6 ms·

Related: the video "Why The Cops Won't Help You When You're Getting Stabbed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_h

Related: the video "Why The Cops Won't Help You When You're Getting Stabbed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 TL;DW: In the US, the police owes you no protection. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...

cm2187 5y ago
or rather, why you can't sue them if they fail to protect you, which is slightly different. It is still their role to protect you. Kind of like it is a doctor's role to try to cure you but you can't sue the doctor if they don't succeed.
- WitCanStain 5y ago
  Can you sue a doctor if they don't try?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cm2187 5y ago
    Grey zone. You can't sue them because they haven't tried all the experimental treatments known. You probably can't even sue them if it is a misdiagnosis, unless it was egregious. The police equivalent is that you don't expect them to be able to intercept every bullet fired everywhere. Particular if it is a the risk of their own lives.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  Eh, in the US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued. The point of the video was police as a fraternity don't have any obligation to protect you, personally, absent special circumstances. Which, when you get down to it is sort of like doctors-- if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    > if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to. In some countries, especially in central Europe, failing to give aid where reasonable can even be a crime. In the US it depends on jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    > US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued. Can you clarify this? Are you saying if a Dr fails to cure you, they are opening themselves up to liability, or they only open themselves up to liability if they go outside of standard protocols and fail to cure you, they are now liable? I was under the impression that neither of these scenarios open you up to liability- that medical malpractice is an entirely different things. However, I don't know. Additionally- this seems to create really bad incentives, where the liability-free protocols take precedence over a doctor's judgement.
    - jdmichal 5y ago
      If you can demonstrate that a doctor did not follow "standard operating procedure" and thereby caused harm by not correcting an issue or making it worse, that's a pretty solid malpractice case. Which is why things like experimental intervention involve contracts and disclaimers that you have been informed of the experimental nature, not guaranteed to help, blah blah blah.
- suifbwish 5y ago
  You can sue anyone for anything if you have the right legal team
- some_furry 5y ago
  It their role to protect capital (i.e. private property), not people. Protecting people is an occasional consequence of that, but when the two are at odds, they almost always side against people.
  - nickff 5y ago
    The police will not help you much when your capital (i.e. private property) gets stolen, and will often defend thieves against victims trying to reclaim rightful property. The police are there to protect the government against threats to stability and the monopoly on the use of power. Police are always quick to defend 'their own' (other police) and government agencies/agents.
    - zingplex 5y ago
      > The police will not help you much when your capital (i.e. private property) Most people don't hold much private property apart from maybe their house. Pretty much everything else from vehicles to toothbrushes fall under the category of personal property. Private property generates capital for the owner without the owner performing labour, personal property does not. Police will protect the former, not the ladder.
      - nickff 5y ago
        I was responding to a parent comment which said "capital (i.e. private property)", not coming up with my own definition or wording, so if you have an issue with the semantics, please take it up with them. That said, the police usually aren't especially interested in protecting business assets and property from being damaged or stolen either. Ask any business manager or owner who has had property damaged or stolen, and they will tell you that the police (in most areas) don't particularly care.
      - KMag 5y ago
        What if the ladder is rented out to do-it-your-selfers, is it then private property?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
OneLeggedCat 5y ago
That Castle Rock case is sad.
shoto_io 5y ago
This is a very general statement. I wonder if it’s true?
- tfehring 5y ago
  It is. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
tw04 5y ago
That’s not at all what it says. It says a restraining order isn’t grounds for personal protection. Additionally it says even if it did grant personal protection there would be no monetary compensation for failure to protect. Nothing about that has anything to do with whether a law enforcement officer has an obligation to act when they see a crime being committed. > were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. Case in point, the officer assigned to stoneman Douglas was arrested for inaction: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peterson-charged-parkland-shooting-experts-worry-about-criminalizing-cowardice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peters...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  Actually it IS what it's saying indirectly. Case law stating that police have ZERO DUTY or LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect goes back to the 1850s. This case is merely the latest is in literally DOZENS of examples of case law saying this. The Constitution and US case law very literally and repeated has said: "Your own protection is 100% ONLY on you" And honestly this is why the 2nd amendment still is relevant and universal to all individuals.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cm2187 5y ago

or rather, why you can't sue them if they fail to protect you, which is slightly different. It is still their role to protect you. Kind of like it is a doctor's role to try to cure you but you can't sue the doctor if they don't succeed.

