# LEOs not for protection?



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

I remember a thread on this forum where a poster who was a police officer made mention that police were not infact public servents and not required to protect the citizen of their city. This was a little hard to believe, but as it was a tangent to the original conversation I didn't persue it. Recently I was reading a publication that mentioned this same statment and quoted from an actual court case. The publication is unabashedly politically bias so I won't go into the subject of the article, but the court case is a direct quote so it is fairly unbiased. the quote says,

"a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." This is in the finding of the D.C. Superior Court in 1978 Warren v. D.C.

If this is true, then what are the specific duties of the police?
To all the police officers that frequent this forum, what is your take on this?

I can state the souce of this quote, it's context if needed.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

"The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community"

It basically states that people are responsible for their own individual protection. Probably stemmed from a case where a person was killed in a street crime and a lawsuit was filed saying the police failed in their duty to protect him/her. Thats just a wild guess but it wouldnt suprise me.


----------



## wisdomstrikes (Apr 5, 2004)

This post caught my interests.  By law police are required to protect individuals if they are present.  I would have to look more into the breifs to understand the courts ruling, But my guess would be that if the police are not able to get to a crime before someone is injured than that could not be held against them. If a police officer shoots a victim and does not provide what ever life sustaing aide they can, they can be criminaly charged if the victim is killed.
I hope more people get in on this one.
-WISDOMSTRIKES


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> This post caught my interests. By law police are required to protect individuals if they are present. I would have to look more into the breifs to understand the courts ruling, But my guess would be that if the police are not able to get to a crime before someone is injured than that could not be held against them. If a police officer shoots a victim and does not provide what ever life sustaing aide they can, they can be criminaly charged if the victim is killed.
> I hope more people get in on this one.
> -WISDOMSTRIKES


Actually, police as well as individuals are never mandated "by law" to use force against anybody. Article 35 of the New York State penal law (my state) only states when force is justified, it never states force SHALL or MUST be used in any circumstance. Failure to protect an individual may result in a civil suit, but Ive never seen anybody charged, LEO/or CIV, for not using force. What "law" are you referring to?


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

I think I can give a little insight on why the ruling happened by giving some of the case facts. This is paraphrasing

"March 16, 1975; A townhouse occupied by three resident females was broken into and one of the females was attacked in her sleep. She was repeatedly beat, raped and sodomized. During her attack the other two residents were awakend, became aware of the attack and called the police at 6:45am. They were assured help was on the way. They then crawled to the roof for safety. They watched a cruiser approach, pass by, go down an alley and then proceed away. They returned inside and called the police again. This time hearing no more camotion downstairs, they ventured to the downstairs area and were confronted and attacked. The police never responded a second time and the women were repeatedly beaten and raped for 14 hours. The three women sued the police department. Essentially to cover the department in this case and future cases the court issued the said ruling."

So my questions are:

What is the difference between the public at large and the individual citizen?

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of concealed weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

From the footnotes of said case....




Plaintiffs have also construed the issues in this case as giving rise to "negligent performance of police duties." In an attempt to avoid the overwhelming case law barring private suits over negligent omissions in the performance of police duties, plaintiffs seek to bring this action within the orbit of cases allowing recovery for injuries caused by negligent acts of police officers in the performance of their official duties. The cases cited by plaintiffs include the negligent handling of a police dog, negligent operation of a police vehicle, and the negligent use of a police weapon. Such cases involve acts of affirmative negligence, for which anyone - police or civilian - would be liable: negligent handling of an attack dog, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and negligent use of a firearm. Those acts of ordinary negligence do not change in character because they happen to have been committed by a police officer in the course of his duties. However, the allegations of negligence in the present case derive solely from defendants' status as police employees and from plaintiffs' contention that defendants failed to do what reasonably prudent police employees would have done in similar circumstances. *The difference is between ordinary negligence on the one hand and a novel sort of professional malpractice on the other. A person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.* The public duty concept has drawn some criticism for purportedly creating the rule that: "'Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'" Riss v. City of New York, supra at 585, 293 N.Y.S.2d at 901, 240 N.E.2d at 862 (Keating, J., dissenting). A duty owed to the public, however, is no less enforceable because it is owed to "everybody." Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rights - both formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-121. 

