• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The beating of Tawon Boyd

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-co-police-fatal-boyd-20160922-story.html

The attorneys for a Baltimore County man who died following a struggle with police questioned why officers used fatal force while responding to a call the family says was for a "medical crisis."

Attorney A. Dwight Pettit said Tawon Boyd, 21, called 911 on Sunday requesting medical personnel, but instead ended up in a violent confrontation with police officers at his Middle River home.

...

Officer Bowman grabbed Boyd, and the officers forced him to the ground, but Boyd "continued to push, kick and flail," and then kicked one officer in the head and Officer Bowman in the face.

Bowman then hit Boyd twice in the face with a closed fist, the report said. Bowman let go of Boyd, but police said he did not comply with the officers' order to get on the ground.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Marijuana-induced paranoia most likely.
The outcome is tragic, but the police were forced to use physical force ti subdue him. He was definitely out of control.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-co-police-fatal-boyd-20160922-story.html

The attorneys for a Baltimore County man who died following a struggle with police questioned why officers used fatal force while responding to a call the family says was for a "medical crisis."

Attorney A. Dwight Pettit said Tawon Boyd, 21, called 911 on Sunday requesting medical personnel, but instead ended up in a violent confrontation with police officers at his Middle River home.

...

Officer Bowman grabbed Boyd, and the officers forced him to the ground, but Boyd "continued to push, kick and flail," and then kicked one officer in the head and Officer Bowman in the face.

Bowman then hit Boyd twice in the face with a closed fist, the report said. Bowman let go of Boyd, but police said he did not comply with the officers' order to get on the ground.

Sounds justified. A kick to the head can inflict serious injury. It doesn't matter why he was attacking the officer.
 

whichphilosophy

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
6,803
Location
Travelling through Europe, Middle East and Asia
Basic Beliefs
Energy is itself a Life form
Marijuana-induced paranoia most likely.
The outcome is tragic, but the police were forced to use physical force ti subdue him. He was definitely out of control.

There are other drugs which cause such strange effects. Angel Dust is still sometimes around. However it's not certain whether it was drugs. No doubt a full inquiry will be carried out.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
There are other drugs which cause such strange effects. Angel Dust is still sometimes around. However it's not certain whether it was drugs. No doubt a full inquiry will be carried out.

No doubt. But the girlfriend says they were drinking and smoking marijuana and marijuana definitely can cause paranoia in some people.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,676
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tawon-boyd-maryland-man-dies-three-days-after-fight-with-police/
Tawon Boyd, 21, died Wednesday after spending three days in a hospital following the confrontation with officers on Sunday outside his home in Middle River. Police said in a statement that he became aggressive with officers, who used physical force to subdue him.

My mother once had a psychotic episode (medical emergency). They sent an ambulance. She did resist a little bit, too, I hear as I wasn't there. It's a good thing they didn't send 3 police squad cars to deal with her instead of an ambulance.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will get banged up when you use it.

BUT I have to admit that this is an improvement. They at least didn't shoot him and he was alive for 3 days. If we can just extend that a bit by using less brutal force and not dying up to many years, then it'd be a much better world.

Baby steps.

According to a police report obtained by The AP, the confrontation with police began after Boyd repeatedly banged on the door of a neighbor’s home and officers tried to pull him away to keep him from going inside.

Police say Boyd appeared “confused and paranoid.” They say he also ran to several police cars, trying to get inside.

They should have let him inside so they could drive away without any violence.

Boyd was 5-foot-5 and 150 pounds, according to court records.

Francis-Williams said she is still investigating the incident, but she’s found no evidence that Boyd was violent before officers started beating him.

So he was violent back to people beating him. So if medics had come along and were non-violent, he'd instead be non-violent.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I don't know the best and safe way to deal with someone in Boyd's condition. But it seems to me that 3 people ought to be able to contain the situation of a nonviolent (and he was not armed nor was he attacking anyone) without resorting to initiating violence.

I think this is another tragedy that is due, in part, to a lack of police training on how to deal with the mentally ill and the mentally unstable.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't know the best and safe way to deal with someone in Boyd's condition. But it seems to me that 3 people ought to be able to contain the situation of a nonviolent (and he was not armed nor was he attacking anyone) without resorting to initiating violence.

I think this is another tragedy that is due, in part, to a lack of police training on how to deal with the mentally ill and the mentally unstable.

There's a reason they use 5 to handle crazies and other combatant types.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,109
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tawon-boyd-maryland-man-dies-three-days-after-fight-with-police/My mother once had a psychotic episode (medical emergency). They sent an ambulance. She did resist a little bit, too, I hear as I wasn't there. It's a good thing they didn't send 3 police squad cars to deal with her instead of an ambulance.
How old/strong was your mother at the time? Tawon himself was a strapping young lad of 21.

They should have let him inside so they could drive away without any violence.
Let him inside without him being handcuffed? I do not think they would ever allow that for safety reasons. Especially since they often have secondary weapons like shotguns in squad cars.

Boyd was 5-foot-5 and 150 pounds, according to court records.
A bit short but otherwise well built I would say.

