Homicides are up all over the place in cities in the US in 2020. Other crimes aren't as best we can tell. Or at least, maybe? 2020 was a weird year and everything is fucked up and crime data is kinda fucking terrible in the first place for a variety of reasons.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Murder rates are up everywhere in the USA, probably due to Covid’s disruption of society.
Most people know their killers and I would guess that interpersonal problems coming to a head and the pressures of poverty have kind of been a one two punch.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Murder rates are up everywhere in the USA, probably due to Covid’s disruption of society.
Most people know their killers and I would guess that interpersonal problems coming to a head and the pressures of poverty have kind of been a one two punch.
There's been a lot of guesses at why they are up but nothing really definitive. And as I said, this is made more difficult by how bad crime numbers tend to be in the first place so there's question like whether this is just a matter or reporting or not. Because what you are saying here kinda makes sense and is actually what many were predicting. Except that apparently domestic violence reports are not up. Which you would expect if your theory is what was going on. But are they really not up or is reporting just worse or is something else going on? Who the fuck knows.
Murder rates are up everywhere in the USA, probably due to Covid’s disruption of society.
Most people know their killers and I would guess that interpersonal problems coming to a head and the pressures of poverty have kind of been a one two punch.
There's been a lot of guesses at why they are up but nothing really definitive. And as I said, this is made more difficult by how bad crime numbers tend to be in the first place so there's question like whether this is just a matter or reporting or not. Because what you are saying here kinda makes sense and is actually what many were predicting. Except that apparently domestic violence reports are not up. Which you would expect if your theory is what was going on. But are they really not up or is reporting just worse or is something else going on? Who the fuck knows.
Domestic violence reports depend on people observing it though. With everyone indoors and not interacting, there's been a lot of concern people haven't been able to get the normal opportunities to get away from abusers.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
The overall point as far as I understand it is that the police are not liable for not stopping every crime. So basically their duty to stop crime does not mean they owe you a specific duty to stop the crime happening to you such that they would be negligent should a crime happen to you. If you are a victim of a crime, you can't sue the police because they didn't stop a crime from happening to you.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
The overall point as far as I understand it is that the police are not liable for not stopping every crime. So basically their duty to stop crime does not mean they owe you a specific duty to stop the crime happening to you such that they would be negligent should a crime happen to you. If you are a victim of a crime, you can't sue the police because they didn't stop a crime from happening to you.
Even if the crime is literally happening right in front of them and they could intervene to prevent more crimes from occurring. The crime being murder and more murder.
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
The overall point as far as I understand it is that the police are not liable for not stopping every crime. So basically their duty to stop crime does not mean they owe you a specific duty to stop the crime happening to you such that they would be negligent should a crime happen to you. If you are a victim of a crime, you can't sue the police because they didn't stop a crime from happening to you.
Even if the crime is literally happening right in front of them and they could intervene to prevent more crimes from occurring. The crime being murder and more murder.
Right, but according to the reasoning shyrke pointed out (which absolutely fits with the bullshit ruling), they might need to arrest a black person for jaywalking, or some shit.
How can they do that if they're occupied preventing someone from being murdered?
Got to wonder if murder rates are now at a number where total murders means fuck all and people should be forced to report them on percent of population. I mean going from 21 to 28, not only sounds like natural fluctuation you might see, but could also be somewhat accounted for if the population increased by a certain percent as well.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
The overall point as far as I understand it is that the police are not liable for not stopping every crime. So basically their duty to stop crime does not mean they owe you a specific duty to stop the crime happening to you such that they would be negligent should a crime happen to you. If you are a victim of a crime, you can't sue the police because they didn't stop a crime from happening to you.
Even if the crime is literally happening right in front of them and they could intervene to prevent more crimes from occurring. The crime being murder and more murder.
The US courts seem to define the idea of what constitutes a special relationship that would create a duty to a specific individual pretty narrowly. The general principle that there is a limit on police liability for protection of any specific individual makes sense but the US courts have probably pushed that line too far over.
The above issue has nothing to do with people vs property. The same legal decisions would uphold that they had no obligation to protect property either as far as I understand it.
