Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you

[Jarod]

if they can't be held liable, there is no duty. your feelings are not facts

Here is a great article as it relates to the duty a Florida officer has to render aid. As it says, this duty is in Common Law and not Constitutional law.

https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/officers-duty-to-provide-aid-to-ill-or-injured

 

[Jarod]

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".

Read this analysis about the Florida duty... It is not Constitutionally based.

 

[Flash]

cite them

https://www.lgit.org/DocumentCenter/View/1931/Litigation-Roadmap?bidId=

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here is a great article as it relates to the duty a Florida officer has to render aid. As it says, this duty is in Common Law and not Constitutional law.

https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/officers-duty-to-provide-aid-to-ill-or-injured

are you seriously going to pass this off as a duty to 'protect', like from criminal activity?

"provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons"

this has zero to do with providing protection from criminals and you should know this if you were a former prosecutor.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

https://www.lgit.org/DocumentCenter/View/1931/Litigation-Roadmap?bidId=

don't be like jarod. trying to pass off cases for misconduct such as rights violations is not the same as being prosecuted for failure to protect. trying to do so is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Flash]

don't be like jarod. trying to pass off cases for misconduct such as rights violations is not the same as being prosecuted for failure to protect. trying to do so is intellectually dishonest.

It is not just misconduct. There are other cases where police have been sued for (recklessly) failing to perform their duties.

But the U. S. Constitution does not require anybody to do anything (other than government).

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It is not just misconduct. There are other cases where police have been sued for (recklessly) failing to perform their duties.

sure, but NEVER have they been held to account for not providing protection to any specific individual, as noted by the SCOTUS.

But the U. S. Constitution does not require anybody to do anything (other than government).

and yet we let them ignore it most of the time.

 

[LV426]

They certainly will...at least in most communities.

They didn't in Uvalde.

 

[LV426]

No, they can't.

Just because you're an incredible dumbass doesn't change the facts.

 

[LV426]

No, they can't.

Mantra. Repetition fallacy. Avoidance of engaging in the subject matter.

Cowardice, in other words.

 

[LV426]

You cannot blame all cops for the cowards in Uvalde, Sock.

Sure you can! It's remarkably easy.

And you're the one with the multiple socks, IBDaMann

 

[LV426]

Unconstitutional.

Nope. The 10th Amendment allows states to ban them.

 

[LV426]

They have a duty to protect you, but it doesn’t come from the constitution.

They do not have a duty to protect you. That's what SCOTUS said. Whatever oath they take when they become cops has nothing to do with anything.

 

[LV426]

That's not true. They primarily protect their employer, the government.

No, they really protect the rich.

 

[Nordberg]

The first organized police force in America was in 1838. It was long after the Constitution was written.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No, they really protect the rich.

Not particularly true. The rich--the really rich--simply live where crime is all but nonexistent so they really don't need a lot of police involvement.

 

[Truth Detector]

All they care about are protecting themselves.

That's why none of them confronted the Uvalde shooter.

It sure seemed like they were doing more to help the shooter than stop him.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

What an asinine and moronic claim. Then why bother having laws and police halfwit? Apparently you own nothing and on the Government welfare rolls to have to stupid opinions.

 

[Into the Night]

They didn't in Uvalde.

And they are liable for the result.
Not everywhere is Uvalde, Sock.

Cherry picking fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure you can! It's remarkably easy.

And you're the one with the multiple socks, IBDaMann

You cannot blame YOUR problem on IBDaMann or anybody else, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. The 10th Amendment allows states to ban them.

No, it doesn't. The 10th amendment does not overrule the 2nd amendment.