The absence of a duty specifically enforceable by individual members of the community is not peculiar to public police services. Our representative form of government is replete with duties owed to everyone in their capacity as citizens but not enforceable by anyone in his capacity as an individual. Through its representatives, the public creates community service; through its representatives, the public establishes the standards which it demands of its employees in carrying out those services and through its representatives, the public can most effectively enforce adherence to those standards of competence. As members of the general public, individuals forego any direct control over the conduct of public employees in the same manner that such individuals avoid any direct responsibility for compensating public employees. 

Plaintiffs in this action would have the Court and a jury of twelve additional community representatives join in the responsibility of judging the adequacy of a public employee's performance in office. Plaintiffs' proposition would lead to results which the Massengill Court aptly described as "staggering." Massengill v. Yuma County, supra at 523, 456 P.2d at 381. In this case plaintiffs ask the Court and jury to arrogate to themselves the power to determine, for example, whether defendant Officer Thompson acted in a manner consistent with good police practice when he volunteered to stake out a suspect's house rather than volunteering to report to the crime scene. Consistent with this contention then, should a Court and jury also undertake to sift through clues known to the police in order to determine whether a criminal could reasonably have been apprehended before committing a second crime? Should a Court also be empowered to evaluate, in the context of a tort action, the handling of a major fire and determine whether the hoses were properly placed and the firemen correctly allocated? Might a Court also properly entertain a tort claim over a school teacher's ability to teach seventh grade English or over a postman's failure to deliver promptly an important piece of mail? 

Establishment by the Court of a new, privately enforceable duty to use reasonable diligence in the performance of public functions would not likely improve services rendered to the public. The creation of direct, personal accountability between each government employee and every member of the community would effectively bring the business of government to a speedy halt, "would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible in the unflinching discharge of their duties,"[fn4a] and dispatch a new generation of litigants to the courthouse over grievances real and imagined. An enormous amount of public time and money would be consumed in litigation of private claims rather than in bettering the inadequate service which draws the complaints. Unable to pass the risk of litigation costs on to their "clients," prudent public employees would choose to leave public service. Although recognizing the obligation of public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately, the law property does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages. Accordingly, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted and accordingly, the action is dismissed as to all defendants.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

While I thank you for the posting, I'm not very fluent in legalese. This is 2 pages of double talk and circle speak. It's like decyphering hyroglyphs. I get about 5 or 6 phrases and they don't really seem to tie together well. HELP!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

Read this part first....

The cases cited by plaintiffs include the negligent handling of a police dog, negligent operation of a police vehicle, and the negligent use of a police weapon. *Such cases involve acts of affirmative negligence, for which anyone - police or civilian - would be liable: negligent handling of an attack dog, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and negligent use of a firearm. Those acts of ordinary negligence do not change in character because they happen to have been committed by a police officer in the course of his duties. However, the allegations of negligence in the present case derive solely from defendants' status as police employees and from plaintiffs' contention that defendants failed to do what reasonably prudent police employees would have done in similar circumstances.* The difference is between ordinary negligence on the one hand and a novel sort of professional malpractice on the other. A person does not, by becoming a police officer, insulate himself from any of the basic duties which everyone owes to other people, but neither does he assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

Boiled down, I have a duty to "protect property", i.e. prevent/catch thieves. I owe that duty to the public. If you just had your wallet stolen and are attempting to wave me down and I look at you and pass by to go to a robbery in progress call....you cant sue me for failure to do my duty to you individually. (stupid-simple I know but the easiest way I can think of to illustrate the point)


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

Okay, but why do these ladies get no satisfaction when the police were called and arrived, but didn't follow up? Does this mean that a rape or assault is not covered under what the police are responsible for, but if she said that they were being robbed also, then the police would've been required to intervene and would be held liable.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 6, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Okay, but why do these ladies get no satisfaction when the police were called and arrived, but didn't follow up? Does this mean that a rape or assault is not covered under what the police are responsible for


It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., _as an individual_, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.