Francis-Williams said she is still investigating the incident, but she’s found no evidence that Boyd was violent before officers started beating him.
So he was violent back to people beating him. So if medics had come along and were non-violent, he'd instead be non-violent.
According to the family lawyer...
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There's a reason they use 5 to handle crazies and other combatant types.
"They" did not "use" five people with Mr. Boyd. From the linked article
"Three officers at the scene tried to calm Boyd to take him in for an evaluation "

Yeah, the cops didn't have 5. The point is that it takes 5 and they only had 3.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
"They" did not "use" five people with Mr. Boyd. From the linked article
"Three officers at the scene tried to calm Boyd to take him in for an evaluation "

Yeah, the cops didn't have 5. The point is that it takes 5 and they only had 3.
So, according to you, the police mishandled the situation from the start.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,399
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
Marijuana-induced paranoia most likely.
The outcome is tragic, but the police were forced to use physical force ti subdue him. He was definitely out of control.
You know that reefer madness isn't an actual thing, right?
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
849
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Bipolar drunk lives down the street. He had a meltdown one night. Running up and down the street punching cars, screaming obscenities, banging on doors. Cops managed to reign him in without injuring or killing him and he was freaked out and very violent in his demeanor.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,911
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
A lot of EMS responders have been spit on, kicked in the face and worse. Imagine the reaction were they to adopt a policy of shooting anyone who makes them "feel threatened"...
 

another1

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
1,081
Location
WV
Basic Beliefs
Christian
Thousands of legal drugs cause paranoia. Marijuana is illegal in most of my country so I'm paranoid just trying to buy some. Marijuana doesn't cause abnormal paranoia unless you have bad brains already. Most people feel the opposite from marijuana.

By the way, the people in the study were INJECTED. How does that relate in any way? Inject me with something and I'll be paranoid because something was just injected into my body. Where do people get the nerve to do these studies and publish such obvious lies?
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There are other drugs which cause such strange effects. Angel Dust is still sometimes around. However it's not certain whether it was drugs. No doubt a full inquiry will be carried out.

No doubt. But the girlfriend says they were drinking and smoking marijuana and marijuana definitely can cause paranoia in some people.

.. and alcohol is the leading cause of domestic violence...
Marijuana is the leading cause for the munchies.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A lot of EMS responders have been spit on, kicked in the face and worse. Imagine the reaction were they to adopt a policy of shooting anyone who makes them "feel threatened"...

But EMS has the option of simply retreating if the situation is too hazardous.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But EMS has the option of simply retreating if the situation is too hazardous.
So do the police.

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.
In fact, in NY, if you call an Ambulance, a cop will show up several minutes before the ambulance gets there to "secure the scene"... to filter out false alarms and, primarily, to ensure it is safe for EMS to arrive without being in danger.

EMS certainly does have the option, and right, to wait until the scene is secure before performing any services... the cops ARE the ones securing the scene and have a job to do, as dangerous and dynamic as it is.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So do the police.

No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Sometimes retreat means putting civilians in danger. That's especially true in suicide-by-cop cases--don't give them the death they want and they'll try to force the cop's hand.

Retreat can also turn it into a hostage situation.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Sometimes retreat means putting civilians in danger.
And sometimes retreat does not. Of course, sometimes not retreating means putting civilians in danger as well. Just ask Mr. Boyd. Oh, that's right, he's dead.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No they do not. They have the responsibility to protect citizens.. all of them, not just themselves and the suspect's.
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.
Interestingly, you did not even bother to look at the other common meanings such as "movement away from a place or situation especially because it is dangerous, unpleasant, etc." Notice neither one means abandonment.
Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".
That will probably be a better solution than to expect people to actually understand the English language.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
to understand it, it must be used correctly... OK, you meant the cops could take cover... fine.
So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,399
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I have a brother who worked as an aide in one of our local hospital's emergency centers for a few years while attending college. He often had to deal with violent patients. Number one rule was "You NEVER thump the patient". The rule wasn't a problem. Too bad cops don't work that way.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
to understand it, it must be used correctly... OK, you meant the cops could take cover... fine.
No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
So you understand that EMS is not obligated to protect people if the EMS is in danger from an attacker, and that cops are obligated to protect people even if the cops are in danger. correct?
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

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.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

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.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,717
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No. Backing off is a form of retreat and it does not require taking cover.
No, the police are not necessarily obligated to protect someone. The SCOTUS made that ruling in 2005.

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.

They are not obligated to protect--there is no liability from failing to do so.

That does not mean that they are not expected to do so to the best of their reasonable ability, though.
 

Crazy Eddie

Veteran Member
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
2,460
Location
In ur __, __ing ur __
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
For some reason, you equate "retreat" with "abandonnment". The two are not the same. And the arriving police can and do retreat when they determine it is too hazardous without sufficient backup or proper personnel and equipment.

Yes. I did equate retreat with abandonment.

re·treat /rəˈtrēt/

1. (of an army) withdraw from enemy forces as a result of their superior power or after a defeat.

Perhaps a better term you could have used was "take cover".

No, "retreat" is the right word here. As in "take ten steps back and wait for the guy to calm the fuck down."

As it stands already, "No surrender, no retreat!" is not even a particularly smart tactic in a war zone; you have to assume your enemy is capable of rational thought processes in order to achieve your objective, and just randomly throwing more and more power into a situation you no longer control will not achieve your aims. So you make a tactical retreat: you regroup, take stock of your options, and either try again with the same tactic or try something else that might work better.

This is basic problem solving: something you're doing is making the problem worse, so stop doing that thing, back up, and try something else.

The assumption in these cases is that PEOPLE -- their presence in the situation -- are the problem. The police response in such cases is to remove that person from the situation, either by arresting this person and shoving him in the police car, or by killing or immobilizing this person so he no longer poses a problem. For some officers, this is literally the ONLY way they know how to solve problems: simply eliminate the person who causes the problem and let the courts sort it out.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
This is basic problem solving: something you're doing is making the problem worse, so stop doing that thing, back up, and try something else.

Holy shit, dude. If you were working on the Trump campaign, your ass would be so fired right now. :mad:
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
4,294
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, libertarian
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.
 
Top Bottom