4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  "I haven't read the decision" Please stop there. If you haven't even read the decision how can your opinion possibly be well informed?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I had read the Wikipedia summary, which gave me a decent idea of the general shape of the case. Having now read the opinion, I don't think my initial estimate of the case from Wikipedia was far off. Modulo the specific details of Colorado law (and similar must-arrest laws across many states), for which down thread I do say the dissent makes a convincing case on those merits. But that doesn't have much bearing on my original main point, but rather just how I might have made that point. BTW what prompted you to chime in this way instead of continuing to read the thread and seeing I did go on to read the primary source?

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
bigDinosaur 4y ago
"I haven't read the decision" Please stop there. If you haven't even read the decision how can your opinion possibly be well informed?
- mindslight 4y ago
  I had read the Wikipedia summary, which gave me a decent idea of the general shape of the case. Having now read the opinion, I don't think my initial estimate of the case from Wikipedia was far off. Modulo the specific details of Colorado law (and similar must-arrest laws across many states), for which down thread I do say the dissent makes a convincing case on those merits. But that doesn't have much bearing on my original main point, but rather just how I might have made that point. BTW what prompted you to chime in this way instead of continuing to read the thread and seeing I did go on to read the primary source?