5 ms·

Cops have no legal obligation to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_

Cops have no legal obligation to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

sneak 13y ago
No, but they do have a legal obligation to not shoot me for no reason, or to not lie on the stand under oath, et c.
- ihsw 13y ago
  When not enforced, such obligations are meaningless.
- threeseed 13y ago
  So does everyone. But guess what cops are human too ergo they will on occasion make mistakes, lie, steal, cheat etc.
  - ori_b 13y ago
    And when they lie, steal, and cheat, they should be punished. In fact, they should be punished much more harshly than the general public, because it is their duty to prevent lying, stealing, and cheating. They should be held to a higher standard.
    - shef_hauwanga 13y ago
      This cannot be stressed enough. Anyone who enforces a rule through violence but is not subject to that rule is nothing more than a thug.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        This made me laugh. Applying this rule to the US is hilarious. The collection of Gitmo detainees, drone victims, the tortured, the extraordinary rendered, bombed, shot and otherwise victimised non-US citizens that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when Uncle Sam came knocking over their countries probably aren't smiling with me.
        wutbrodo 13y ago
        You're really surprised that citizens of a country expect to be treated better by their own government (which, in essence, is the expression of their own will) than non-citizens are? For examples of this, see literally every society that's ever existed in the history of mankind. That's not to say that any of the things you mentioned are ethical or that I agree with them at all, but it's not too difficult to see the difference between being victimized by an external force (which is essentially just garden-variety "humans are shitty"-ness) and being victimized by an entity that is supposed to represent you.
        Nursie 13y ago
        The main difference with the US is that the public image and repeated, vehement rhetoric is freedom and peace and equality for all humankind. Yet dig a little deeper and the double standard about citizens and non citizens and how they are treated becomes very apparent, far more so than in (say) some of the european countries.
rcavezza 13y ago
I just read this article and it blew my mind. What type of "special relationship" are they referring to in the decision?
- ryanSrich 13y ago
  Well that's the joke. They can construe, manipulate and torque that to mean whatever they want or rather the lack of whatever they want.
  - wdewind 13y ago
    No they can't. It's pretty defined actually. A really simplified way to understand it is: the police have specifically said "we will protect $PERSON from $THREAT." Take for instance a hypothetical domestic violence case. Say the victim reports an incident, and then is later murdered. Because the victim reported the first incident does not imply a special relationship under the law. But, if the police told the victim specifically that they would protect him/her from the alleged perpetrator of the crime and then another crime occurs they would be liable. This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection: it creates that special relationship. For more info check out this source: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007 http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...
    - gohrt 13y ago
      > This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection: Then we must update the motto: <strike>protect and</strike> serve.
jey 13y ago
What is a "special relationship" in this context?
wdewind 13y ago
You make it sound much worse than it actually is. The court ruled "a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." If the opposite were held true any person who was ever the victim of a crime could sue the government agency with jurisdiction for damages. Warren does not hold that the police have no duty to protect you if they are witnessing a crime being perpetrated upon you.
- etherael 13y ago
  You mean say a cop is hiding behind a steel door while you go toe to toe with a knife wielding crazy? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not... Nah, never happens.
  - wdewind 13y ago
    My point is that Warren does not address that situation, you'd need other case law to discuss it.
    - etherael 13y ago
      So your point is not that police actually do have a duty to protect you, but the legal precedent cited to show this did not do so? I have to wonder why even bother to argue that point? It strikes me as debating whether the link currently hitting you with a 10gbps DDOS uses optic or electric signal transfer, it doesn't change the facts of the issue at all. Politics and law are sideshows to the material facts of physical reality, watching people constantly debate the edicts of hopelessly out of touch political figureheads and their bureaucratic lackeys as if it had an effect on fixing the problems they cause constantly mystifies me.
      - wdewind 13y ago
        I think you need to read about the case a little more before you start arguing. Warren, and many cases before it, have held that the police have a responsibility to protect the public at large, and to do so uniformly. The police do not have a duty to protect you specifically unless they have told you they are going to protect you. This means they are not liable for preventing a crime from happening to you. That's all it means. It does not touch on the issue of whether or not an officer who witnesses a crime being perpetrated upon you is responsible for intervening, which is what the case you linked to is about. I don't know much about that, and from what I understand that particular case has not been decided yet. >Politics and law are sideshows to the material facts of physical reality, watching people constantly debate the edicts of hopelessly out of touch political figureheads and their bureaucratic lackeys as if it had an effect on fixing the problems they cause constantly mystifies me. I agree with you that it is a frustrating situation. I would ask you, as an engineer, to consider the enormous complexity of a system required to provide social structure for 300 million people, and that doing so may require some very specific decisions to be made, that while seemingly small have a massive impact.
lostlogin 13y ago
Having no obligation to protect is quite different to having the right to shoot and kill.

