SWAT team shoots "armed" 8th grader.

[brien]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Just one correct, police have NO obligation to protect ANY citizen. http://flyservers.registerfly.com/me...rotection.html The courts have ruled on the subject in such a way it can clearly be interpreted (although I don't think it's been explicitly stated in any cases) that a police officer can watch a person be murdered and be under no obligation to protect that person from murder. Probably belongs in another thread, but, there it is. Keith

Although I appreciate your link, and it is informative, however probably irrelevant here. I think you are confusing a call for help on 911, or the summons of police protection as oppposed to the police already beig present and involved in a criminal matter.. Two completely different issues.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: brien Although I appreciate your link, and it is informative, however probably irrelevant here. I think you are confusing a call for help on 911, or the summons of police protection as oppposed to the police already beig present and involved in a criminal matter.. Two completely different issues.

You are right that I can find no direct decisions that say that a police officer watching a crime being committed DOESN'T have an obligation to provide protective services. However, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a clear violation of the law had taken place, a woman's estranged husband had taken their minor children in violation of a restraining order after threatening them with violence. The Castle Rock police did absolutely NOTHING to attempt to enforce the law. Later that same night the husband opened fire on the police headquarters and was shot dead. The three children were found dead in his pickup. The Supreme Court determined that the police department had no obligation to enforce the law.

All of the court rulings on the subject clearly state that the police have NO obligation to provide protection to any individual. If you can find an exception to that when a police officer is a direct witness to the commission of a crime from a state supreme court or a federal appeals court, or higher, I will retract my statement. Otherwise, case law seems to uphold it.

Keith

[brien]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger You are right that I can find no direct decisions that say that a police officer watching a crime being committed DOESN'T have an obligation to provide protective services. However, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a clear violation of the law had taken place, a woman's estranged husband had taken their minor children in violation of a restraining order after threatening them with violence. The Castle Rock police did absolutely NOTHING to attempt to enforce the law. Later that same night the husband opened fire on the police headquarters and was shot dead. The three children were found dead in his pickup. The Supreme Court determined that the police department had no obligation to enforce the law. All of the court rulings on the subject clearly state that the police have NO obligation to provide protection to any individual. If you can find an exception to that when a police officer is a direct witness to the commission of a crime from a state supreme court or a federal appeals court, or higher, I will retract my statement. Otherwise, case law seems to uphold it. Keith

Keith: I am not seeking a retraction of your statement from your obvious in depth research on this matter of obligation. My only point was that the police acted in a rush to judgement in the case. If I erred in my statement that police are legally bound to protect people when they are involved as they were in the case in this thread, then so be it. I don't think it absolves them from the responsibility of using every means at their disposal to end the standoff peaceably.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Hamburger The Supreme Court determined that the police department had no obligation to enforce the law.

Not True!
Actually I believe the case was thrown out on a technicality. It makes referrence to the 14th amendment not being filed.

http://docket.medill.northwestern.ed...ves/001896.php In June 2000, a year after the shootout, Jessica Gonzales sued Castle Rock and several police officers for $30 million in damages for violating her constitutional rights by not enforcing the restraining order. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Colorado dismissed the suit, concluding that Gonzales failed to state a claim under the 14th Amendment for deprivation of due process, which functions as a safeguard to both the substantive and procedural legal rights of citizens. The substantive component of the clause is used to determine whether the government has deprived a citizen of life, liberty or property. If the state action (or inaction) in question is determined to be legitimate, the procedural standards are used to examine whether proper procedure was followed in the process.

"...concluding that Gonzales failed to state a claim under the 14th Amendment for deprivation of due process",

So it wasnt that the cops were NOT derelict in their duty. But, that the womans lawyer failed her; or that she waited to long to file the 14th amendment claim for a failure of due process on the part of the cops. So she will just have to live with 3 dead kids. She should sue the lawyer, no?

EDIT:
Sorry guys, I had to edit this 3 times to get it right. I am done now

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: brien Keith: I am not seeking a retraction of your statement from your obvious in depth research on this matter of obligation. My only point was that the police acted in a rush to judgement in the case. If I erred in my statement that police are legally bound to protect people when they are involved as they were in the case in this thread, then so be it. I don't think it absolves them from the responsibility of using every means at their disposal to end the standoff peaceably.

And, I totally agree with that. It appears, based on the limited information we have, as if the police rushed to action and acted irresponsibly.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Not True! Actually I believe the case was thrown out on a technicality. It makes referrence to the 14th amendment not being filed. "...concluding that Gonzales failed to state a claim under the 14th Amendment for deprivation of due process", So it wasnt that the cops were NOT derelict in their duty. But, that the womans lawyer failed her; or that she waited to long to file the 14th amendment claim for a failure of due process on the part of the cops. So she will just have to live with 3 dead kids. She should sue the lawyer, no? EDIT: Sorry guys, I had to edit this 3 times to get it right. I am done now

However, this case was heard by the US Supreme Court, who found that the police had no obligation.

Keith

[gr8fuldaniel]

Source?

[shield772]

Officer Richard May
East Palo Alto Police Department
California
End of Watch: Saturday, January 7, 2006

Biographical Info
Age: 38
Tour of Duty: 14 years, 6 months
Badge Number: 33

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Saturday, January 7, 2006
Weapon Used: Gun; Unknown type
Suspect Info: Apprehended

Officer Richard May was shot and killed when he responded to a disturbance call.

Officer May responded to the corner of University Avenue and Weeks Street at approximately 1630 hours. When he arrived, he observed several men fighting. As he approached the group, one of the men fled. Officer May attempted to stop that male, when the suspect turned around and opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun, killing Officer May. The suspect fled on foot, but was apprehended later that night. The suspect, a documented gang member, was found with a bullet wound to his leg, that had been inflicted by Officer May before he died.