WitCanStain 5y ago
Can you sue a doctor if they don't try?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cm2187 5y ago
  Grey zone. You can't sue them because they haven't tried all the experimental treatments known. You probably can't even sue them if it is a misdiagnosis, unless it was egregious. The police equivalent is that you don't expect them to be able to intercept every bullet fired everywhere. Particular if it is a the risk of their own lives.
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
Eh, in the US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued. The point of the video was police as a fraternity don't have any obligation to protect you, personally, absent special circumstances. Which, when you get down to it is sort of like doctors-- if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to.
- chmod775 5y ago
  > if I have a heart attack across the street from a hospital, you know, I'd appreciate them trying to save me but unless there is some special circumstance I'm not confident they're required to. In some countries, especially in central Europe, failing to give aid where reasonable can even be a crime. In the US it depends on jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
- yonaguska 5y ago
  > US if a doctor does like none of her peers and fails to cure you, yes, doctors do get sued. Can you clarify this? Are you saying if a Dr fails to cure you, they are opening themselves up to liability, or they only open themselves up to liability if they go outside of standard protocols and fail to cure you, they are now liable? I was under the impression that neither of these scenarios open you up to liability- that medical malpractice is an entirely different things. However, I don't know. Additionally- this seems to create really bad incentives, where the liability-free protocols take precedence over a doctor's judgement.
  - jdmichal 5y ago
    If you can demonstrate that a doctor did not follow "standard operating procedure" and thereby caused harm by not correcting an issue or making it worse, that's a pretty solid malpractice case. Which is why things like experimental intervention involve contracts and disclaimers that you have been informed of the experimental nature, not guaranteed to help, blah blah blah.
suifbwish 5y ago
You can sue anyone for anything if you have the right legal team
some_furry 5y ago
It their role to protect capital (i.e. private property), not people. Protecting people is an occasional consequence of that, but when the two are at odds, they almost always side against people.
- nickff 5y ago
  The police will not help you much when your capital (i.e. private property) gets stolen, and will often defend thieves against victims trying to reclaim rightful property. The police are there to protect the government against threats to stability and the monopoly on the use of power. Police are always quick to defend 'their own' (other police) and government agencies/agents.
  - zingplex 5y ago
    > The police will not help you much when your capital (i.e. private property) Most people don't hold much private property apart from maybe their house. Pretty much everything else from vehicles to toothbrushes fall under the category of personal property. Private property generates capital for the owner without the owner performing labour, personal property does not. Police will protect the former, not the ladder.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I was responding to a parent comment which said "capital (i.e. private property)", not coming up with my own definition or wording, so if you have an issue with the semantics, please take it up with them. That said, the police usually aren't especially interested in protecting business assets and property from being damaged or stolen either. Ask any business manager or owner who has had property damaged or stolen, and they will tell you that the police (in most areas) don't particularly care.
    - KMag 5y ago
      What if the ladder is rented out to do-it-your-selfers, is it then private property?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

OneLeggedCat 5y ago

That Castle Rock case is sad.

shoto_io 5y ago

This is a very general statement. I wonder if it’s true?

tfehring 5y ago
It is. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

tw04 5y ago

That’s not at all what it says. It says a restraining order isn’t grounds for personal protection. Additionally it says even if it did grant personal protection there would be no monetary compensation for failure to protect. Nothing about that has anything to do with whether a law enforcement officer has an obligation to act when they see a crime being committed. > were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. Case in point, the officer assigned to stoneman Douglas was arrested for inaction: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peterson-charged-parkland-shooting-experts-worry-about-criminalizing-cowardice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peters...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xyzzy21 5y ago
Actually it IS what it's saying indirectly. Case law stating that police have ZERO DUTY or LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect goes back to the 1850s. This case is merely the latest is in literally DOZENS of examples of case law saying this. The Constitution and US case law very literally and repeated has said: "Your own protection is 100% ONLY on you" And honestly this is why the 2nd amendment still is relevant and universal to all individuals.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]