Cops have no legal obligation to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

sneak 13y ago

No, but they do have a legal obligation to not shoot me for no reason, or to not lie on the stand under oath, et c.

ihsw 13y ago
When not enforced, such obligations are meaningless.
threeseed 13y ago
So does everyone. But guess what cops are human too ergo they will on occasion make mistakes, lie, steal, cheat etc.
- ori_b 13y ago
  And when they lie, steal, and cheat, they should be punished. In fact, they should be punished much more harshly than the general public, because it is their duty to prevent lying, stealing, and cheating. They should be held to a higher standard.
  - shef_hauwanga 13y ago
    This cannot be stressed enough. Anyone who enforces a rule through violence but is not subject to that rule is nothing more than a thug.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      This made me laugh. Applying this rule to the US is hilarious. The collection of Gitmo detainees, drone victims, the tortured, the extraordinary rendered, bombed, shot and otherwise victimised non-US citizens that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when Uncle Sam came knocking over their countries probably aren't smiling with me.
      - wutbrodo 13y ago
        You're really surprised that citizens of a country expect to be treated better by their own government (which, in essence, is the expression of their own will) than non-citizens are? For examples of this, see literally every society that's ever existed in the history of mankind. That's not to say that any of the things you mentioned are ethical or that I agree with them at all, but it's not too difficult to see the difference between being victimized by an external force (which is essentially just garden-variety "humans are shitty"-ness) and being victimized by an entity that is supposed to represent you.
        Nursie 13y ago
        The main difference with the US is that the public image and repeated, vehement rhetoric is freedom and peace and equality for all humankind. Yet dig a little deeper and the double standard about citizens and non citizens and how they are treated becomes very apparent, far more so than in (say) some of the european countries.

rcavezza 13y ago

I just read this article and it blew my mind. What type of "special relationship" are they referring to in the decision?

ryanSrich 13y ago
Well that's the joke. They can construe, manipulate and torque that to mean whatever they want or rather the lack of whatever they want.
- wdewind 13y ago
  No they can't. It's pretty defined actually. A really simplified way to understand it is: the police have specifically said "we will protect $PERSON from $THREAT." Take for instance a hypothetical domestic violence case. Say the victim reports an incident, and then is later murdered. Because the victim reported the first incident does not imply a special relationship under the law. But, if the police told the victim specifically that they would protect him/her from the alleged perpetrator of the crime and then another crime occurs they would be liable. This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection: it creates that special relationship. For more info check out this source: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1172&issue_id=52007 http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...
  - gohrt 13y ago
    > This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection: Then we must update the motto: <strike>protect and</strike> serve.

jey 13y ago

What is a "special relationship" in this context?

wdewind 13y ago

You make it sound much worse than it actually is. The court ruled "a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." If the opposite were held true any person who was ever the victim of a crime could sue the government agency with jurisdiction for damages. Warren does not hold that the police have no duty to protect you if they are witnessing a crime being perpetrated upon you.

etherael 13y ago
You mean say a cop is hiding behind a steel door while you go toe to toe with a knife wielding crazy? http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not... Nah, never happens.
- wdewind 13y ago
  My point is that Warren does not address that situation, you'd need other case law to discuss it.
  - etherael 13y ago
    So your point is not that police actually do have a duty to protect you, but the legal precedent cited to show this did not do so? I have to wonder why even bother to argue that point? It strikes me as debating whether the link currently hitting you with a 10gbps DDOS uses optic or electric signal transfer, it doesn't change the facts of the issue at all. Politics and law are sideshows to the material facts of physical reality, watching people constantly debate the edicts of hopelessly out of touch political figureheads and their bureaucratic lackeys as if it had an effect on fixing the problems they cause constantly mystifies me.
    - wdewind 13y ago
      I think you need to read about the case a little more before you start arguing. Warren, and many cases before it, have held that the police have a responsibility to protect the public at large, and to do so uniformly. The police do not have a duty to protect you specifically unless they have told you they are going to protect you. This means they are not liable for preventing a crime from happening to you. That's all it means. It does not touch on the issue of whether or not an officer who witnesses a crime being perpetrated upon you is responsible for intervening, which is what the case you linked to is about. I don't know much about that, and from what I understand that particular case has not been decided yet. >Politics and law are sideshows to the material facts of physical reality, watching people constantly debate the edicts of hopelessly out of touch political figureheads and their bureaucratic lackeys as if it had an effect on fixing the problems they cause constantly mystifies me. I agree with you that it is a frustrating situation. I would ask you, as an engineer, to consider the enormous complexity of a system required to provide social structure for 300 million people, and that doing so may require some very specific decisions to be made, that while seemingly small have a massive impact.

lostlogin 13y ago

Having no obligation to protect is quite different to having the right to shoot and kill.