re: Cop begs for help, those filming he beating laughs “He said, ‘help me, y’all!’

quote:

---

How about Quora dot com?

---

not an authoritative resource. it's basically on the level of wikipedia

quote:

---

A Police Force is a privately owned security contractor

---

absolutely false

quote:

---

The only time and reason a Police Force allows their Police Force Officers to respond to an emergency is for financial gain. If your emergency is not likely to result in their financial gain, they are not likely to respond.

---

laughable

quote:

---

the officer takes full responsibility if the call turns out to be something other than the non-event he has decided it is

---

exactly. this comment comes from a retired leo and criminal justice professor. if an officer has to take responsibility, that means they are obligated. if they weren't obligated, there would be no "responsibility" for the officer to decide upon.

moreover, the question that was responded to was in regards to discretion for 911 calls, not legal obligation simpliciter.

police officers/departments can be sued. if leo was not obligated, they would have qualified immunity. every situation would be strictly a matter of their discretion.

quote:

---

SCOTUS Rules Police Do Not Have to Protect Someone

---

there was dissent on this case meaning, there is a difference of opinion on the final ruling. scotus is not always right and that's why some rulings are overturned. they are tasked with examining a plaintiff's case as it is presented to them, not always the broad sweeping consequences of a particular ruling. in this case, the plaintiff argued for property interest re: 14th and the scotus ruled accordingly. it's possible that had they argued differently, or more effectively, the scotus would have ruled differently.

quote:

---

Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

---

and i think he's right in this case. he wasn't ruling on the obligation of leo to respond. he was ruling on whether the plaintiff had a property interest re: 14th that obligated leo to respond to that particular circumstance, not all circumstances.

this is important:

quote:

---

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

---

first, there was an obligation regarding the protective order. second, leo does reserve the professional enterprise of discretion. they can be held legally responsible for their actions. a decision to defer action is still a decision to act.

quote:

---

Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders

---

so here we see that the state can require leo to respond in a certain way to certain situations, thus proving there are obligations and that they are not "private security." this also shows that the property interest reasoning does not rise to the level of overcoming leo discretion and some other form of juridical approach might.

it's also important to remember that even in light of this particular ruling, leo can still be sued in civil court for the exact same circumstance.

the principle remains - laws are merely rhetorical platitudes without law enforcement. mandatory enforcement is implied in the law itself. otherwise, it is self defeating. the existence of the judicial branch to render a ruling in the first place is proof. the question in this particular ruling is the manner in which leo is obligated, not that they aren't obligated.

one of the problems is that the nyt headline is poorly worded. this wasn't a case about leo in general but about restraining orders in particular. the court's majority opinion has since been criticized by various legal entities who rightly reject the majority notion of "distinction between enforcement of the restraining order (the violator's arrest) and the benefit of enforcement (safety from the violator)"