4 ms·

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.