6 ms·

He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to uphold city and state laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb

He should remind the police that they are public employees, under oath to uphold city and state laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

ovulator 12y ago
The ruling "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." They still have the duty, but it does not necessarily apply on an individual basis.
- angersock 12y ago
  So, they don't actually have the duty in any meaningful implementation sense, is what you're saying.
  - danans 12y ago
    That's carrying it a bit far, and I don't think that's what the GP was saying at all. I think they meant that police officers have a duty to enforce the law in each situation they are presented with. And law enforcement situations are composed of individuals, some of whom may or may not be breaking the law - we give the officer the right to make a snap judgement on this in emergencies. For example, if an officer arrives at a situation where one individual is robbing another, then their duty to the public (and to the victim) is to try to prevent the robber from victimizing the other individual, or apprehend the robber if he has already committed the crime. In attempting to do so, they uphold their law enforcement duty to the public. Just as much, it is important for the officer to follow the law in the process of enforcing it, which is at the crux of the debates around the death of unarmed individuals by police.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
AcerbicZero 12y ago
While your link is not exactly pertinent to the above conversation, it does highlight how vulnerable people can be to violent action, regardless of police presence, and it serves as a reminder that personal security is in the hands of the individual, not the state.
uiberto 12y ago
I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for trying to apply logic to the law. What set cardinality would be minimally necessary to generate a police duty to protect a group, if it is not one? "The public" is, after all, nothing more than a set of individuals. Two? Three? Ten? A million? Are police subject to some selfish calculus where they are not obligated to risk their own lives unless it would save more than N non-police individuals? Since this does not make sense by common definitions, I suspect that somewhere in the law, it defines "the public" to be the municipal corporation that employs the police, meaning essentially that the police don't ever have an obligation to do anything at all, unless a madman is threatening the city's articles of incorporation with a shredder or lighter. That seems to me to be madness. But I am not a lawyer.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    > I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for trying to apply logic to the law. Your first mistake is presuming that you're applying logic. That's not what you're doing. Your second mistake is presuming that you're commenting on the law. You're commenting on an interpretation of the law. With, I might add, your own interpretation based explicitly on admitted ignorance. > What set cardinality would be minimally necessary to generate a police duty to protect a group, if it is not one? It is one. It's simply not specific as to which one. If two criminals threatened two different civilians, a policeman is not at fault for choosing to save only one of them, especially when failing to act would mean saving neither. A policeman who patrols one neighborhood over another, ceteris paribus, is not liable for crimes that occur in neighborhoods he failed to patrol. If it can be shown that he has done so for discriminatory reasons, then he is at fault for discrimination, but not for the crimes which occurred.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
ceejayoz 12y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ete2d/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ete2d/ > If they're not obligated to individuals, then screwups face internal discipline, whatever that might be, or (I think) criminal charges if they screw up very badly. > If they were to be obligated to individuals, then the individuals could sue them for not performing their duty, because they failed in their duty to that individual. EDIT: In other words, it would become a private matter between the individual on the one hand and the police on the other. > And as bad as the case in question was, I seriously doubt that adding literally millions of lawsuits to the criminal justice system (which is what would happen) would mean faster responses. It would, rather, mean more resources going to fighting lawsuits and paying when they're lost, and fewer resources left to actually respond to calls.

ovulator 12y ago

The ruling "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." They still have the duty, but it does not necessarily apply on an individual basis.

angersock 12y ago
So, they don't actually have the duty in any meaningful implementation sense, is what you're saying.
- danans 12y ago
  That's carrying it a bit far, and I don't think that's what the GP was saying at all. I think they meant that police officers have a duty to enforce the law in each situation they are presented with. And law enforcement situations are composed of individuals, some of whom may or may not be breaking the law - we give the officer the right to make a snap judgement on this in emergencies. For example, if an officer arrives at a situation where one individual is robbing another, then their duty to the public (and to the victim) is to try to prevent the robber from victimizing the other individual, or apprehend the robber if he has already committed the crime. In attempting to do so, they uphold their law enforcement duty to the public. Just as much, it is important for the officer to follow the law in the process of enforcing it, which is at the crux of the debates around the death of unarmed individuals by police.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

AcerbicZero 12y ago

While your link is not exactly pertinent to the above conversation, it does highlight how vulnerable people can be to violent action, regardless of police presence, and it serves as a reminder that personal security is in the hands of the individual, not the state.

uiberto 12y ago

I have no legal training, but doesn't the ruling say police officers still have a duty to the public, just not to the individual?

logfromblammo 12y ago
I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for trying to apply logic to the law. What set cardinality would be minimally necessary to generate a police duty to protect a group, if it is not one? "The public" is, after all, nothing more than a set of individuals. Two? Three? Ten? A million? Are police subject to some selfish calculus where they are not obligated to risk their own lives unless it would save more than N non-police individuals? Since this does not make sense by common definitions, I suspect that somewhere in the law, it defines "the public" to be the municipal corporation that employs the police, meaning essentially that the police don't ever have an obligation to do anything at all, unless a madman is threatening the city's articles of incorporation with a shredder or lighter. That seems to me to be madness. But I am not a lawyer.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for trying to apply logic to the law. Your first mistake is presuming that you're applying logic. That's not what you're doing. Your second mistake is presuming that you're commenting on the law. You're commenting on an interpretation of the law. With, I might add, your own interpretation based explicitly on admitted ignorance. > What set cardinality would be minimally necessary to generate a police duty to protect a group, if it is not one? It is one. It's simply not specific as to which one. If two criminals threatened two different civilians, a policeman is not at fault for choosing to save only one of them, especially when failing to act would mean saving neither. A policeman who patrols one neighborhood over another, ceteris paribus, is not liable for crimes that occur in neighborhoods he failed to patrol. If it can be shown that he has done so for discriminatory reasons, then he is at fault for discrimination, but not for the crimes which occurred.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago

ceejayoz 12y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ete2d/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ete2d/ > If they're not obligated to individuals, then screwups face internal discipline, whatever that might be, or (I think) criminal charges if they screw up very badly. > If they were to be obligated to individuals, then the individuals could sue them for not performing their duty, because they failed in their duty to that individual. EDIT: In other words, it would become a private matter between the individual on the one hand and the police on the other. > And as bad as the case in question was, I seriously doubt that adding literally millions of lawsuits to the criminal justice system (which is what would happen) would mean faster responses. It would, rather, mean more resources going to fighting lawsuits and paying when they're lost, and fewer resources left to actually respond to calls.