In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.

If negligent performance of duties is the issue, administrative punishment may be best. The dept., with civilian oversight, knows best if the officers followed procedure even though this one time it had an unfortunate and unintended outcome, or if there were more emergencies than officers to handle them. If the dept. doesn't act responsibly, vote out the mayor and get a new chief in there.

I have to say, the decision seems appropriate to me, as hard as it is to say that in the light of a terrible case like this. If you don't protect govt. employees from being sued as individuals in most cases, they'll be sued out of work in no time.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 6, 2004)

All it tells me is "protect yourself" at any cost. 

An Intruder recently attempted to enter my home.  I called the police.  They showed up after the fact and basicaly told me, "No one Tried to break in, if they had, they would have."  Despite my description of the individual, who I saw when i looked out the window, and the location the person fled to after I scared them off... they were unwilling to pursue it further.

The lesson I learned that day is do not rely on law enforcement personell for assistance, they are nothing more than "Revenue Generators" for the state.

Maybe this is harsh, but it's what I feel.  The cops complain "no one likes us until they need us" but maybe they should ask themselves why... I should have just killed that POS instead of expecting the cops to arrest him.  That MIGHT have saved someone else the trouble, since LE was unwilling.


----------



## Disco (Apr 6, 2004)

This is but a small portion of the quicksand that is our judicial system. The system is very complex with many ancillary venues.  But it can be made simplistic. Remember who dictates the rules....lawyers, and the bottom line is.......Money! There are contributing factors also.  I know some people won't like this, but non-the-less their there. They are demographics, educational status, monitory status, ethnic relations, employment category and notoriety. 

Governmental entities first rule of thumb is, to protect.......thyself. But, there have been instances, when the above factors played the game with a different outcome. Police pursuits are an ideal example. We have all heard of litigations that were not honored and some that were. No double talk, the above factors came into play. 

The police are a reactionary agency. They can only interseed during or after the act occured. Even here, under the law there are exceptions, but they must fall into certain criteria.  

Bottom line here is.........Take care of number one. Do what you must do to survive and protect your loved ones. If you should ever find yourself faced with trying to bring litigation against the police or a governmental agency, find a lawyer that will work on a percentage basis. He has to win the case to get paid, so his interests are your interests.


----------



## 8253 (Apr 6, 2004)

Uh oh cop bashing page. Bad


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., _as an individual_, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.
> 
> In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

So what this comes down to is city protecting it's own butt. The medical industry doesn't have the benefit of saying that "We can't be sued because we are the police or we are a city protective service." and as such they are sued constantly for a reasonable standard of care. Why can't the police be held to the same standard. 

I'm not preaching that we sue individual officers, just that certain courses of action be mandatory in situations, and if they are not adheared to, the consequences be paid, but by the person who didn't follow those mandatory courses, not the victim of the crime. How can the courts justify a drive by with no further investigation, after two calls were placed directly reporting a violent crime. It seems they justify it by being scared to let the police be accountable for it's (lack of) action. The average civilian believes that the police have a duty to protect the individual citizen as much as the property of the city. This sounds like some kind of BS safety net to protect the police when they F-up. 

I understand and respect the fact that most officers have the integrety and personal conviction to take it upon themselves to take action in situations where the law seems not to require it and I respect them greatly for it, but as having the powers granted to them they should also have the responsibilities that go with those powers and the accountability for their actions and just as importantly lack thereof. If the police are just security for public facilities then why do they have police powers over the rest of the citizenry regardless of location. If they are not responsible for our protection and instead state that it is our own responsibility to protect ourselves, how can they justify tying ourhands with weapons laws or in any way limiting our abilities of self-protection. I hope this doesn't sound radical or anti-police, it's really just a progression of logic. 

Again:

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of carrying weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety, and therefore the need for force multipliers by the less physically capable?


