Police Duty to Rescue

Jun 2012
5,700
Texas
#91
I really don't like the current trend where police are bringing dogs on random car stops done under the pretext of reasonable suspicion (which is pretty easy to articulate), then walking the dogs around the car and providing cues to purposely get the dog to "alert," perform the required physical reaction to tell the handler they found something, which the handler uses as probably cause to conduct a full search of the vehicle without a search warrant being necessary. Its super easy to get the dog to alert on anything, and yet their handlers testify in court regularly about their infallibility.
Agreed. Just by acting excited you will get the dog excited.
 
Jun 2012
5,700
Texas
#92
It was about Police not being bound to protect individuals and this example:

... But here in the United States, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court, neither police nor any other govt service actually has a legal responsibility to protect any citizens. You can be getting raped and strangled right in front of a cop and they don't have to do anything besides arrest the perpetrator after (if they feel like it), and the worst that happens to them is they get fired for violating dept policy. ... "

I don't think that policeman's (in)action is to be related to protecting an individual but to exercising it's duty: law enforcement.

I also don't see it as related to policeman's individual liberties.

If he doesn't interfere, he is not fighting against crime, it's not about not having a legal duty in protecting the victim.or exercingng his rights, his liberty.


Am I right or am I wrong?
It's purely about liability. Courts have ruled since before separation, that the king could not be sued. This was the same for Spanish territory. If not, government could be liable for not stopping criminals.

With increased military occupation mindset due to the WoD, this has changed greatly.
 
Jul 2016
8,481
USA
#93
Agreed. Just by acting excited you will get the dog excited.
Its worse. The cops, just off dash camera, will tap things or make specific verbal commands. The dog will alert, that can be seen on their dash cams and body cameras. Then they use that as PC to conduct a full search. Later, after a complaint, they write sworn statements stating the dog honestly false alerted, which still gave them the PC, because there is no evidence they cheated.

Its just one of numerous tricks police regularly use that are blatantly illegal, but get away with, because nobody really polices the police.
 
Likes: zincwarrior
Oct 2013
13,548
Europix
#94
....
1-Labor disputes where the employees are owed labor costs due to a court final order deciding their employers were in the wrong. ....
Labour disputes are extremely sensitive lately and police avoid if possible getting into.

....
2-Eviction orders that were not enforced by police even when the person went to the police (talk about unrecoverable stolen property !!!) , normally get enforced by hiring some non-French EU citizens to know on the door.
"Real" French and non-EU citizens can do it too (;))

It's quicker and "more efficient".

Not exactly the kind of things "lighthouse-of-wisdom" Framce/EU likes to put forward as an example of "superior-culture-beacon-to-be-admired" ....
 
Oct 2013
13,548
Europix
#95
It's purely about liability. Courts have ruled since before separation, that the king could not be sued. This was the same for Spanish territory. If not, government could be liable for not stopping criminals.

With increased military occupation mindset due to the WoD, this has changed greatly.
I did understand it's purely liability. What I don't understand is why it is purely liability.

Let me try another way (maybe You'll understand what I don't understand):

Here is the concept of "professional fault" (and it's something different from liability). If I fail to fulfill my professional duties, I'm guilty of that (leading or not to liability issues).
 
Jul 2016
8,481
USA
#96
I did understand it's purely liability. What I don't understand is why it is purely liability.

Let me try another way (maybe You'll understand what I don't understand):

Here is the concept of "professional fault" (and it's something different from liability). If I fail to fulfill my professional duties, I'm guilty of that (leading or not to liability issues).
Guilty where? In a court of law? Which type? Criminal? Civil?

You're still not remotely understanding that the Supreme Court doesn't write legislation or policy, it simply decides what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Victims of a B&E and rape sued the police. Judge dismissed the case claiming the police, whose duty is to protect the community as a whole, do not have a duty to protect any one person unless that person has a special relationship. Plaintiffs appealed, the Supreme Court affirmed the original judge's ruling. That ruling then completely altered American policing because at that point, in 1981, now its been explained by the highest court that police have no duty to help any individual unless a special relationship exists. Policies coast to coast are rewritten, and LEO on the job, and going through academies, are told of this ruling and how it affects their day to day job. The rest, as they say, is history.

That is overall part of the Duty to Rescue concept of Constitutional law. Regardless of how you perceive it, in America it weighs toward civil liberties of the individual. Not the victim of something, but the individual that the victim things owes them the duty of saving them.

This is not designed to make victims feel better protected. Its designed to make Americans, and especially law enforcement, keep their own Constitutional freedoms and not be placed under undo pressure to act more like body guard slaves than peace officers.
 
Oct 2013
13,548
Europix
#97
Guilty where? In a court of law? Which type? Criminal? Civil?
"Professional fault" is a civil fault, trialed through a civil procedure called "disciplinary procedure" (in French right system).

As for the rest, thank You for Your time. But I wasn't asking about the constitutional rights, slaves, and the rest.
 
Jul 2016
8,481
USA
#98
"Professional fault" is a civil fault, trialed through a civil procedure called "disciplinary procedure" (in French right system).
Its a good thing we're not talking about the French system then!

Discipline procedure against an individual LEO for professional misconduct in the US is administrative, done by the depts themselves using their own policies. Outside of that are the civil courts, where the aggrieved bring suit against the jurisdiction the LEO represented, as the LEO themselves cannot be individually charged unless gross malficence can be proven, per the qualified immunity doctrine (which you probably also wont understand). Criminal law is dictated against individuals for violations of criminal law.
 
Jun 2012
5,700
Texas
#99
I did understand it's purely liability. What I don't understand is why it is purely liability.

Let me try another way (maybe You'll understand what I don't understand):

Here is the concept of "professional fault" (and it's something different from liability). If I fail to fulfill my professional duties, I'm guilty of that (leading or not to liability issues).
Because the US legal system is off the chain when it comes to civil liability. The actual case law came from several cases where victims of criminals sued the government for the actions of the criminals, and not stopping them earlier.
 
Oct 2010
4,899
DC
Labour disputes are extremely sensitive lately and police avoid if possible getting into.
I know but I was astonished to it; that and the legalized salary disparities between EU and non-EU workers performing the same exact job with the same exact qualifications.
"Real" French and non-EU citizens can do it too (;))
It's quicker and "more efficient".
Not exactly the kind of things "lighthouse-of-wisdom" France/EU likes to put forward as an example of "superior-culture-beacon-to-be-admired" ....
Sounds mobster(ish) to be honest. LOL
 

Similar History Discussions