4 ms·

This is a bad reading of the case. The ruling on appeal was that the police in that case had no special duty to that particular person, but still had a duty to

This is a bad reading of the case. The ruling on appeal was that the police in that case had no special duty to that particular person, but still had a duty to the public at large. Specifically, "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."[0] People like to extrapolate from that, saying that if no specific legal duty exists toward individual 1, and no specific legal duty exists toward individual 2, and so on, then ultimately, no specific legal duty exists toward any individuals at all, but again, the first part of that sentence restates that there is a duty to provide services to the public. I mean, look, the story of the crime itself is horrifying, but if the ruling had gone the other way, the concern was that cops would essentially be held to a standard of perfection, and any cop who ever didn't investigate any crime aggressively enough would be liable in court for their lack of aggressiveness. I think it's a bad ruling, but it doesn't say what people claim it does, and it also doesn't seem to apply particularly strongly outside of the District of Columbia. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

teachrdan 4y ago
> The ruling on appeal was that the police in that case had no special duty to that particular person, but still had a duty to the public at large. But "duty to the public at large" doesn't mean anything, right? Duty to an individual can be litigated when the police fail to perform it. There's no way to hold the police accountable to "the public at large." I agree that, taken to its extreme, it would be problematic to hold the police responsible to serving every single call perfectly. But we seem to be nowhere near that standard.
- yowzadave 4y ago
  Could one use statistical means to show that the police are not providing adequate service to the public at large, and could therefore be prosecuted/held accountable?
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    With what data? There’s very little data available for police accountability
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  What it means is the police exist to protect capital not individuals. They're there to protect the system
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > Duty to an individual can be litigated when the police fail to perform it. It actually can't. Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the relevant ruling here, not Warren v. DC. In the majority opinion for Castle Rock, Scalia wrote that not only do police not have any special duty, but states cannot establish such a duty even through legislative means. (It also says that even though any such duty would be unconstitutional, if it somehow were established, the aggrieved parties would still have zero recourse under the constitution for other reasons). It's a fantastically broad ruling, preempting pretty much every conceivable attempt for states to work around it even if they want to.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  > But "duty to the public at large" doesn't mean anything, right? Exactly, mincing words around this ruling can accomplish nothing.
chimeracoder 4y ago
> I think it's a bad ruling, but it doesn't say what people claim it does, and it also doesn't seem to apply particularly strongly outside of the District of Columbia. Unfortunately Castle Rock v. Gonzalez was a SCOTUS ruling, which is binding nationwide, and it did in fact rule that the police have no duty to protect the public. Worse, the ruling decided that because police have "always" enjoyed broad freedoma (in Scalia's mind), any law which attempts to curtail police freedoms is impermissible. (If that sounds tautological to you, that's because it is.) That ruling has been used as precedent by lower courts across the country to determine that police do not, in fact, have any duty to protect or serve the public, to prevent crime, or even to halt a crime in progress.
- mindslight 4y ago
  IMO this is the right decision, because the duty to protect the public should arise from the contractual duty to the municipality of performing the job they were hired to do. If we want police reform in general, then police need to be legally treated just like every other citizen, rather than being given special exceptions that exempt them from the legal system. Legally there should be very little difference between a police officer and a random citizen that stops a crime in good faith.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > IMO this is the right decision, because the duty to protect the public should arise from the contractual duty to the municipality of performing the job they were hired to do. Castle Rock explicitly prohibits states and municipalities from placing these sorts of restrictions on the police. It's a very broad ruling.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      I haven't read the decision, but the case seems to revolve around Gonzales wanting to legally compel the town / its police to perform their advertised jobs. While the actions of Castle Rock do seem highly unreasonable, trying to legally compel performance would seem untenable in general - would this right also apply to a person in an area with an understaffed or nonexistentant police department? Whereas the duty I was talking about was just the basic standard of performing every job - when you don't do your job to the satisfaction of whomever is paying you, then you get fired or otherwise let go. (Of course this is modulo needing to get rid of police unions, or at least needing to seriously reform them so that bad employees will indeed be fired). Furthermore Gonzales's argument would seem to rely on the idea that police are a special type of citizen that carries specific responsibilities/capabilities, which runs contrary to removing the privileges they abuse.
int_19h 4y ago
What this means in practice is that you can have a crazy guy actively trying to stab you in full sight of several cops, who refuse to get involved due to concern for their own safety until you subdue the guy with the knife yourself. And, somehow, that's perfectly legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Lozito_v._New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L...
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  Plus if they try to “help” and shoot & kill a bystander the stabber will get the heat for “felony murder” and the cop will not even be sent back to practice their aim.

