the officer. Updated the language.

temp8964 5y ago

> when the government was an active, willing, and knowing participant in creating the conditions that lead to the need for aid. This is known as the “state-created-danger” doctrine. The state-created-danger doctrine does not mean any of those [1,2]. The law is about direct physical harm by the inaction of individual officers, not any vague policy implications. This judge's interpretation of the law is as crazy as his ideology. 1 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-created-danger-and-police-liability-38300 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/legal-doctrine-of-state-cr... 2 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2495&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

crooked-v 5y ago
> direct physical harm by individual officers No, it's not. Your own links directly contradict that; see, for example, the second paper and page 10 (not an officer of the law, not direct physical harm) and page 18 (officers of the law but no direct harm of any kind).
- temp8964 5y ago
  I didn't want to mean the harm was directly caused by the officer. Updated the language.