3 ms·

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 aro

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

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