They have a duty to protect you, but it doesn’t come from the constitution.
Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
They have a duty to protect you, but it doesn’t come from the constitution.
Like it’s their damn job.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
where does it come from
Common law, where if you accept a duty to protect someone, you are liable if you do not do it, and it causes injury.
In Florida there are also criminal laws against dereliction of duty.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and yet the courts have still held that they are not liable for failure to do so, even for their willing failure to do so. so apparently there really ISN'T a duty to protect someone, barring a special relationship.
your feelings are not facts.
Their continued employment is "liable". Their standing in their community is "liable". Their self respect is "liable" if they have any. Not every responsibility in society is determined by statute or court law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
police unions will vigorously support and defend their members who are fired, and will almost always win.
the cop who failed parkland retired, was acquitted of crimes, and is living a decent life in some tucked away community of people that don't know him. some liability. In Uvalde, only the chief resigned. Every other officer there has the backing of the FOP, is still working, and apparently does not fear the community since they arrested several who dared protest them at the city council meeting that released the report that exonerated them.
Not true, there are many cases where Police have been held liable for failure to act.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
cite them
I do not feel like it, and am busy. Look up police brutality cases in Florida, or dereliction of duty in Florida. If you care to be educated.
Geebus... You literally must have no reading comprehension at all. Warning you that this was the case for decades does not equal "good thing", he simply points out that this was a ruling and a problem that has been around way longer than the 5 years the folks you hate have been in the SCOTUS.
If there were no point in firing incompetent or dishonest cops they wouldn't be fired. They routinely are fired and police unions are selective about which ones they defend. But this is avoiding the larger point, namely that society depends on much more than law to
hold itself together.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ROFL, do you have any remembrance of my posting history on here?????? I spent YEARS posting about this shit and NO accountability for cops. do not even TRY. you don't feel like it because you CAN'T!!!!!!!
Then when someone sued, the SCOTUS ruled (long before these guys were there) that they had no such duty to protect. It was a Colorado case too... Castle Rock v Gonzalez.
Also in the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
This idea that they can be sued has actually had rulings... and it doesn't bode well for your "interpretation".
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i'll say this again. I've spent YEARS on this forum posting about the near complete lack of accountability for bad cops. There is almost ZERO point in firing cops because they simply get hired in another district somewhere. police unions vigorously defend all of their cops, unless they are publicly exposed for criminal wrongdoing like the sgt in houston who got a couple and their dog killed.
If, as you say, society holds on to more than just the law to hold itself together, you wouldn't have the shit stain wastes of fresh air that chased rittenhouse out of the speaking area, or the BLM riots.
On Constitutional grounds I agree, but in some states they have a duty, and its not based on anything the S.Ct. has any say over.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if they can't be held liable, there is no duty. your feelings are not facts
Into the Night
Verified User
Police are hired to enforce the law. If they fail to enforce the law, there is no reason to pay them.
The police in Uvalde failed to enforce the law, allowing people to be killed as a result of it.
That puts the city and the police it hired at risk of losing a massive civil suit.
Was the failure to act criminal? Perhaps. It is possible to criminally charge the Uvalde police as accessories before the fact (in Texas, that is treated under the same penalty as the crime itself, which is murder).
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That's not true. They primarily protect their employer, the government.