- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: Police are under no obligation to protect you from harm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:15 am to weagle99
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:15 am to weagle99
Weagle. Clearly you don't have a legal background. This is 1L crim law stuff here. You are making a fool of yourself. Just stop.
Also...the case does not even say what you say it does. The case was overturned because the court ruled that for due process clause purposes, plaintiff did not have a property interest in police enforcing a restraining order.
Additionally, the Court relied upon state law to determine if there was a property right. Colorado didn't have one. This isn't a blanket ruling. It is a specific procedural ruling based on state laws in place. This case is in no way applicable to San Jose on so many levels.
Huge swing and miss.
Also...the case does not even say what you say it does. The case was overturned because the court ruled that for due process clause purposes, plaintiff did not have a property interest in police enforcing a restraining order.
Additionally, the Court relied upon state law to determine if there was a property right. Colorado didn't have one. This isn't a blanket ruling. It is a specific procedural ruling based on state laws in place. This case is in no way applicable to San Jose on so many levels.
Huge swing and miss.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 11:21 am
1
Posted on 3/20/17 at 11:33 am to BBONDS25
Are you saying this is the only case where this topic has been discussed? My understanding is this topic has been covered several times by the Court.
And you are correct, I am not a lawyer. Thankfully.
Police have no duty to protect individuals (several cases cited)
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.
And you are correct, I am not a lawyer. Thankfully.
Police have no duty to protect individuals (several cases cited)
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 11:36 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News