2005 SCOTUS decision: Police have discretion, no obligation, over whether or not to stop a killer.

[DetlefK]

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/27/uvalde-timeline-exposes-an-ugly-truth-the-police-have-no-legal-duty-to-protect-you/

It's safe to say that the widespread support for robust police funding is entirely due to the assumption that cops have a duty to rush in and protect people, especially children, in such situations.

...

On social media, people were understandably recommending that the parents sue the police for their failure to act swiftly. It seems like common sense: We hire police to protect us, and if they don't, we can sue them, right?

Well, one certainly can try to sue! But here's the sad, dark truth: Such a lawsuit is almost certainly doomed from the get-go. In 2005, the Supreme Court settled whether or not citizens are entitled to protection from violence from the police with a resounding "nope, see you later." This case also involves the murder of three small children, so readers be forewarned. In 1999, Colorado resident Jessica Lenahan (then Gonzales) obtained a restraining order against her ex-husband, Simon Gonzales, who was stalking her and her four children. A few days later, he showed up at her house and kidnapped her three daughters. She frantically called the police for hours, over and over, and they did nothing. It was only when Simon Gonzales showed up at the police station, gun in hand, that they reacted, by killing him. They found the three little girls murdered at their father's hand in the car.

Lenahan sued the police, arguing that by ignoring her pleas for help, they had violated her 14th amendment rights to equal protection. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where she lost in a 7-2 decision in 2005. The opinion's author, Antonin Scalia, argued that the police's right to discretion prevailed, and there is no "'entitlement' to receive protective services." That the cops were bad at their job didn't change the fact that the right to discretion over the right call lay with them, not Lenahan.

There is a "traditional belief that police are there to proactively prevent and deescalate dangerous situations," as Ramenda Cyrus wrote for the American Prospect just last month, but, in reality, "the cops do not have a duty to protect you, or anyone."

Since Scalia's 2005 Supreme Court decision, another case that reiterated this legal reality came to the public's attention, initially because of, believe it or not, the comedy website Cracked.com. In 2011, Joseph Lozito was on his way to work in New York City when he got attacked, right in front of two police officers, by a serial killer the cops were already on the lookout for. The killer, Maksim Gelman, had already murdered four people when he pulled out a knife on the train and just started stabbing Lozito at random. Lozito fought back, while the two police watched but did not intervene. Lozito, even though he had been stabbed in the head multiple times, managed to disarm Gelman. It was only then that the cops swooped in and arrested the killer. Lozito sued the police and lost, because, you guessed it, the cops had no "special duty" to act.

A restraining order violated and three girls kidnapped? It's at the cops' discretion whether or not to do something about it.

Being stabbed right in front of two cops? It's at the cops' discretion whether or not to do something about it.








The Simpsons did it!

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Well that will cause some self-arming citizens to take notice

[Orrex]

2. This policy is directly incompatible with "qualified immunity"

If they have no obligation to act, then they should get no protection for their bad actions.


And we should admit on the national level that all of the military hardware that they wear, carry, and drive is simply a big exercise in masturbation.

[mopinko]

5. this

in 2020 i got into a pissing contest w some long time neighbors, mostly over them passing the lock down by shooting m100's day and night. started this weekend and went to the 4th.
it went on even after they stopped. they trespassed all over my farm, in the dark, looking for a dog that took off after they let it off leash to shit in my garden.
cops were on their side in several calls, including insisting that- we know where you live- is not a threat. (they all know where i live. i've lived there all their lives.)

i got plenty of shit, tho, including getting arrested. i did deserve that, but 3 guys filed a fake police account, including a state trooper. nobody cared. i couldnt get them a ticket for blocking my drive.

very good lawyer listened to my story, said- nope. no case. no duty to protect the little old lady from a half dozen armed thugs.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. ...

[The Jungle 1]

10. Law enforcement in this nation is a big mess.

First off they do not even relate to us. Police believe they are superior Americans.
We have more people in jail than any country in the world.
We are a free nation until the police get mad at you.

