7 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoCould 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 agoWith what data? There’s very little data available for police accountability
- kevviiinn 4y agoWhat 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.