4 ms·

> Since when? Its what the courts in many areas have generally ruled. If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the

by than3 4y ago

> Since when? Its what the courts in many areas have generally ruled. If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. A judge decides damages which impact ongoing budgets. > Karen is guilty of violating these laws. Yes, but how difficult is it to prove intent. How often do defamation suits win? Will a prosecutor ever really go after someone that claims a plausible excuse? Don't they have more important things to devote their resources towards? What about the harms caused to the parents, and the children, very hard to quantify. A report is self-enforcing because the police have a duty of care to respond to reports. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished, and is that punishment coercive. The courts generally don't recognize it as such since the accused (the person reporting it) has good faith protection. Its very hard to prove they did it in bad faith. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished?

skissane 4y ago
> If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. A judge decides damages which impact ongoing budgets. It isn't just about legal liability, it is also about politics. Suppose a child is abducted/murdered/etc. Turns out some concerned bystander saw something suspicious and called the police, but the police decided not to follow up. Even if the police aren't legally liable, once the media and politicians are done with the story, the general public will be so outraged, decent odds the chief of police will be forced to resign. You can say this is a very rare scenario and almost never happens, but government culture encourages risk-aversion – especially when it comes to children – so they'll worry about the risk, they'll overestimate it – and then they'll craft policies based on it.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
> If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. That is certainly not the case everywhere, least of all the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale.... > Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
- than3 4y ago
  Perhaps you'd like to rewrite what you said. Any rational person reading your response is going to assume you either didn't read what I said, or worse were using malign influence tactics to push something that 'wasn't said' as 'something that was said' (as a troll would). Notably, I never said it was everywhere, in fact I said the opposite (if you go back and review). You left an important sentence out of my quoted response. We want to keep discussions clean, if you have something to add make sure to keep it accurate. Cherry-picking and putting words in other people's mouth isn't an acceptable form of rational discourse. We don't want people reading this misunderstanding your intent or what you are trying to communicate.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Regardless of you saying it happens "in many areas" I am saying it doesn't happen "everywhere" as a separate point. Yes, it happens in many areas, and in many other areas it doesn't happen. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Fuck, tell me more about people "misunderstanding intent".
    - than3 4y ago
      I would have said everywhere if I intended everywhere, I didn't, so the point you tried to make seems to be moot, it certainly didn't look separate with how you structured your response. Everyone knows almost nothing happens everywhere. Its why the first thing they teach in argumentation, debate, and logic is to never use absolute language like 'all' and 'every' unless you know its absolute (and can't be misinterpreted). Miscommunications happen, hopefully you understand how it happened now and will be more careful moving forward.

by than3 4y ago

skissane 4y ago

> If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. A judge decides damages which impact ongoing budgets. It isn't just about legal liability, it is also about politics. Suppose a child is abducted/murdered/etc. Turns out some concerned bystander saw something suspicious and called the police, but the police decided not to follow up. Even if the police aren't legally liable, once the media and politicians are done with the story, the general public will be so outraged, decent odds the chief of police will be forced to resign. You can say this is a very rare scenario and almost never happens, but government culture encourages risk-aversion – especially when it comes to children – so they'll worry about the risk, they'll overestimate it – and then they'll craft policies based on it.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago

> If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. That is certainly not the case everywhere, least of all the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale.... > Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

than3 4y ago
Perhaps you'd like to rewrite what you said. Any rational person reading your response is going to assume you either didn't read what I said, or worse were using malign influence tactics to push something that 'wasn't said' as 'something that was said' (as a troll would). Notably, I never said it was everywhere, in fact I said the opposite (if you go back and review). You left an important sentence out of my quoted response. We want to keep discussions clean, if you have something to add make sure to keep it accurate. Cherry-picking and putting words in other people's mouth isn't an acceptable form of rational discourse. We don't want people reading this misunderstanding your intent or what you are trying to communicate.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Regardless of you saying it happens "in many areas" I am saying it doesn't happen "everywhere" as a separate point. Yes, it happens in many areas, and in many other areas it doesn't happen. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Fuck, tell me more about people "misunderstanding intent".
  - than3 4y ago
    I would have said everywhere if I intended everywhere, I didn't, so the point you tried to make seems to be moot, it certainly didn't look separate with how you structured your response. Everyone knows almost nothing happens everywhere. Its why the first thing they teach in argumentation, debate, and logic is to never use absolute language like 'all' and 'every' unless you know its absolute (and can't be misinterpreted). Miscommunications happen, hopefully you understand how it happened now and will be more careful moving forward.