- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Active shooter at Ohio State - at least 8 injured so far
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:55 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:55 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Scruffy
quote:
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Your citing a case that is applicable in only the DOC, so it literally is not worth the paper is printed on anywhere else in the country. While the general concept remains true in many jurisdictions that police do not have to respond to every single call, regardless of circumstances, police cannot be derelict of duty. The can't simply say frick that guy, I'm don't feel like helping anyone today. There are extenuating circumstances in many if not all cases where a court came to this conclusion, such as police do not have to respond to calls during an ice storm because it is impracticable and only puts more people in danger.
2
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:58 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
LINK
In what jurisdictions is the Supreme Court's rulings relevant?
Posted on 11/28/16 at 1:03 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Your citing a case that is applicable in only the DOC, so it literally is not worth the paper is printed on anywhere else in the country. While the general concept remains true in many jurisdictions that police do not have to respond to every single call, regardless of circumstances, police cannot be derelict of duty.
*You're in need of some serious reading up on this case and how the US Supreme Court works in general if you really think this.
quote:
The can't simply say frick that guy, I'm don't feel like helping anyone today. There are extenuating circumstances in many if not all cases where a court came to this conclusion, such as police do not have to respond to calls during an ice storm because it is impracticable and only puts more people in danger.
What part of "LEO's have no duty to protect INDIVIDUALS not in within their custody" do you have trouble grasping here? It's a pretty simple concept really.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News