One of the more frequently cited court cases, which is also one of the most frequently misunderstood and misapplied cases in this forum is the SCOTUS case establishing that a peace officer has no duty to protect any individual.
Especially for the anti-cop bigot (a bigot always presupposes the worst in regards to the LEO, in any case involving law enforcement), it offers an easy way to disclaim instances or even the very existence of heroic officers, and their heroic actions, by falsely claiming - cops don't help the individual, cops don't put themselves in danger to help people, bla bla which is an erroneous conclusion about the case.
All the case says is that
1) under the federal constitution
2) a cop has no DUTY to protect an INDIVIDUAL (he, his dept. do have one to society as a whole)
3) unless a special relationship exists (usually but not always through the cop's own making e.g arrest) that mandates he do so
(1) doesn't address that cops, depending on position, agency, locale, etc. may have duties imposed by State Constututions, State Statute, Case law, Dept. Oath, Dept. General Orders Manual, Dept. Procedures manual, and of course the cop's own personal code of morals and honor.
Have I seen an officer disciplined or terminated for failure to protect? Absolutely. The most obvious case was an officer who was one of three officers dispatched to a wild fight. This officer told dispatch that they were responding "code 2" as is the general code response for incidents involving threat of harm to persons, and in some cases, property. It means lights and sirens to help get through intersections and slow traffic, explicitly authorized to travel over the speed limit given that the driver must still exercise due care and must limit his speed based on road conditions, daylight or night (night vision much worse than day vision and distance acuity etc etc deleteriously affected at night vs. day, and that authorization pretty much MANDATES speed above the speed limit in most cases and in pretty much all cases where there is no obstructive traffic and it is not a residential zone.
An officer who was enroute, lights and siren, caught a glimpse of that ofc's patrol car parked in an alley, almost invisible from view (which reinforced a suspicion that they were purposefully hiding from view, iow KNEw it was wrong to wait there), and of course when the other 2 officers arrived pretty quickly, the third officer was nowhere in sight, and actually didn't arrive until after the responding officers broadcast a "code 4" (scene under control and no obvious apparent dangers to public or officers) and had detained a few in handcuffs. fwiw, those in handcuffs were released when further investigation revealed NO pc for a crime (fighting in public fwiw is not illegal under the RCW - and it aint assault if it's mutual combat - but of course the fact that they were engaged in physical combat DID authorize a detention under the CC exception and others even well short of PC)
The officer reported to his sgt. that he had seen the deputy parked at the given location, in an alley, appearing to be stationary, and no lights or siren on, and that that location was pretty close to the scene and yet the officer was the last to arrive by a significant margin
Iow, Cowardice
That's a serious firable offense, and probably one of the two most severe in my agency - dishonesty being the other. I've seen cops canned for all sorts of dishonesty, even very "minor" examples in very minor investigations where they may have only faced a written warning at worse, but because they lied - terminated.
Furthermore, checks of the CAD revealed the officer was responding from a location much closer than the other 2, which makes it very suspect that they were the last there, etc.
The officer was questioned, and made the decision to be truthful, a lie being instant termination if it could be proven as such and said that they had delayed response because they didn't want to get in a physical altercation involving some large (Parties involved were pacific islanders), presumably intoxicated (happene3d outside a bar) individuals.
fired
and the union would not even authorize appeal to arbitration, that being a good example ot counter claims that the union always supports accusedand terminated officers. FAR FAR FAR FAR from the case, at least with my union
and good ******* riddance. I don't want to work with a coward. ever. Officer safety is not cowardice. What this officer did wasn't officer safety, it was cowardice
gone.
the cited case here shows a case of substantial civil liability where an officer did not respond with a "ordinary standard of care" in offering specific help - getting the reponsdent away from the scene, among others. and this requirement was NOT required by legislation (read the case ), but existed anyway as an element of requirements for peace officers.
iow, the case showed one (of countless) examples where an officer WAS mandated to help an individual, in this case help a petitioner stay safe,. even where the respondent was not accused of any crime at that point, based on the information the officer SHOULD have known, it clearly required him to remove the respondwent and arrest if the respondent refused, for obstruction at a minimum
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/10/17/2842540/wa-supreme-court-upholds-judgment.html
I *totally* agree with the decision of the court and imo, firing the officer would be warranted.
and course IN ADDITION to the duties IMPOSED on officers externally, there is the fact that many officers will still protect and do so in many cases in ways that places them in danger of assault, or in one of my cases, resulted in pretty severe smoke inhalation injury
whether because of their moral code, or duties imposed under any of hte above bodies (dept, state law ,e tc.)
Countless stories of bravey exist. I have seen TONS firsthand and read about many others.
A recent one was an assaultive suicidal female who had assaulted a domestic partner with a knife, cut herself, and then run outside. she was standing by the open door of her car, wearing heavy winter clothes (rendering a taser unlikely to be successful) and i could see her hands were empty, but one of my partners could see a large hunting knife seated on the vehicles seat a lunge distance away (she was standing in the open door space_), that she had used to assault her partner and herself and had then dropped down there.
She refused to step away from the car, even upon threat of taser and if we waited for her and she decided to reacquire the knife, very possibly a shooting could have happened.
an officer bolted in out of nowhere (great start strength! and explosive strength. officer had a very good clean and jerk total so had those attributes), tackled the woman before she could even react, and got her into handcuffs. NO injuries even
not an atypical event at all. they never make the paper. I actually get pissed off that our PIO DOES NOT usually release such cases,a dn in most cases wont know about them unless the sgt sends it to him
I *know* from countless examples thaat many (not all) cops go to great lengths to protect people.
the court case does not in ANY WAY "prove" they don't. it doesn't even speak to what officers DO. Only speaks to what they are constututionally required to do
hth
Especially for the anti-cop bigot (a bigot always presupposes the worst in regards to the LEO, in any case involving law enforcement), it offers an easy way to disclaim instances or even the very existence of heroic officers, and their heroic actions, by falsely claiming - cops don't help the individual, cops don't put themselves in danger to help people, bla bla which is an erroneous conclusion about the case.