I always thought of police as an institution that exists to serve the fiction that if you break the law, you will pay the price. But no modern society can guarantee that without becoming a prison, so you develop this boogeyman force that is meant to be a scary deterrent to hide its ineffectiveness as any force for good. Arguably this is meant to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands or abandoning it entirely.
If you get people to give up their ability to exercise force on others, you can concentrate wealth and power without worry of having it stolen, creating class divides in a civilization of unequal wealth absent in nature, which is very good at forcing the distribution of resources between organisms fighting for survival.
The idea that police in their current form serve the upper classes or should be liable for actually protecting the peace as flawlessly as possible is interesting - it reveals an underlying idea that there is some sort of law enforcement that could be actually benevolent and effective, serving justice in a real way, if only we overhauled it. I think there are some here that through their anger and despair secretly hope that this is the case.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The above issue has nothing to do with people vs property. The same legal decisions would uphold that they had no obligation to protect property either as far as I understand it.
No it's all consistent with the premise that the police do not serve the general public, but rather the interests of those who possess the power and capital anyway.
If you get people to give up their ability to exercise force on others, you can concentrate wealth and power without worry of having it stolen, creating class divides an a civilization of unequal wealth absent in nature, which is very good at forcing the distribution of resources between organisms fighting for survival.
The historical response: yes, people having the ability to exercise force on others is truly what stops theft and has never ever backfired.
The critical thinking response: that's a tier 1 use of the naturalistic fallacy, my friend.
The biological response: survival of the fittest does not select for what you consider to be fitness.
The pragmatic response: given access to the ability to exercise force, there are many interesting ways to concentrate wealth and power.
The emotional response: FUCKING YIKES.
If you get people to give up their ability to exercise force on others, you can concentrate wealth and power without worry of having it stolen, creating class divides an a civilization of unequal wealth absent in nature, which is very good at forcing the distribution of resources between organisms fighting for survival.
The historical response: yes, people having the ability to exercise force on others is truly what stops theft and has never ever backfired.
The critical thinking response: that's a tier 1 use of the naturalistic fallacy, my friend.
The biological response: survival of the fittest does not select for what you consider to be fitness.
The pragmatic response: given access to the ability to exercise force, there are many interesting ways to concentrate wealth and power.
The emotional response: FUCKING YIKES.
An appropriate response to the history of our social structure
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Here in Norway, emergency personell (incl. police) have a duty to assist people in distress.
The police do not have a duty to prevent or stop all crime, EMTs do not have a duty to prevent or stop all disease/injuries, and firemen do not have a duty to prevent or stop all fires.
They do have a duty to, if somone is in distress, to render aid. So, if you are being e.g. assaulted, and the police know, they have a duty to try to save you.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+6
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Here in Norway, emergency personell (incl. police) have a duty to assist people in distress.
The police do not have a duty to prevent or stop all crime, EMTs do not have a duty to prevent or stop all disease/injuries, and firemen do not have a duty to prevent or stop all fires.
They do have a duty to, if somone is in distress, to render aid. So, if you are being e.g. assaulted, and the police know, they have a duty to try to save you.
I think the ruling for US law enforcement is basically the opposite: cops are obligated to control crime as it relates to "the public", but they have no legal obligation whatsoever to stop a specific crime they witness.
Which is every bit as fucked-up as it sounds.
+15
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
In summation: cops in the US have changed little from their early days as slave catchers/racist citizen militias. They're bad, and totally in the capture of moneyed interests which are directly at odds with the common good. They should be abolished and have their duties turned over to other organizations who don't make it a point to willfully consider themselves apart from the rest of their fellow civilians.
Here in Norway, emergency personell (incl. police) have a duty to assist people in distress.
The police do not have a duty to prevent or stop all crime, EMTs do not have a duty to prevent or stop all disease/injuries, and firemen do not have a duty to prevent or stop all fires.
They do have a duty to, if somone is in distress, to render aid. So, if you are being e.g. assaulted, and the police know, they have a duty to try to save you.
I think the ruling for US law enforcement is basically the opposite: cops are obligated to control crime as it relates to "the public", but they have no legal obligation whatsoever to stop a specific crime they witness.
Which is every bit as fucked-up as it sounds.
It's not clear if what [Expletive deleted] is talking about in terms of "duty" is the same as it is in the US. My understanding is that in the US legal context here it's specifically referring to an obligation that they can be held liable for should they fail to meet it. I'm not sure if that's what [Expletive deleted] is describing. The same core idea that the police are not liable should a crime happen is still there it seems though.
