Police Duty to Rescue
- Thread starter aggienation
- Start date
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.
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.
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).
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).
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Similar History Discussions
-
Structure of Berlin Police force in Weimar Germany and cooperation between these forces
- Started by wirelesshistory
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Are there any police tv series made in former Yugoslavia?- Started by Romanianboy2013
- Replies: 0