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It looks to me as though the judge was saying that it's an administrative matter for the Chief of Police to decide--whether or not the officers did their job properly--not something the person affected by it can sue for in court. It's a matter of administrative law, not a tort. Frustrating, but it seems in line with other decisions and law about when you can sue a govt. official for things doen or not done in the course of their jobs. (imagine suing George Bush, or someone lower in the govt., _as an individual_, for failing to prevent 9-11 in hopes of getting damages for a lost loved one.) Or, imagine suing an individual firefighter for not going into a building.



Letting the administration decide if the job was performed properly leaves the system open for corruption and "good old boy" networks. I don't support suing the individual, but the system (city) as a whole, as they are responsible for administration of the police. I think that, in the 9-11 case, Bush isn't liable because he isn't soley responsible. The Federal government or at least executive branch however is responsible.  Now the matter of foreseeability is an issue for the people (not the court, ie judge) to decide. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> In the case you cite, perhaps the women would have had an action against the city. Suing the city is different than suing a single person.



I believe that is what they did, as, and I could be wrong here, you have to sue the city if you are accusing the police. The courts see them as the same. The case was Warren v. D.C.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> If negligent performance of duties is the issue, administrative punishment may be best. The dept., with civilian oversight, knows best if the officers followed procedure even though this one time it had an unfortunate and unintended outcome, or if there were more emergencies than officers to handle them. If the dept. doesn't act responsibly, vote out the mayor and get a new chief in there.
> 
> I have to say, the decision seems appropriate to me, as hard as it is to say that in the light of a terrible case like this. If you don't protect govt. employees from being sued as individuals in most cases, they'll be sued out of work in no time.



I agree about the protection of individuals, but this gives immunity to the city as a whole for the inactions of police in dangerous (albeit to the individual) situations. 

This is a tangent of huge proportions, but if this country federalized health care, would then all the doctors be immune to malpractice as doctors wouldn't be liable for inaction under the same premise of immunity for municiple services.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

Do you think this case would stand if brought to court today?

Yes


Do you think the average person knows the ramifications of this case?

no

Is this a case that could be used as a grounds for the justification of carrying weapons as it is a case that illustrates the need for the citizen to be responsible for his own safety, and therefore the need for force multipliers by the less physically capable?

Its always been the case...you wont find many "anti-gun" patrol officers...supervision is another matter.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

I dont know all the details of this particular case but heres a scenario...

Women are calling for help. they are scared, whispering and not being very clear...

Dispatch puts the call out as "emergency call hang-up...caller not understandable." (thats all patrol gets...happens often)

Patrol passes house to observe, look for get away cars etc....turns around and parks. They knock..no answer...check windows...all dark.

Now what do you do...this is in 1975, before computers+911 systems...they never got a call back number...with what you got do you kick the door??

Now Im not saying that this was the case here but it is a situation Ive had often....with no further info or additional calls, few supervisors will be willing to allow forced entry.

*a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. 

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived. 

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.*

Sounds like dispatch should have had their pee pee's slapped huh??

What courses of action do you think should be "manditory"?

Medical malpractice is different in that doctors have people come to them, the doctor agrees to treat them. A doctor isnt expected to patrol the streets and try to find sick people and then be liable if he fails to find said person and he dies.


----------



## someguy (Apr 6, 2004)

A gun really isn't a force Mutiplier?  It doesn't multiply your force. That's kind of off topic though.

People like to sue simple as that yeah some how dueling to solve problems migh tnot be so bad.  Think population control.  LOT less people.  

If you sue only the system then how can you get people then will a person have to take as much personal responsibility?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 6, 2004)

Suing the city seems reasonable. But I think that suing individual officers is out of keeping with the idea that they are employees and the question is, Did they do their job well?

It'd create havoc if you could sue an individual officer. Who would want to be a cop if one lawsuit could cost his or her house? That's the practical point of such protection--unless you really go outside the boundaries of your job, you don't risk losing your house for a bad decision.

Letting the administration decide on its own may be iffy, but civilian oversight is present--through the mayor at the least.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 6, 2004)

So, here's a question... 

If LEO is not there to protect us from crime, 

And we as individuals have no right to protect ourselves, 

Who is supposed to do it?