The US courts have upheld a fairly stringent definition of when they owe a duty to a specific person. My understanding is it's basically "if you're in custody".
SCOTUS recently ruled that jury verdicts must be unanimous in cases involving "Serious Crimes" to avoid violating the defendant's Sixth amendment rights.
So all the defense needs is one juror, which i believe they have.
Not to say i disagree with SCOTUS, i never liked seeing people convicted by divided juries even though i want Chauvin put away.
Here in Norway, emergency personell (incl. police) have a duty to assist people in distress.
The police do not have a duty to prevent or stop all crime, EMTs do not have a duty to prevent or stop all disease/injuries, and firemen do not have a duty to prevent or stop all fires.
They do have a duty to, if somone is in distress, to render aid. So, if you are being e.g. assaulted, and the police know, they have a duty to try to save you.
I think the ruling for US law enforcement is basically the opposite: cops are obligated to control crime as it relates to "the public", but they have no legal obligation whatsoever to stop a specific crime they witness.
Which is every bit as fucked-up as it sounds.
It's not clear if what [Expletive deleted] is talking about in terms of "duty" is the same as it is in the US. My understanding is that in the US legal context here it's specifically referring to an obligation that they can be held liable for should they fail to meet it. I'm not sure if that's what [Expletive deleted] is describing. The same core idea that the police are not liable should a crime happen is still there it seems though.
The US courts have upheld a fairly stringent definition of when they owe a duty to a specific person. My understanding is it's basically "if you're in custody".
Failure to render aid could result in prosecution. Police have no more duty to "stop crime" than doctors have to "stop disease"; neither group is omnipresent and omnipotent. They both have a duty to render aid to people in distress, should they be a situation which calls for it, with (potential) penalties if they don't. (No penalties for trying your best and failing.)
Unlike in the US, where police are (for some reason) fully within their rights to ignore anything and everything if they feel like it.
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Decomposey on
Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
Posts
How many of those murders were committed by cops also
Was gonna say, I don't see how that increases their leverage.
Homicides are up all over the place in cities in the US in 2020. Other crimes aren't as best we can tell. Or at least, maybe? 2020 was a weird year and everything is fucked up and crime data is kinda fucking terrible in the first place for a variety of reasons.
I mean if they are using the "official" definition of a city, then Miami is made up of like, 6 cities?
28 murders in 2020, up from 21 in 2019.
It isn't safe to walk the streets at night with those numbers! /sarcasm
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Tallahasse, pop 200k, 28 murders in 2020.
My town (Trondheim, Norway), pop 200k, 1 murder in 2020.
All of Norway, pop 5.4M, 31 murders in 2020.
I guess safety is relative.
It's still far too many murders and be brought down, but shitty cops are not the answer to bring that down. Probably better mental health services, a better social safety net and likely getting rid of shitty things that result in minorities unfairly being put into the prison pipeline.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Most people know their killers and I would guess that interpersonal problems coming to a head and the pressures of poverty have kind of been a one two punch.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Also the supreme court already ruled that the cops don't have to actually stop any murders in progress.
There's been a lot of guesses at why they are up but nothing really definitive. And as I said, this is made more difficult by how bad crime numbers tend to be in the first place so there's question like whether this is just a matter or reporting or not. Because what you are saying here kinda makes sense and is actually what many were predicting. Except that apparently domestic violence reports are not up. Which you would expect if your theory is what was going on. But are they really not up or is reporting just worse or is something else going on? Who the fuck knows.
Domestic violence reports depend on people observing it though. With everyone indoors and not interacting, there's been a lot of concern people haven't been able to get the normal opportunities to get away from abusers.
Does that apply to legal consequences, or contractual ones?
There's a difference between requiring someone, even someone hired for that job, to put themselves in real mortal danger, or risk legal action that could see them bankrupted, or jailed. Cause that's a fine line, and as someone who has been told it's my job to get assaulted to protect property (it's not), legal exposure is one thing. Heck, at the hospital I used to work at, they explicitly drilled into us, "You, staff (including contractors), patients, visitors, property". That's the order I prioritize.
