First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don’t want to help anyone. They don’t want to protect anyone. It’s in their job description and their training not to.
In most circumstances, police officers do not owe a personal duty to protect specific individuals from harm. The dominant principle comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)
Also see:
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973)
As you can see from reading through the cases mentioned above, the law doesn’t require police to protect you or even to enforce the law. Combine this with precedent set by police unions and qualified immunity.
Warren v. District of Columbia “is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.” And Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 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 refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
I’m sure you read through those cases. I added a couple more in my comment above. What, in those cases didn’t answer the question? It’s quite clear to me…
First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don’t want to help anyone. They don’t want to protect anyone. It’s in their job description and their training not to.
Chat, is this true?
In most circumstances, police officers do not owe a personal duty to protect specific individuals from harm. The dominant principle comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)
Also see: Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973)
As you can see from reading through the cases mentioned above, the law doesn’t require police to protect you or even to enforce the law. Combine this with precedent set by police unions and qualified immunity.
Warren v. District of Columbia “is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.” And Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 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 refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
Batshit crazy and ruled 7-2 too not even a slim majority
That doesn’t answer their question
I’m sure you read through those cases. I added a couple more in my comment above. What, in those cases didn’t answer the question? It’s quite clear to me…