Police Duty to Rescue

[Menshevik]

There was no real case, it didn't go to court. It was settled before the trial even started. It was done because the NYPD always settles cases like that. Not because they will lose, but because it makes the problem go away. They fear bad publicity, and when the mayor of NYC is part of those who are pissed off, suggesting negligent officers should be punished (meaning administratively), then the dept isn't going to fight it, there is no point.

"Her lawyer, Ms. Karten, said the lawyers for the city had agreed to settle yesterday only after learning that her witnesses at trial would include a man who had videotaped police officers sitting passively on benches in the vicinity of 59th Street and Avenue of the Americas at the time the attacks were taking place nearby. "

You really think the commissioner of the NYPD and various NYC big wigs, including the mayor, wanted that footage made part of public record? That they'd fall back on Warren v DC? No way, that's not reality. Reality is even when you're technically innocent, if you have deep pockets and control billions a year in budget, you settle for six figures in a heartbeat to prevent scandal. That is how govt works.

The reality is that, unless the plaintiff could prove that a special relationship existed, the judge, unless heavily favored by emotion or public opinion, would have dismissed the case. Or if it wasn't, they could successfully appeal it. However, along the way, the NYPD ends up looking like incompetent, uncaring monsters, who literally sat back and watched as women were assaulted by male drunken parade goers.

Again, for the third time, I ask you to provide evidence of the places you've live in Europe, in the form of statute, law, or case law, to support your claim that police do have the duty to rescue (as part of the doctrine, not part of your personal opinionated definition of what you think rescue means). You claimed it, now you have to support it. If you can't, recant your claim and admit you don't know.

Right. But isn't this an example of an LEO being punished, or at least suffering some major consequences for not protecting people, or for not intervening?

 

[aggienation]

Right. But isn't this an example of an LEO being punished, or at least suffering some major consequences for not protecting people, or for not intervening?

Duty to Rescue doctrine applies to criminal and civil. Administrative is dept wide.

Example: Let's say you're a cop. You show up late to work. Nobody can sue you, you wont go to jail. But you can be fired. That's adminsitrative, you violated dept policy and guidelines.

You're a cop. A mass shooting happens in front of you. You decide you want to survive and go home, so you don't really do much besides call it in, and try to establish the scene, while a shooter massacres a lot of utterly defenseless people who are completely reliant on you helping them. Afterwards, the department punishes you because you didn't respond per Active Shooter training you and rest of dept had previously received, that is codified as policy. You failed to execute policy, and there is really nothing you can do to defend yourself. So you are fired (or whatever else they might do, you might just get a wrist slap and told you must attain refresher training). But you aren't going to be charged with a crime, and any lawsuit against your dept is precarious. Not slam dunk tossed out, because civil law is more emotion based than point of order. And most govt will go out of their way to avoid scandal, and pay lengthy court fees, and have embarrassing factoids released to the press during discovery, so they will settle. After all, its not their money, its the tax payers.

What I'm discussing in this thread is civil and criminal. Ever see the last episode of Seinfeld where they go to Massachusetts, watch a mugging, and don't do anything but laugh? They're from NYC, where muggings happen all the time. But in Mass, a Good Samaritan law exists (though it only protects good samaritans from liability, getting sued while trying, in good faith, to help). In the TV show, they're tried and convicted and go to prison because they didn't help. Completely fictitious, but lets say they didn't go to jail, simply open to civil lawsuits. But that isn't the case for the United States when it comes to police. The Supreme Court has ruled the opposite, that police cannot be held responsible for not acting to rescue an individual unless a special relationship exists.

Many on Historum, especially outside the US, think where they live its like Seinfeld. But then again, most Americans are completely unaware that the police don't need to save them either. I'm curious as to which outsiders posting on Historum are correct. Some are. There are states in Australia (at least one) that did apparently push a law that makes police liable to rescue (even though their highest courts have said otherwise, which means a future High Court case will probably be necessary to clarify it). But then again, there is another European poster in this thread that has said numerous countries that person has lived in has laws making police liable to rescue, but is unwilling or unable to provide any evidence, and seems to be very confused as to what "Duty to Rescue" even means, not understanding that personal opinion on the term is irrelevant when discussing rule of law.

 

[redcoat]

I can see the point - you cannot compel a man to put his own life in danger to stop a crime in progress. "You must risk your life or else go to prison" - that would be the effect of any such law gotcing a policeman to intervene. That would be, at the very least, grossly unfair especially here in the UK where the police are relatively unarmed.

And I don'r know of any case here in England at least, where a police officer has been prosecuted for failing to stop a crime. Any lawsuits against the police are civil cases for negligence, and invariably are against a police force rather than an individual officer 0 more chance of getting the payout that way, I suppose.

R v Dytham - Wikipedia

 

[aggienation]

R v Dytham - Wikipedia

Nice, good find!