It's another that they can do that and keep wearing a badge. Failure to intervene, and just standing by, should be allowed to be a fireable offense, and doing so should be considered a resignation. If that's protected, then that kinda sucks.
The case is this iirc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Police have no duty to stop crimes.
Edit: there was a second case
Thanks for that.
*reads up on the first case*
Jesus Christ!
*reads up on the second case*
JackieChanMeme.gif
*reads conclusion*
"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"
OH. FUCK THAT.
So people aren't the public? I just... I can't even.
The overall point as far as I understand it is that the police are not liable for not stopping every crime. So basically their duty to stop crime does not mean they owe you a specific duty to stop the crime happening to you such that they would be negligent should a crime happen to you. If you are a victim of a crime, you can't sue the police because they didn't stop a crime from happening to you.
Even if the crime is literally happening right in front of them and they could intervene to prevent more crimes from occurring. The crime being murder and more murder.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Right, but according to the reasoning shyrke pointed out (which absolutely fits with the bullshit ruling), they might need to arrest a black person for jaywalking, or some shit.
How can they do that if they're occupied preventing someone from being murdered?
The US courts seem to define the idea of what constitutes a special relationship that would create a duty to a specific individual pretty narrowly. The general principle that there is a limit on police liability for protection of any specific individual makes sense but the US courts have probably pushed that line too far over.
They exist to maintain the power of the powerful. They destroy the property of the weak on a regular basis.
Private property versus personal property.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If you get people to give up their ability to exercise force on others, you can concentrate wealth and power without worry of having it stolen, creating class divides in a civilization of unequal wealth absent in nature, which is very good at forcing the distribution of resources between organisms fighting for survival.
The idea that police in their current form serve the upper classes or should be liable for actually protecting the peace as flawlessly as possible is interesting - it reveals an underlying idea that there is some sort of law enforcement that could be actually benevolent and effective, serving justice in a real way, if only we overhauled it. I think there are some here that through their anger and despair secretly hope that this is the case.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No it's all consistent with the premise that the police do not serve the general public, but rather the interests of those who possess the power and capital anyway.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The critical thinking response: that's a tier 1 use of the naturalistic fallacy, my friend.
The biological response: survival of the fittest does not select for what you consider to be fitness.
The pragmatic response: given access to the ability to exercise force, there are many interesting ways to concentrate wealth and power.
The emotional response: FUCKING YIKES.
An appropriate response to the history of our social structure
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Here in Norway, emergency personell (incl. police) have a duty to assist people in distress.
The police do not have a duty to prevent or stop all crime, EMTs do not have a duty to prevent or stop all disease/injuries, and firemen do not have a duty to prevent or stop all fires.
They do have a duty to, if somone is in distress, to render aid. So, if you are being e.g. assaulted, and the police know, they have a duty to try to save you.
I think the ruling for US law enforcement is basically the opposite: cops are obligated to control crime as it relates to "the public", but they have no legal obligation whatsoever to stop a specific crime they witness.
Which is every bit as fucked-up as it sounds.
It's not clear if what [Expletive deleted] is talking about in terms of "duty" is the same as it is in the US. My understanding is that in the US legal context here it's specifically referring to an obligation that they can be held liable for should they fail to meet it. I'm not sure if that's what [Expletive deleted] is describing. The same core idea that the police are not liable should a crime happen is still there it seems though.
The US courts have upheld a fairly stringent definition of when they owe a duty to a specific person. My understanding is it's basically "if you're in custody".
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2800710263525393
I have zero faith in a good outcome here, based on the jury selection clusterfuck.
How many guilty verdicts are needed for conviction in Minnesota? Unanimous? Or are they allowed one or two holdouts?
So all the defense needs is one juror, which i believe they have.
Not to say i disagree with SCOTUS, i never liked seeing people convicted by divided juries even though i want Chauvin put away.
Failure to render aid could result in prosecution. Police have no more duty to "stop crime" than doctors have to "stop disease"; neither group is omnipresent and omnipotent. They both have a duty to render aid to people in distress, should they be a situation which calls for it, with (potential) penalties if they don't. (No penalties for trying your best and failing.)
Unlike in the US, where police are (for some reason) fully within their rights to ignore anything and everything if they feel like it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So does medicine in many situations..
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.