All the case says is that
1) under the federal constitution
2) a cop has no DUTY to protect an INDIVIDUAL (he, his dept. do have one to society as a whole)
3) unless a special relationship exists (usually but not always through the cop's own making e.g arrest) that mandates he do so
(1) doesn't address that cops, depending on position, agency, locale, etc. may have duties imposed by State Constututions, State Statute, Case law, Dept. Oath, Dept. General Orders Manual, Dept. Procedures manual, and of course the cop's own personal code of morals and honor.
Have I seen an officer disciplined or terminated for failure to protect? Absolutely. The most obvious case was an officer who was one of three officers dispatched to a wild fight. This officer told dispatch that they were responding "code 2" as is the general code response for incidents involving threat of harm to persons, and in some cases, property. It means lights and sirens to help get through intersections and slow traffic, explicitly authorized to travel over the speed limit given that the driver must still exercise due care and must limit his speed based on road conditions, daylight or night (night vision much worse than day vision and distance acuity etc etc deleteriously affected at night vs. day, and that authorization pretty much MANDATES speed above the speed limit in most cases and in pretty much all cases where there is no obstructive traffic and it is not a residential zone.
An officer who was enroute, lights and siren, caught a glimpse of that ofc's patrol car parked in an alley, almost invisible from view (which reinforced a suspicion that they were purposefully hiding from view, iow KNEw it was wrong to wait there), and of course when the other 2 officers arrived pretty quickly, the third officer was nowhere in sight, and actually didn't arrive until after the responding officers broadcast a "code 4" (scene under control and no obvious apparent dangers to public or officers) and had detained a few in handcuffs. fwiw, those in handcuffs were released when further investigation revealed NO pc for a crime (fighting in public fwiw is not illegal under the RCW - and it aint assault if it's mutual combat - but of course the fact that they were engaged in physical combat DID authorize a detention under the CC exception and others even well short of PC)
The officer reported to his sgt. that he had seen the deputy parked at the given location, in an alley, appearing to be stationary, and no lights or siren on, and that that location was pretty close to the scene and yet the officer was the last to arrive by a significant margin
Iow, Cowardice
That's a serious firable offense, and probably one of the two most severe in my agency - dishonesty being the other. I've seen cops canned for all sorts of dishonesty, even very "minor" examples in very minor investigations where they may have only faced a written warning at worse, but because they lied - terminated.
Furthermore, checks of the CAD revealed the officer was responding from a location much closer than the other 2, which makes it very suspect that they were the last there, etc.
The officer was questioned, and made the decision to be truthful, a lie being instant termination if it could be proven as such and said that they had delayed response because they didn't want to get in a physical altercation involving some large (Parties involved were pacific islanders), presumably intoxicated (happene3d outside a bar) individuals.
fired
and the union would not even authorize appeal to arbitration, that being a good example ot counter claims that the union always supports accusedand terminated officers. FAR FAR FAR FAR from the case, at least with my union
and good ******* riddance. I don't want to work with a coward. ever. Officer safety is not cowardice. What this officer did wasn't officer safety, it was cowardice
gone.
the cited case here shows a case of substantial civil liability where an officer did not respond with a "ordinary standard of care" in offering specific help - getting the reponsdent away from the scene, among others. and this requirement was NOT required by legislation (read the case ), but existed anyway as an element of requirements for peace officers.
iow, the case showed one (of countless) examples where an officer WAS mandated to help an individual, in this case help a petitioner stay safe,. even where the respondent was not accused of any crime at that point, based on the information the officer SHOULD have known, it clearly required him to remove the respondwent and arrest if the respondent refused, for obstruction at a minimum
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/10/17/2842540/wa-supreme-court-upholds-judgment.html
I *totally* agree with the decision of the court and imo, firing the officer would be warranted.
and course IN ADDITION to the duties IMPOSED on officers externally, there is the fact that many officers will still protect and do so in many cases in ways that places them in danger of assault, or in one of my cases, resulted in pretty severe smoke inhalation injury
whether because of their moral code, or duties imposed under any of hte above bodies (dept, state law ,e tc.)
Countless stories of bravey exist. I have seen TONS firsthand and read about many others.
A recent one was an assaultive suicidal female who had assaulted a domestic partner with a knife, cut herself, and then run outside. she was standing by the open door of her car, wearing heavy winter clothes (rendering a taser unlikely to be successful) and i could see her hands were empty, but one of my partners could see a large hunting knife seated on the vehicles seat a lunge distance away (she was standing in the open door space_), that she had used to assault her partner and herself and had then dropped down there.
She refused to step away from the car, even upon threat of taser and if we waited for her and she decided to reacquire the knife, very possibly a shooting could have happened.
an officer bolted in out of nowhere (great start strength! and explosive strength. officer had a very good clean and jerk total so had those attributes), tackled the woman before she could even react, and got her into handcuffs. NO injuries even
not an atypical event at all. they never make the paper. I actually get pissed off that our PIO DOES NOT usually release such cases,a dn in most cases wont know about them unless the sgt sends it to him
I *know* from countless examples thaat many (not all) cops go to great lengths to protect people.
the court case does not in ANY WAY "prove" they don't. it doesn't even speak to what officers DO. Only speaks to what they are constututionally required to do
hth
You let children play with your gun, and taser?