I had a dispute with a neighbor who was surveying their property. Pa does not have right of entry laws for surveyors. So the most upsetting part of the whole minor dispute was to realize that the local police know me by name. I thought I was keeping a lower profile. One local police department shot and killed a man who was in handcuffs. Another shot a man in a holding cell. No charges in either case. I am not happy that the police know me.

[mopinko]

20. i ended up on the crazy lady list.

i couldnt get a car here in less than half an hour. i'm a mile from the station.
i couldnt file charges against these assholes. i asked for a sergeant several times and couldnt get one. one of them threw an unopened 16 oz beer at my head from 30' away. luckily he was so pissed he put a hole in the can, and it spun out.
told a beat cop who promised to come back later and take a report. i left the can where it fell. yeah, no.

[Marthe48]

17. Sounds horrific

[mopinko]

21. it was, but

in the end, i won. i was on my own, so i leaned in. not only did the fireworks end on the 4th, there was very little last year. we'll see how things go this year.

[Marthe48]

22. Good for you

I have neighbors near and far that set off fireworks. I always pray for rain

[Novara]

12. I'm surprised no one has challenged qualified immunity with this argument

In addition, don't some places have good samaritan laws? How do they work, and can the do-nothing police be sued for standing by and doing nothing under that law?

Seems like there should be some damned accountability here. They left those children who were still alive to die while they did nothing.

[ck4829]

3. This SCOTUS is no longer befitting of Article 3.

[madaboutharry]

4. The Gonzales case was a 7-2 opinion.

Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg dissented.

What are the police for? They can choose whether or not to do their job? And then they have qualified immunity when they do it badly. Pitiful.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. The police are there to protect property of the wealthy,

keep the 'others' in line, take the military's excessive equipment, and to provide employment to the gun humpers too afraid to join the army.

[The Jungle 1]

13. Your headline is 100% correct.

History is clear the poor will rise up sooner or later. Which is why food is so cheap in America.
Police will lock you up for pot and drugs. Yet steroid abuse by police is rampant. Google roid rage.
Police should be tested for steroid use monthly.

[niyad]

7. Remind me again why we are paying these useless bullies and murderers

of innocent people?

[sanatanadharma]

8. If the police are not required to protect, we are not required to have police forces

The gunner mind simply eliminates all arguments against de-funding or eliminating police forces.
We are not getting what we pay for. It is like policing is a fraud upon society.

[harumph]

16. This is an excellent observation.

A fraud in plain sight, like other frauds foisted on the public.

[NickB79]

11. And that's one reason we as a nation are armed to the teeth

It's fucking insane.

[llmart]

14. What an absolutely ridiculous SCOTUS ruling.

If the police have no "special duty" to act then I guess the call to defund the police is not as far-fetched as some think.

Maybe, pray tell, the SCOTUS can tell us just what is the "special duties" that the police are there for? To waste taxpayers' money and swagger around cosplaying characters from the Village People?

SMDH

[BumRushDaShow]

15. "dark truth: Such a lawsuit is almost certainly doomed from the get-go."

In most if not all medium - large cities, the city settles the case, often for millions of taxpayer dollars, so such suits never move much if at all through the court system. In the case of Lozito, apparently the judge noted the following -

Subway stabbing victim cannot sue city over cops not preventing attack: judge


By Barbara Ross
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS • Jul 26, 2013 at 1:36 am

(snip)

Chan said that to sue the city, Lozito needed to have had direct contact with the cops in the motorman's booth and they had to have known he was in danger and ignored that, but there was no evidence of that.

(snip)

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/subway-stabbing-victim-sue-city-cops-didn-stop-attack-article-1.1409451

Of course this sounds like some bullshit however Lozito also apparently made numerous rounds on the television circuit touting his "martial arts" take-down of this guy and was dubbed a "hero", so I wouldn't be surprised that this may have influenced the judgement (although it shouldn't have).

With respect to "restraining orders", that whole thing has almost become a joke in terms of "enforcement".

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. Their role is rooted in protecting capital, chasing people escaping slavery, and oppressing

marginalized people. The institution can never be reformed into being "helpers."

[Marthe48]

19. So police are just people in uniform

Cop out explained