Some further info I dug up on this case about the judge's findings:

"‘the allegation made was not of mere non-feasance but of deliberate failure and wilful neglect . . This involves an element of culpability which is not restricted to corruption or dishonesty but which must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment. Whether such a situation is revealed by the evidence is a matter that a jury has to decide. It puts no heavier burden upon them than when in more familiar contexts they are called upon to consider whether driving is dangerous or a publication is obscene or a place of public resort is a disorderly house’ "

REGINA V DYTHAM: CACD 1979

Deaf tuner, do you see how easy that was? One simple post of one instance of case law and that individual proved that in their country the police do have at least some duty to act (though a bit different than US Duty to Rescue doctrine).

 

[Menshevik]

So you are fired (or whatever else they might do, you might just get a wrist slap and told you must attain refresher training). But you aren't going to be charged with a crime......

Okay, but back to the Peterson/School shooting case, it sounds like criminal charges may be in the works:


"There had been speculation Peterson might attend the meeting but invoke the Fifth Amendment, as a criminal investigation of law enforcement's response continues."

GoFundMe for Criticized MSD Deputy Gone After Backlash

 

[Menshevik]

And at the very least, I think it's fair to say that an LEO has an economic reason, if not a legal obligation to protect people, no?

 

[deaf tuner]

I ask you to provide evidence of the places you've live in Europe, in the form of statute, law, or case law, to support your claim that police do have the duty to rescue (as part of the doctrine, not part of your personal opinionated definition of what you think rescue means).

It's understandable You didn't understand what I was saying, I suppose, as my English seems to not serve as a good vector for transmitting what I think.

I don't have to provide You any proof that police have a duty to rescue as I did not affirm that.


... not part of your personal opinionated definition of what you think rescue means ...

what I think "rescue" means isn't important, as "rescue" is a word that have a couple of meanings, while "duty to rescue" is a legal concept, and that's something else.


It's also unimportant what I think "rescue" means simply because in other law systems, there's no "duty of rescue", but other concepts, while on a the similar "line"/"frame", they are different.

The French "Non-assistance à personne en danger" means not assisting an endangered person. In German, "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" means failing to assist (in both cases it's engaging penal responsibility). It's not exactly the same thing. For example.

As for the " ... there was no real case, it didn't go to court. It was settled before the trial even started ... ", it's rather unimportant: was officer Victor Rodriguez-Rivera initially accused on "duty to rescue" ground or something else?

 

[aggienation]

Okay, but back to the Peterson/School shooting case, it sounds like criminal charges may be in the works:


"There had been speculation Peterson might attend the meeting but invoke the Fifth Amendment, as a criminal investigation of law enforcement's response continues."

GoFundMe for Criticized MSD Deputy Gone After Backlash

I'm not reading anything about any criminal charges in that. Seems to be the retired police, making $100,000 a year in retirement, is trying to counter sue over being targeted. He'll lose.

 

[aggienation]

And at the very least, I think it's fair to say that an LEO has an economic reason, if not a legal obligation to protect people, no?

Yes. Screw up, they can get fired. However, most US police officers belong to strong unions which do a very good job protecting them, even when they should be hung out to dry. And most depts are reluctant to make examples because the community of police sticks together, so even when a scumbag cop gets in trouble, a lot of the rank and file police are angry and feel like they are being excessively targeted. Causing things like the Ferguson Effect to happen.

 

[aggienation]

It's understandable You didn't understand what I was saying, I suppose, as my English seems to not serve as a good vector for transmitting what I think.

I don't have to provide You any proof that police have a duty to rescue as I did not affirm that.


... not part of your personal opinionated definition of what you think rescue means ...

what I think "rescue" means isn't important, as "rescue" is a word that have a couple of meanings, while "duty to rescue" is a legal concept, and that's something else.


It's also unimportant what I think "rescue" means simply because in other law systems, there's no "duty of rescue", but other concepts, while on a the similar "line"/"frame", they are different.

The French "Non-assistance à personne en danger" means not assisting an endangered person. In German, "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" means failing to assist (in both cases it's engaging penal responsibility). It's not exactly the same thing. For example.

As for the " ... there was no real case, it didn't go to court. It was settled before the trial even started ... ", it's rather unimportant: was officer Victor Rodriguez-Rivera initially accused on "duty to rescue" ground or something else?

Wow. I guess the language barrier is too complicated to get this through. I'll try again, one last time, before your communication problems make me, once again, place you on ignore.

What. Law. Does. The. European. Countries. You've. Lived. In. Have. That. Makes. Their. Police. Required. To. Rescue.

The answer to this is not fifteen sentences about your opinion or about something that happened in New York City. Your own opinion is absolutely not necessary. The ONLY thing necessary is for you to provide a hyperlink to a statute. A law. Or case law.

That's it. Nothing else. That's all that is needed. Not your personal definitions. Let me repeat. I don't need to know, want to know your personal opinions on what you think rescue means. They are utterly immaterial. What I want is a list of laws and case law from specific countries that prove this statement is correct:

"In the (European) countries I lived, police have as mission preventing and fighting crime too, not just investigating, apprehending criminals."

If you can't prove it, it means you made it up.