The beating of Tawon Boyd

[Malintent]

Interesting.. do you have any source for that ruling? I agree that it may be that in some cases they are not "necessarily obligated" to protect someone, situationally... I would like to learn what you are referring to, though, if you can provide more information.

From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

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.

Here is the wikipedia entry  Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.

finally had a chance to review...

That case was in regard to a complaint by a citizen about her husband having unauthorized custody of their children. It was raised to that level in the courts, because the father ultimately murdered the children while they were in his custody. The mother had called the police to report the father had the kids, and the cops did not respond to the complaint.

This is not an example of police being compelled (or not) to protect citizens. It was related to how "property" is defined, with respect to restraining orders and what obligations police have to arrest a violator of a restraining order.

I think we are looking for examples of law where an officer of the law was found not liable for protecting a citizen that was in imminent and clear danger by the suspect they were engaged with. I assert no such case exists, because police are indeed compelled to protect citizens that are in reasonably clear, current or potential, danger.

 

[laughing dog]

From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

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.

Here is the wikipedia entry  Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.

finally had a chance to review...

That case was in regard to a complaint by a citizen about her husband having unauthorized custody of their children. It was raised to that level in the courts, because the father ultimately murdered the children while they were in his custody. The mother had called the police to report the father had the kids, and the cops did not respond to the complaint.

This is not an example of police being compelled (or not) to protect citizens. It was related to how "property" is defined, with respect to restraining orders and what obligations police have to arrest a violator of a restraining order.

I think we are looking for examples of law where an officer of the law was found not liable for protecting a citizen that was in imminent and clear danger by the suspect they were engaged with. I assert no such case exists, because police are indeed compelled to protect citizens that are in reasonably clear, current or potential, danger.

If you had reviewed the case with any diligence, you would have noticed the following in the SCOTUS opinion "Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders “mandatory” because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. " So, your analysis is contradicted by the actual SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Malintent]

From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

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.

Here is the wikipedia entry  Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.

finally had a chance to review...

That case was in regard to a complaint by a citizen about her husband having unauthorized custody of their children. It was raised to that level in the courts, because the father ultimately murdered the children while they were in his custody. The mother had called the police to report the father had the kids, and the cops did not respond to the complaint.

This is not an example of police being compelled (or not) to protect citizens. It was related to how "property" is defined, with respect to restraining orders and what obligations police have to arrest a violator of a restraining order.

I think we are looking for examples of law where an officer of the law was found not liable for protecting a citizen that was in imminent and clear danger by the suspect they were engaged with. I assert no such case exists, because police are indeed compelled to protect citizens that are in reasonably clear, current or potential, danger.

If you had reviewed the case with any diligence, you would have noticed the following in the SCOTUS opinion "Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders “mandatory” because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. " So, your analysis is contradicted by the actual SCOTUS ruling.

what you quoted supports the idea that restraining orders do not compel law enforcement to arrest, when the order is allegedly violated.

The discussion is about police officers arriving on a scene, determining that there is a threat to a civilian, and then acting by either protecting or retreating. This has very little (or nothing) to do with arresting someone because a phone call came in saying a restraining order was violated by an ex-husband that took the kids to Disney Land for the weekend when it was not his custody. While in this particular case, it ended with the ex committing murder, the police had no reason to believe that there was a threat to the safety of anyone from the complaint.

 

[laughing dog]

From the NY times - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

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.

Here is the wikipedia entry  Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales. This link - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html - has a summary and contains links to the SCOTUS opinion, the concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion.

finally had a chance to review...

That case was in regard to a complaint by a citizen about her husband having unauthorized custody of their children. It was raised to that level in the courts, because the father ultimately murdered the children while they were in his custody. The mother had called the police to report the father had the kids, and the cops did not respond to the complaint.

This is not an example of police being compelled (or not) to protect citizens. It was related to how "property" is defined, with respect to restraining orders and what obligations police have to arrest a violator of a restraining order.

I think we are looking for examples of law where an officer of the law was found not liable for protecting a citizen that was in imminent and clear danger by the suspect they were engaged with. I assert no such case exists, because police are indeed compelled to protect citizens that are in reasonably clear, current or potential, danger.

If you had reviewed the case with any diligence, you would have noticed the following in the SCOTUS opinion "Even if the statute could be said to have made enforcement of restraining orders “mandatory” because of the domestic-violence context of the underlying statute, that would not necessarily mean that state law gave respondent an entitlement to enforcement of the mandate. " So, your analysis is contradicted by the actual SCOTUS ruling.

what you quoted supports the idea that restraining orders do not compel law enforcement to arrest, when the order is allegedly violated.

The discussion is about police officers arriving on a scene, determining that there is a threat to a civilian, and then acting by either protecting or retreating. This has very little (or nothing) to do with arresting someone because a phone call came in saying a restraining order was violated by an ex-husband that took the kids to Disney Land for the weekend when it was not his custody. While in this particular case, it ended with the ex committing murder, the police had no reason to believe that there was a threat to the safety of anyone from the complaint.

We disagree. And the plain reading of the SCOTUS opinion disagrees.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I agree with malintent that the cases are significantly different that if the cops showed up to investigate this, saw Boyd acting strangely and erractically and he went on to hurt or murder someone else then there is a very good chance that the police officers could be sued for not protecting other people.

My indirect experience though, it took 8 officers and EMT folks to restrain one person.