This is sort of a circular argument, and the reason I ask it is because in Chicago you are not even supposed to carry a small folding knife.  King Of Chicago Daley said something to the effect that individuals do not need to protect themselves thats what the police are for... but if when they fail to do so if the argument can be made that is not what they are there for, and you cannot sue them... ultimatley who is responsible?

Maybe it would be a better Idea if we could sue the "Body Politic" and hold them accountable? 

I PERSONALLY dont think of "sue sue sue" as a means of "getting rich quick" I see it the same way the State does... If I speed, they charge me 75 dollars.  Loss of income is a big motivator not to speed...  So lets hit the administration the same way... You "allow" a woman to get raped because your police force do not want to respond, lets dock you 100,000.00 and give it to her. 

On a final note to this post... If it is TRUE that Law Enforcement's only purpose is to "Protect the Public at Large" should they then be able to enforce laws that do not effect public saftey?


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> *Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.*
> 
> Sounds like dispatch should have had their pee pee's slapped huh??



That is exactly what I was thinking. This seems to be the point where fault could be focused. It seems that there is no doubt as to what the victims said on the calls. I can understand the actions of the officers, but how, as a dispatcher, do you not inform officers of a second call where the intruders are again described as active in the house. The actions of the dispatcher now become a focal point, as the crimes commited against the victims could've possibly been prevented if the second call was passed on to the officers as it should've been, and as they are also employees of the city, accountability still lies with the city. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> What courses of action do you think should be "manditory"?



The first thing I was thinking in this case was to make it mandatory to confirm that the residence where a crime is presently being reported is indeed secure and not just appearing so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be quiet and hide when the police start to come around. I do understand the complications that would be present when the case was brought (in 1975 / 78, not having 21st century techology), but many of those issues are resolved with current technology and so this finding could be seen as dated. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Medical malpractice is different in that doctors have people come to them, the doctor agrees to treat them. A doctor isnt expected to patrol the streets and try to find sick people and then be liable if he fails to find said person and he dies.



You are right for the most part, but what of ER docs who are required by oath and law to treat whoever comes into their ER? The request for help is implied in many cases where patients are unconscious, just as the expectation of aid from a violent crime is implied in the case of the police. In essence the doctor is expected in this case to patrol the ER, find and treat sick people and be held to a standard of care on top of that. Why is this different than police? We throw out medical cases that are excessive, and that would've required treatment or knowledge that are beyond the standard of care, the same principle could be applied to police situations. The only differance I see is private business vs. municipal service and healing damage vs. protecting from damage, neither of these things violates the comparison. 

It just seems to me that this is a case of someone in the system screwing up and the gov. using it as a chance to cover all city agency screw ups with a blanket case, instead of holding the person who screwed up accountable. Two 911 calls about a violent crime in progress with location, name of victims and situation stated in the calls, and both happening within the time police response, but they can't stop the crime. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if that isn't incompetance, then it is a sign of a failure somewhere in the system that someone is responsible for. Sure we all make mistakes, some of us even make mistakes that cost lives, but if you are a citizen then blame is squarly placed, a trial is given and you are assigned responsibility and are punished if found so by peers, it seems this is a case where the city (police dispatcher) made a mistake that caused damage arguably worse than the loss of lives and no blame is placed, the trial is tossed by the same government that committed the alledged crime and the responsibility is shifted to the victim who was already punished. 

Tgace - thanks for hangin in there and not snappin or name callin, not to mention helping with info.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So, here's a question...
> 
> If LEO is not there to protect us from crime,
> 
> ...



THere should be a justified use of force/deadly force point in your state laws that covers your 'right' to proctect yourself.  I think a lot of this political presentation is from a cautious stance so that it is very hard for a vigilanty type response can be justified with "well the mayor said we had the right to..." right or wrong, that is what I see going on.

I don't see this type of legal/philosophical position on LEO job expectations any differently than I do the Good Samaritan laws in most states concerning EMT's and such, or teachers and mandatory reporting laws concerning child abuse.

