LEOs not for protection?

[someguy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[OULobo]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Well that's both enlightening and a little comforting.

 

[Tgace]

"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.