Cookie Thread Act 4: katze thread

General
#12422

yeah that sounds accurate

#12423

i told one of the office people
and she was like “yeah ill tell admin lmao”
… yeah that’s it

#12424

nothing actually happened, I think

#12425

both with the admins and with the guy

#12426

Warren v. District of Columbia [1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

Cops legally don’t have to protect you! Really makes you wonder what we give them billions of dollars for

4 Likes
#12427

omg this reminds me of my conversation with atlas about cops

#12428

There are a LOT more sketchy laws lmao

#12429

Qualified Immunity is one of them

1 Like
#12430

what

#12431

my god

#12432

There are at least 2 SCOTUS cases that affirm this, and more in other federal districts. An elementary school teacher and babysitter are more legally obligated to protect a minor than a cop is. I think they’re even criminally liable if they don’t attempt to intervene when a child (in their care) is in danger unless a court finds it was too dangerous for them to do so.

2 Likes
#12433

wtf

#12434

i knew the police were useless except as a concept but
cmon
cmon
cmon

#12435

They don’t even have to enforce a restraining order : )
(Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales)

1 Like
#12436

congress: we created the police to protect the people, probably maybe
police: does not protect the people
supreme court: they don’t have to guys :slightly_smiling_face:

#12437

whats the legal rationale there

#12438

I hate bursting bubbles here. Yet the cops usually arrive in time to investigate a redrum, not stop one.

#12439

i think these two statements have zero correlation

#12440

Its to prevent the cops from being sued for some stuff

#12441

in that case why don’t they just
make a narrow definition of it