I think it comes down to are these emergency services personnel 'heroes' or people?  Heros are expected to throw themselves through glass windows to get to the 'suspected' bad guy - but if they are wrong, they won't be hated for the property damage.  EMT 'heroes' trying to save someones life won't be sued for cracking a person's ribs in the course of administering CPR, or if the person dies inspite of the efforts.

Since the general public doesn't seem to simply say 'oh that's okay, you made a mistake of perception/practice - but it was because you were trying your best...' (nor should we if we KNOW that there was negligence) I would say they are just people doing a job that deserve to reasonably expect to accept the risks of the job but still get to go home at the end of the day to their own families.

If this case, individually or any case like this, points to negligence/malpractice, fine.  Do to them as they deserve, but does it seem reasonable to 'expect' that emergency personnel should take undo risks at the expense of personnel safety?  How do you right that into a job descriptioin?  This is all legalize/philosophical explanation of the job description so that the individual emergency personnel on a call isn't 'expected' to run into the burning building to save the puppy.  If it was laid out on paper like that, the longevity of your average emergency personnel would be very short, they would always be fired for practicing common sense, and the tax payer's return on the expense of training these emergency personnel would not balance out.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> A gun really isn't a force Mutiplier?  It doesn't multiply your force. That's kind of off topic though.



Scientifically you are right, but within many communities including legal and some law enforcement they are regarded and referred to as such. 



			
				someguy said:
			
		

> People like to sue simple as that yeah some how dueling to solve problems migh tnot be so bad.  Think population control.  LOT less people.
> 
> If you sue only the system then how can you get people then will a person have to take as much personal responsibility?



Lawsuits while bothersome and cumbersome, even occationally frivolous, are still, generally, more just, fair and civilized than duels. I'm all for population control, but more by selective breeding, reduced reproduction and better education. 

Suing the system not only allows compensation and closure for the victim, but motivates positive change in the system through finacial loss and provides a punishment to responsible parties through internal pressure from that loss. This assigns personal responsibility, by the upper administration identifying and eliminating or sanctioning accountable parties.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2004)

"The first thing I was thinking in this case was to make it mandatory to confirm that the residence where a crime is presently being reported is indeed secure and not just appearing so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be quiet and hide when the police start to come around. I do understand the complications that would be present when the case was brought (in 1975 / 78, not having 21st century techology), but many of those issues are resolved with current technology and so this finding could be seen as dated."

THis would be nice if it could be done, but looking at the various interpretations/perceptions of what is being said here,  could you imagine the arguments over what it confirmation of security?  Legalize is designed for arguablity and not necessarily absolutes like 'confirm.'  The law usually defines guidelines and lawyers interpret specifics of how they fit the case at the moment.  That is why the use of force laws/search and seizure laws use reasonable and not confirmed words.

I would love to see this type of thing as a reality, but I don't think it could be made so.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> A gun really isn't a force Mutiplier?  It doesn't multiply your force. That's kind of off topic though.
> 
> People like to sue simple as that yeah some how dueling to solve problems migh tnot be so bad.  Think population control.  LOT less people.
> 
> If you sue only the system then how can you get people then will a person have to take as much personal responsibility?



I thought the modern world considered 'trial by combat/dueling' base on the theory that GOD will be on the side of the righteous (regardless of skill level, fitness, luck....) barbaric and a waste of our youthful resources of future citizens.  This action, based on the theory of GOD/Right protection seems to fly in the face of separation of Church and State 

Please read satirically


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Suing the city seems reasonable. But I think that suing individual officers is out of keeping with the idea that they are employees and the question is, Did they do their job well?
> 
> It'd create havoc if you could sue an individual officer. Who would want to be a cop if one lawsuit could cost his or her house? That's the practical point of such protection--unless you really go outside the boundaries of your job, you don't risk losing your house for a bad decision.
> 
> Letting the administration decide on its own may be iffy, but civilian oversight is present--through the mayor at the least.



I totally agree. Individual officers should not be held individually accountable (although ER doctors again are, and smart ones insure their houses specially with legal protection that specifically keeps it from being in jeapordy from malpractice legal action). I still can't agree with administrative monitoring because I don't think civilian oversight really has any effect. They are often blatant in their disregard of public opinion.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

OULobo, take this as debate...not arguement. On another post we had a discussion about "Manditory arrest policy" in domestics. You were againtst it. Now you want to "mandate" police action. Which way do you want it?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

Side issue..if these women were watching the cops at the door, why didnt they yell out to them??