A 14-year-old police explorer was participating in a ride along with Officer May at the time of the incident, but was not injured.

Officer May was a US Marine Corps veteran and had served with the East Palo Alto Police Department for 18 months. He had previously served for 13 years with the Lompoc Police Department. He is survived by his wife and three daughters.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: shield772 Officer Richard May East Palo Alto Police Department California End of Watch: Saturday, January 7, 2006 Biographical Info Age: 38 Tour of Duty: 14 years, 6 months Badge Number: 33 Incident Details Cause of Death: Gunfire Date of Incident: Saturday, January 7, 2006 Weapon Used: Gun; Unknown type Suspect Info: Apprehended Officer Richard May was shot and killed when he responded to a disturbance call. Officer May responded to the corner of University Avenue and Weeks Street at approximately 1630 hours. When he arrived, he observed several men fighting. As he approached the group, one of the men fled. Officer May attempted to stop that male, when the suspect turned around and opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun, killing Officer May. The suspect fled on foot, but was apprehended later that night. The suspect, a documented gang member, was found with a bullet wound to his leg, that had been inflicted by Officer May before he died. A 14-year-old police explorer was participating in a ride along with Officer May at the time of the incident, but was not injured. Officer May was a US Marine Corps veteran and had served with the East Palo Alto Police Department for 18 months. He had previously served for 13 years with the Lompoc Police Department. He is survived by his wife and three daughters.

And what is the relevance of this to the topic? Was the "documented gang member" in a bathroom alone when approached by the officer?

Keith

[shield772]

No the point is where is the outpouring of sympathy for this person killed, where is the media blitz to report it. and the answer is ther is none, it is never reported when police are killed only when criminals are.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Source?

I guess straight from the source would be good enough?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf

Keith

[shield772]

well that is only Colorado law, Florida law is different.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I read 10 of the 50 pages. Why dont you just tell me briefly why the court can issue an UN-ENFORCABLE restraining order. Is it just this town that doesnt enforce such court ordered mandates? Are all restraining orders ignorable?

EDIT to add:

I noticed Castle Rock has a "Custom" of ignoring restraining orders.

Isnt this kind of false security DANGEROUS? I would think the woman should have left town if the Restraining Order was "Just a goddamn piece of paper"

[Osborn F Enready]

Shield said:
No the point is where is the outpouring of sympathy for this person killed, where is the media blitz to report it. and the answer is ther is none, it is never reported when police are killed only when criminals are.

I say:
I would have to agree shield.

I think that is because of a lot of reasons, most doing with propaganda. They don't want to talk about cops getting shot, because then they may be forced into skeptical thought about what situations would deem deadly force, and what laws are unenforceable.

I also think, there is growing public discourse with police in general due to bad laws being passed and expected to be enforced.

A sad shame it is.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I read 10 of the 50 pages. Why dont you just tell me briefly why the court can issue an UN-ENFORCABLE restraining order. Is it just this town that doesnt enforce such court ordered mandates? Are all restraining orders ignorable? EDIT to add: I noticed Castle Rock has a "Custom" of ignoring restraining orders. Isnt this kind of false security DANGEROUS? I would think the woman should have left town if the Restraining Order was "Just a goddamn piece of paper"

Actually, many places do. I am on a regular newsletter list that discusses family issues and domestic violence. They point out that many divorce lawyers encourage women, as a first step, to get a restraining order. This is used as a tool to get more out of the divorce. As such, the system is abused to where the police do not take such things seriously, such that, when something serious happens, people in real danger fall through the cracks.

One source for lots of information on such issues is www.ejfi.org.

This really, though, is a topic for another thread. My initial post on the subject was to point out that the police have no obligation to protect anyone. This case is just one (probably the most recent) example out of many such rulings.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: shield772 No the point is where is the outpouring of sympathy for this person killed, where is the media blitz to report it. and the answer is ther is none, it is never reported when police are killed only when criminals are.

However, I have seen many monuments to fallen police officers and firefighters. I have never seen a monument to the innocents killed "inadvertantly" by the police. They will get a few days mention in the paper and then all is forgotten.

Hypocrisy is everywhere.

Keith

[gr8fuldaniel]

My initial post on the subject was to point out that the police have no obligation to protect anyone.

Then, in your mind, the woman would have a legal right to hunt him down herself and take the kids back. Or if she did not have the personal make-up, she should HIRE somebody to retrieve her KIDNAPPED children? Since law enforcement did not show up, what would be the legal recourse?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Given our current political climate, may see more and more of this:



I bet if it was a politician or a wealthy person the cops would have dealt with this (Castlerock incident) in post-haste.

Is prejudice an acceptable variable when considering law enforcement response?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Then, in your mind, the woman would have a legal right to hunt him down herself and take the kids back. Or if she did not have the personal make-up, she should HIRE somebody to retrieve her KIDNAPPED children? Since law enforcement did not show up, what would be the legal recourse?

It would appear that, given the court's rulings in such cases, you are correct.

I know I wouldn't wait for 911 to respond.

Keith

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Kieth It would appear that, given the court's rulings in such cases, you are correct.

Does that apply to everything? We are supposed to take the law into our own hands? Always? Like how about if the president orders an assination of children in Fallujah Hospital. That was not in self defense, it was cold blooded murder of innocent people who are protected under Geneva Convention. Somebody could legally make a citizens arrest on the president, if it is resisted, lethal force could be used?

Same goes for outlaw congressmen:

LINK On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government: FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;