Another Virginia Tech Shooting

[Seth]

Very quickly (I'll expand later perhaps) the Court reasoned that the duty of the police is to the public, generally, and not to any specific individual in any particular circumstance. The Court saw a real problem with the notion that the police, and not the individual, had the duty to defend the individual against crime. They felt, and were justified in doing so, that not only does this place an unreasonable burden on the police, who would then have the obligation of putting themselves (as individuals) at risk of death or injury or suffer legal consequences, which conflicts with the general theory that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety, and that others cannot be REQUIRED to come to the aid of someone in need or danger if doing so puts them at risk of death or injury.

This would cause the government to force people to assume risks that they may not be willing to assume, and this applies just as much to police officers, who have a right to go home healthy at the end of their shift, as it does to anyone else.

I think we have a fairly similar system in practice here, as police officers would not be required to unreasonably put their own lives/health at risk to save someone... though many might choose to do so to greater or lesser degrees.

The same is true of firefighters, paramedics and other government personnel, with the sole exception of soldiers, who CAN be held criminally liable for refusing a lawful order after having sworn to obey them, even one that will lead to their death.

It sure would be nice if we could prosecute politicians for violating their oaths of office. That would have Obama in jail almost immediately for failing and refusing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Of course, George Bush would be in the same boat... along with a good many other Presidents.

[Gawd]

So what do they get paid so much for again if they are under no obligation to endanger themselves to uphold the law?

They don't get paid all that much, I'm afraid, for the risks they DO take.

The obscene pensions say other wise.

[Robert_S]

So what do they get paid so much for again if they are under no obligation to endanger themselves to uphold the law?

They don't get paid all that much, I'm afraid, for the risks they DO take.

The obscene pensions say other wise.

Maybe up there. Down here, they're in the 99 percent.

[JimC]

Very quickly (I'll expand later perhaps) the Court reasoned that the duty of the police is to the public, generally, and not to any specific individual in any particular circumstance. The Court saw a real problem with the notion that the police, and not the individual, had the duty to defend the individual against crime. They felt, and were justified in doing so, that not only does this place an unreasonable burden on the police, who would then have the obligation of putting themselves (as individuals) at risk of death or injury or suffer legal consequences, which conflicts with the general theory that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety, and that others cannot be REQUIRED to come to the aid of someone in need or danger if doing so puts them at risk of death or injury.

This would cause the government to force people to assume risks that they may not be willing to assume, and this applies just as much to police officers, who have a right to go home healthy at the end of their shift, as it does to anyone else.

I think we have a fairly similar system in practice here, as police officers would not be required to unreasonably put their own lives/health at risk to save someone... though many might choose to do so to greater or lesser degrees.

The court ruling seemed to go much further than that, implying that police do not have to help someone in danger even if there was little or no risk to themselves, which I would regard as morally indefensible. No-one is going to force a policeman to take actions which have a very high risk of death to save others (though clearly many of the brave ones do), but given only moderate risks, police choosing not to act could become very sinister indeed. Certain races or other social groupings may be provided with less protection than others, and such a court ruling means the police could just shrug their shoulders...

[Seth]

So what do they get paid so much for again if they are under no obligation to endanger themselves to uphold the law?

They don't get paid all that much, I'm afraid, for the risks they DO take.

The obscene pensions say other wise.

Maybe up there. Down here, they're in the 99 percent.

Most other places too.

Where the "obscene" police pensions crop up is in big unionized departments like LA, New York, Chicago and other places where the public sector unions have a cozy relationship with the city council. Most cops however work in much smaller departments where pensions are about average.

[Seth]

Very quickly (I'll expand later perhaps) the Court reasoned that the duty of the police is to the public, generally, and not to any specific individual in any particular circumstance. The Court saw a real problem with the notion that the police, and not the individual, had the duty to defend the individual against crime. They felt, and were justified in doing so, that not only does this place an unreasonable burden on the police, who would then have the obligation of putting themselves (as individuals) at risk of death or injury or suffer legal consequences, which conflicts with the general theory that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety, and that others cannot be REQUIRED to come to the aid of someone in need or danger if doing so puts them at risk of death or injury.

This would cause the government to force people to assume risks that they may not be willing to assume, and this applies just as much to police officers, who have a right to go home healthy at the end of their shift, as it does to anyone else.

I think we have a fairly similar system in practice here, as police officers would not be required to unreasonably put their own lives/health at risk to save someone... though many might choose to do so to greater or lesser degrees.

The court ruling seemed to go much further than that, implying that police do not have to help someone in danger even if there was little or no risk to themselves, which I would regard as morally indefensible. No-one is going to force a policeman to take actions which have a very high risk of death to save others (though clearly many of the brave ones do), but given only moderate risks, police choosing not to act could become very sinister indeed. Certain races or other social groupings may be provided with less protection than others, and such a court ruling means the police could just shrug their shoulders...

That would seem to be true, but there's another law that controls that, and that's 42 USC 1983, which is the civil rights discrimination federal law. If it can be proven that the officer refused to act BECAUSE of the victims race, sex, religion, etc., then the officer can be held PERSONALLY liable for damages. But so long as the decision to act or not act is one of legitimate officer discretion or safety, that statute would not apply.