Officer runs away leaving gun victim to deal with man

Post Reply New Topic

So if the white officer had shot the black man with a gun the narrative would have been "Police Brutality shoot Black Man". This is the problem when we demonize police. They have no right choice to make because anything they do is wrong. This is why so many are taking early retirement and recruitment is in the toilet. Here is a job that you will be hated and vilified just for doing.

Given the constant race baiting and stereotyping on this site (by certain members) that all those of a certain "race" are inherently "racist", along with constant presentations of multi-racial interactions as being entirely caused by this supposed inherent "racism" of that group - with all other aspects of the interaction being ignored - I am sure that certain member(s) here would have gleefully posted about the alternative outcome you suggested, had it occurred.

Its funny I never mentioned race....I just thought the officer was just being a chicken.

You and Reynholm seemed to jump immediately on the "race train"
Freudian slip?

“To Protect and to Serve[1]” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us. After all, we are all taught to dial 9-1-1 when we need help. Subject to narrow exceptions[2], the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This notion contradicts our engrained perceptions, but it’s still the law today.

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone (even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney) from physical violence or harm from another person (his father) did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.[3] In this case, Joshua’s mother sued the Winnebago County Department of Social Services, alleging it deprived Joshua of his "liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father's violence.”[4] While the Department took various steps to protect Joshua after receiving numerous complaints of the abuse, the Department took no actions to remove Joshua from his father's custody.[5] Joshua became comatose and extremely ret*d due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who physically beat him over a long period of time.[6]

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

So if the white officer had shot the black man with a gun the narrative would have been "Police Brutality shoot Black Man". This is the problem when we demonize police. They have no right choice to make because anything they do is wrong. This is why so many are taking early retirement and recruitment is in the toilet. Here is a job that you will be hated and vilified just for doing.

Consequences.

IMPACT OF THE CASES

The judicial assessment in both cases reinforces that the law is not settled, but that there is no denial that duty of care could be owed by police to the public in certain circumstances.

Not only have these cases opened the door to a potentially novel duty of care owed by police being established, but they have indicated useful parameters as to what such a duty may look like.

The court held that Hill did not confer generally immunity upon the police, only that a duty of care would not arise without special circumstances

I haven't researched the subject, but this is a reasonable/expected consequence of the demonisation of the police force.
And police leaving to find other work will only increase the crime rate.
Only the crooks win.
It ain't rocket surgery.

Based on your responce, you also seem to have the misguided (yet common) belief that the poice (at least in the USA) have a duty to protect people from harm, which courts there have repeatedly stated is not correct:

Holding police accountable for the misdeeds justifies further misdeeds?

Holding police accountable for the misdeeds justifies further misdeeds?

A similar status applies here as well (at least in N.S.W. and in Victoria), although in this case it is more that there is no denial that such a "duty to protect" may exist (As opposed to the blanket "no duty exists" in the USA), so the police may have a duty to protect people from harm but there is nothing definitive that states the existence (or limitations) of such a duty:

Source: https://www.robinsongill.com.au/resource/opening-the-door-on-polices-duty-of-care/

Similarly, it appears there is a very limited "duty of care" within the U.K.:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v_Chief_Constable_of_West_Yorkshire

No.
But the past few years has shown us that when a police officer is any interracial situation the event will be twisted to make him, the officer into the offender and the purp into the victim. Facts won't matter to the Media, BLM or politicians all that will matter is the narrative.