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> THere should be a justified use of force/deadly force point in your state laws that covers your 'right' to proctect yourself.  I think a lot of this political presentation is from a cautious stance so that it is very hard for a vigilanty type response can be justified with "well the mayor said we had the right to..." right or wrong, that is what I see going on.



Agreed



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I don't see this type of legal/philosophical position on LEO job expectations any differently than I do the Good Samaritan laws in most states concerning EMT's and such, or teachers and mandatory reporting laws concerning child abuse.
> 
> If this case, individually or any case like this, points to negligence/malpractice, fine.  Do to them as they deserve, but does it seem reasonable to 'expect' that emergency personnel should take undo risks at the expense of personnel safety?  How do you right that into a job descriptioin?  This is all legalize/philosophical explanation of the job description so that the individual emergency personnel on a call isn't 'expected' to run into the burning building to save the puppy.  If it was laid out on paper like that, the longevity of your average emergency personnel would be very short, they would always be fired for practicing common sense, and the tax payer's return on the expense of training these emergency personnel would not balance out.



"but does it seem reasonable to 'expect' that emergency personnel should take undo risks at the expense of personnel safety?"

With the exception of the term undo I would say yes. All jobs incorporate an amount of risk, so what is undo. Some just have more than others. If you are saddled with the protection of society against violent crime, I think that there is little that is undo. Job descriptions are constantly defended in civil court with wording as vague as ". . .and other related duties." or ". . . and other duties as assigned." The cases would end in court and a jury of peers would decide if the action taken or lack thereof was appropriate.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> OULobo, take this as debate...not arguement. On another post we had a discussion about "Manditory arrest policy" in domestics. You were againtst it. Now you want to "mandate" police action. Which way do you want it?



Well, I don't really have a stance on the mandatory arrest policy. I was simply presenting both sides and I was hoping I did so with both evenly. I presented that it is bad because it binds the police to make an arrest instead of just mediating thereby lowering the likelyhood of calls and raising the likelyhood of true violence occuring without police intervention as per incident reported or not reported; ont he other hand it is good because it protects from liability, allows for forced separation for a cool off period and allows the court to issue counciling to a party on the disturbance. That is not the issue here. 

I believe that it is obviously impossible to remove the police from public interaction and still be effective deterants, so we should have clear policies that require action in specific circumstance (mandatory police actions) and all other circumstances allow the luxury and accountablilty of improvised decisions. 

IE. The officers are required to secure the domicile. Afterwards if they feel inclined to futher investigate, while still respecting the rights of civilians (suspects and victims), they are free, and possibly encouraged, to do so. Barring any other occurance, they are absolved from responsibility to investigate and in such absolved from liabilty from inaction with respects to the initial call, but they are still accountable for chosen actions. 




			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Side issue..if these women were watching the cops at the door, why didnt they yell out to them?



Possibly shock or fear. I wouldn't want to alert the assailents below of my presence on the roof. 

I guess they were trying to be responsible for their own safety. Sorry I know that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

Name me another profession where people want to sue you over the actions of a third party....

example: Im chasing a car at 110mph through a residential area. I stop out of public safety concerns. The guy goes to his ex-wifes home and kills her. Her family sues. Should I be sued?

example: I dont stop for a disabled vehicle with two people in it on the roadside (as I can if its not a hazard). Later a body of a kidnap victim is found in the car. Her family sues me for not stopping. What do you think?

These are made up, but if you open this can of worms, these are the things that will surface.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

If I was on the roof watching the cops leave Id yell....I also wouldnt go back in.

Sorry I guess its OK to second guess the cops.... (sarcasm....dont take it wrong )


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Name me another profession where people want to sue you over the actions of a third party....
> 
> example: Im chasing a car at 110mph through a residential area. I stop out of public safety concerns. The guy goes to his ex-wifes home and kills her. Her family sues. Should I be sued?
> 
> ...



