they can probably just say “yeah I didn’t think it was a problem”
which tbf i guess stops the enforcement too
but like
cmon
cmon
cmon
the cops don’t have to be this blatantly corrupt
1 Like
police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
The link explains that under common law that citizens do not have general duty to protect or come to the rescue of other citizens, but there are exceptions. A parent must rescue a minor child, and teachers and babysitters are obligated to protect children in the absence of the parent when the child is entrusted to their care. You must protect someone who is a guest on your property (but not necessarily a trespasser). An employer must protect employees. You must protect someone if you’re the one who put them in danger. Spouses are obligated to protect one another. But cops? Cops aren’t on the list, and there apparently isn’t a law saying that have a specific duty to rescue specific citizens, but I imagine there are laws that more broadly say they’re supposed to protect citizens in their jurisdiction. Oh right, cops have a duty to rescue people in their custody, but that’s it. And students in a school are not considered to be in custody either in case you were curious.
4 Likes
If they did that then they would not be enforcing the laws its mainly in place so you cant go “You came to late and didnt save the person, im suing you for murdering them”
huh
do security guards at a public school count as police?
no?
well yeah but that’s what that implies
unless they are police officers that are stationed there
ye that’s what i meant
then yea
what does “protect” mean in this case
If someone is going to be injured or killed, the “duty to protect” here is broadly to prevent the thing that would cause injury or death.
1 Like
cuz I was thinkin like
it means that you don’t have to like. stop an ongoing murder if you can reasonably stop it
which makes sense for Normal Citizens but the cops?
oh
i see
Yeah I got bad news for you on this front too. The clearance rate of murders has dropped, and is now just barely above 50% nationally. And murder has one of the highest clearance rates (which I believe isn’t necessarily a conviction, but also just counts an arrest as a clearance). It was hard for me to find clear data on this front, but only an estimated 2% of violent crimes committed in the US lead to a conviction. Adjusting for the estimated report rate of 50% (i.e. only about half of the crimes committed are reported to the police), that still only brings it up to 4% that end in a conviction.
3 Likes
I worked in a criminal law office for years, and I’ll never forget one of the lawyers saying that the only way cops actually solve crimes is when the perpetrator is pretty much handed to them on a silver platter. He said something to the effect of “the police are too incompetent or unwilling to spend the resources otherwise”. And yeah most crimes are solved because of eye witness testimony. One of the strongest predictor of higher clearance rates in cities is if the detectives drive home their cars because that way they can get to the crime scene faster while there are still witnesses nearby. Like, crimes get solved because someone goes "Oh the murder? Yeah I saw it. It was that guy. "
3 Likes
That is misleading since that only counts guilty verdicts, not plea deals
… does it