teachrdan 4y ago

> The ruling on appeal was that the police in that case had no special duty to that particular person, but still had a duty to the public at large. But "duty to the public at large" doesn't mean anything, right? Duty to an individual can be litigated when the police fail to perform it. There's no way to hold the police accountable to "the public at large." I agree that, taken to its extreme, it would be problematic to hold the police responsible to serving every single call perfectly. But we seem to be nowhere near that standard.

yowzadave 4y ago
Could one use statistical means to show that the police are not providing adequate service to the public at large, and could therefore be prosecuted/held accountable?
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  With what data? There’s very little data available for police accountability
kevviiinn 4y ago
What it means is the police exist to protect capital not individuals. They're there to protect the system
chimeracoder 4y ago
> Duty to an individual can be litigated when the police fail to perform it. It actually can't. Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the relevant ruling here, not Warren v. DC. In the majority opinion for Castle Rock, Scalia wrote that not only do police not have any special duty, but states cannot establish such a duty even through legislative means. (It also says that even though any such duty would be unconstitutional, if it somehow were established, the aggrieved parties would still have zero recourse under the constitution for other reasons). It's a fantastically broad ruling, preempting pretty much every conceivable attempt for states to work around it even if they want to.
tehwebguy 4y ago
> But "duty to the public at large" doesn't mean anything, right? Exactly, mincing words around this ruling can accomplish nothing.

chimeracoder 4y ago

> I think it's a bad ruling, but it doesn't say what people claim it does, and it also doesn't seem to apply particularly strongly outside of the District of Columbia. Unfortunately Castle Rock v. Gonzalez was a SCOTUS ruling, which is binding nationwide, and it did in fact rule that the police have no duty to protect the public. Worse, the ruling decided that because police have "always" enjoyed broad freedoma (in Scalia's mind), any law which attempts to curtail police freedoms is impermissible. (If that sounds tautological to you, that's because it is.) That ruling has been used as precedent by lower courts across the country to determine that police do not, in fact, have any duty to protect or serve the public, to prevent crime, or even to halt a crime in progress.

mindslight 4y ago
IMO this is the right decision, because the duty to protect the public should arise from the contractual duty to the municipality of performing the job they were hired to do. If we want police reform in general, then police need to be legally treated just like every other citizen, rather than being given special exceptions that exempt them from the legal system. Legally there should be very little difference between a police officer and a random citizen that stops a crime in good faith.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > IMO this is the right decision, because the duty to protect the public should arise from the contractual duty to the municipality of performing the job they were hired to do. Castle Rock explicitly prohibits states and municipalities from placing these sorts of restrictions on the police. It's a very broad ruling.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I haven't read the decision, but the case seems to revolve around Gonzales wanting to legally compel the town / its police to perform their advertised jobs. While the actions of Castle Rock do seem highly unreasonable, trying to legally compel performance would seem untenable in general - would this right also apply to a person in an area with an understaffed or nonexistentant police department? Whereas the duty I was talking about was just the basic standard of performing every job - when you don't do your job to the satisfaction of whomever is paying you, then you get fired or otherwise let go. (Of course this is modulo needing to get rid of police unions, or at least needing to seriously reform them so that bad employees will indeed be fired). Furthermore Gonzales's argument would seem to rely on the idea that police are a special type of citizen that carries specific responsibilities/capabilities, which runs contrary to removing the privileges they abuse.

int_19h 4y ago

What this means in practice is that you can have a crazy guy actively trying to stab you in full sight of several cops, who refuse to get involved due to concern for their own safety until you subdue the guy with the knife yourself. And, somehow, that's perfectly legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Lozito_v._New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#L...

tehwebguy 4y ago
Plus if they try to “help” and shoot & kill a bystander the stabber will get the heat for “felony murder” and the cop will not even be sent back to practice their aim.