As we have heard a million times on this forum and have seen many times in the paper, it is an increasingly litigous society we live in, but there is still a measure if common sense with in it. It is the common sense of a jury that we have to believe that we can rely on to disregard such frivilous suits. 

I know that is not a comfort when you hear of a case, for instance, where a jury awards a store owner $4 million because he believed the county health inspector sabotaged his business by stating he found a roach in the resturaunt during an inspection. 

I know that you are tracing an expected transition from the overturning of the case in debate, but those examples are vastly different than the case in question. Just leaving when there is a report of a violent crime or, as a dispatcher, not telling the officers of a second call confirming and underscoring the first, is different in that there is an appearant violent crime already in commission when aid was requested. This is not a case of "what if", it is a case of "why didn't you".


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

Again..if the officer does something intentional or negligent that results in injury they are (and should be) liable. There is no "police malpractice". Should cops who f-up proceeduraly, but not directly injuring anybody be punished (internally and/or loose their jobs)? If needs be yes...should people be awarded $$... it would make the job impossible to do and massively more expensive (like medicne has become). The same folks sueing would complain about the tax increases later.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> As we have heard a million times on this forum and have seen many times in the paper, it is an increasingly litigous society we live in, but there is still a measure if common sense with in it. It is the common sense of a jury that we have to believe that we can rely on to disregard such frivilous suits.
> 
> I know that is not a comfort when you hear of a case, for instance, where a jury awards a store owner $4 million because he believed the county health inspector sabotaged his business by stating he found a roach in the resturaunt during an inspection.
> 
> I know that you are tracing an expected transition from the overturning of the case in debate, but those examples are vastly different than the case in question. Just leaving when there is a report of a violent crime or, as a dispatcher, not telling the officers of a second call confirming and underscoring the first, is different in that there is an appearant violent crime already in commission when aid was requested. This is not a case of "what if", it is a case of "why didn't you".



Yes those examples are different, but thats what case law sets up. Once precidence has been set in one case it would allow examples like that to hit the courts.

The other issue is that in 1975 there was probably no written policy on situations like that. Now, many agencies are writing out SOP's. If you violate policy you are liable for job action. And all "thin blue line" crap aside. I have seen 3 officers terminated in the last 2 years for doing just that. Because its not on the news dosent mean it isnt happening.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

Well that's both enlightening and a little comforting.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "The first thing I was thinking in this case was to make it mandatory to confirm that the residence where a crime is presently being reported is indeed secure and not just appearing so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be quiet and hide when the police start to come around. I do understand the complications that would be present when the case was brought (in 1975 / 78, not having 21st century techology), but many of those issues are resolved with current technology and so this finding could be seen as dated."
> 
> THis would be nice if it could be done, but looking at the various interpretations/perceptions of what is being said here, could you imagine the arguments over what it confirmation of security? Legalize is designed for arguablity and not necessarily absolutes like 'confirm.' The law usually defines guidelines and lawyers interpret specifics of how they fit the case at the moment. That is why the use of force laws/search and seizure laws use reasonable and not confirmed words.
> 
> I would love to see this type of thing as a reality, but I don't think it could be made so.


Exactly...If I kicked down every "911 hang-up, no answer on call-back" call I went to, where the doors are locked and windows closed, Id probably be getting sued for all the damage I did. Many of them are phone troubles. Or alarm malfunctions. Granted in this case, if I had been there and dispatch had told me that there were BG's absolutely in the house, Id knock that door down from the get-go.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You "allow" a woman to get raped because your police force do not want to respond, lets dock you 100,000.00 and give it to her.


Umm yeah...Im pretty positive those officers thought "Well there are people getting robbed and raped in there, but if they wont come to the door screw em'....lets go get some coffee."

Patrol can only go with what dispatch gives them, dispatch can only go on what the caller gives them....I would like to hear the testimony of the dispatchers and hear their reasoning behind what they did...theres bound to be something there...for the adrenline junkies like me, Id love to kick the door and nab some scumbags like these, its not a call most officers would want to pass up.


----------

