4 ms·

> 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 Co

> 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.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      You're making a lot of assumptions about the facts of the case and the opinions, and they're simply... factually incorrect. > but the case seems to revolve around Gonzales wanting to legally compel the town / its police to perform their advertised jobs That is incorrect. It's about a specific law which required the police to perform a specific task, which they repeatedly refused to do. > Furthermore Gonzales's argument would seem to rely on the idea that police are a special type of citizen that carries certain intrinsic responsibilities It doesn't. That wasn't the argument at all. > I haven't read the decision In that case, I'd suggest you do that.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        I skimmed the majority opinion and I don't see how I'm off here - 1. The case revolves around Gonzales arguing that police were legally compelled to attempt enforcement of the restraining order. 2. The opinion says nothing about the ability of Castle Rock to fire the involved officers for being derelict in their employment duties (like any other employee).
        chimeracoder 4y ago
        > The opinion says nothing about the ability of Castle Rock to fire the involved officers for being derelict in their employment duties (like any other employee). I mean, it literally does. The ruling overturns the law which gives them the basis to do so, and additionally establishes that states cannot pass laws imposing such requirements (as well as prohibiting a number of other things as well). I'd suggest actually reading the opinion and dissents before discussing this further.
        mindslight 4y ago
        Okay, I've done so - at least the version at [0] claiming to be a copy. The dissent lays out a compelling chain of arguments, to the point that I'll retract my initial assertion of "the right decision". However, I still cannot figure out what you are referencing when you say "Castle Rock explicitly prohibits states and municipalities from placing these sorts of restrictions [contractual employment requirements] on the police". Is this something from one of the earlier decisions, or what am I missing? I'd appreciate a quote or other reference. To the extent that municipalities may need some explicit legal justification to fire individual police officers (as you seem to be implying), then that is its own problem. But I'd say it's unrelated to this case which is ultimately about whether the town itself is legally liable to Gonzales. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

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.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    You're making a lot of assumptions about the facts of the case and the opinions, and they're simply... factually incorrect. > but the case seems to revolve around Gonzales wanting to legally compel the town / its police to perform their advertised jobs That is incorrect. It's about a specific law which required the police to perform a specific task, which they repeatedly refused to do. > Furthermore Gonzales's argument would seem to rely on the idea that police are a special type of citizen that carries certain intrinsic responsibilities It doesn't. That wasn't the argument at all. > I haven't read the decision In that case, I'd suggest you do that.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      I skimmed the majority opinion and I don't see how I'm off here - 1. The case revolves around Gonzales arguing that police were legally compelled to attempt enforcement of the restraining order. 2. The opinion says nothing about the ability of Castle Rock to fire the involved officers for being derelict in their employment duties (like any other employee).
      - chimeracoder 4y ago
        > The opinion says nothing about the ability of Castle Rock to fire the involved officers for being derelict in their employment duties (like any other employee). I mean, it literally does. The ruling overturns the law which gives them the basis to do so, and additionally establishes that states cannot pass laws imposing such requirements (as well as prohibiting a number of other things as well). I'd suggest actually reading the opinion and dissents before discussing this further.
        mindslight 4y ago
        Okay, I've done so - at least the version at [0] claiming to be a copy. The dissent lays out a compelling chain of arguments, to the point that I'll retract my initial assertion of "the right decision". However, I still cannot figure out what you are referencing when you say "Castle Rock explicitly prohibits states and municipalities from placing these sorts of restrictions [contractual employment requirements] on the police". Is this something from one of the earlier decisions, or what am I missing? I'd appreciate a quote or other reference. To the extent that municipalities may need some explicit legal justification to fire individual police officers (as you seem to be implying), then that is its own problem. But I'd say it's unrelated to this case which is ultimately about whether the town itself is legally liable to Gonzales. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278