The legal standard for the use of deadly force by law enforcement

[richard_daily]

Again:





Liability does not equal the expectations of the citizenry.

Strip those protections from police officers doing their jobs and see how many police officers you get.

Those cases are not talking about liability... They are talking about the officers responsibility to act, and the supreme court stated that they do not have an obligation to act to protect you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You are a lawyer, correct? How do you not know this.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Castle Rock v. Gonzales

etc etc...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

So your argument that cops have to protect us, so then they need a lower standard of conduct doesn't hold water.

Those cases are not talking about liability... They are talking about the officers responsibility to act, and the supreme court stated that they do not have an obligation to act to protect you.

Horseshit.

From your link:

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 theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

OF COURSE the cases you cited are talking about "liability." Can you not READ?? What is wrong with you?

The New York Times lead paragraph "police did not have a constitutional duty to protect" is technically correct. But the emphasis from the full legal context of the story you cited MUST be on "constitutional duty" and NOT the state mandated "duty, responsibility, liability" of the police officers who failed to affect the arrest REQUIRED by the court protective order.

In other words, the LACK of a constitutional duty under a non-existent property right otherwise granted by the 14th Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the "duty, responsibility or liability" MANDATED by a state statute. Once again, this is a classic case of federal constitutional law vs. state law. And Ms. Gonzales, while she had every right of an expectation for police officers to fulfill their RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE the court protective order, she had NO expectation of civil liability compensation for a violated property right if they happened to fail to do so within a specific period of time. Because the state statute never provided such a guarantee. It merely said that people who violate domestic protection orders WILL be arrested. Period.

Now Justice Scalia is well within his authority to minimize that obligation as "discretionary" with respect to federal law under the 14th Amendment. And state law certainly need not extend a "property interest" justifying civil compensation for a statutory guarantee that does not exist. But neither should be confused with a LAW ENFORCEMENT "DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY, OBLIGATION" MANDATED BY STATE LAW THAT REMAINS VERY MUCH INTACT.

But here's the final bow on this package of your legal ignorance. You are alleging that the police have no legal or contractual obligation under state law to PROTECT US AT ALL. And then you're bitching at me for holding them to a lesser standard of performance in fulfilling the mandate I damn well know they have.

Go figure.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dude, you can't accuse someone of mental batin' for the sake of philosophy, and then lay down a Plato's Cave argument.

While technically correct, you're kind of missing the point. Yeah it's about perception. (Except of course when it isn't and perception is a post fact construction to cover one's ass, but that's hard to prove.) You can precieve things wrong. Now... shouldn't police officers, given their legal authority and leeway to act upon their preceptions, be held to a high standard when it comes to not precieving things wrong?

A high standard yes, but not an impossible one.

Otherwise there we won't have any police .

 

[richard_daily]

Horseshit.

From your link:



OF COURSE the cases you cited are talking about "liability." Can you not READ?? What is wrong with you?

The New York Times lead paragraph "police did not have a constitutional duty to protect" is technically correct. But the emphasis from the full legal context of the story you cited MUST be on "constitutional duty" and NOT the state mandated "duty, responsibility, liability" of the police officers who failed to affect the arrest REQUIRED by the court protective order.

In other words, the LACK of a constitutional duty under a non-existent property right otherwise granted by the 14th Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the "duty, responsibility or liability" MANDATED by a state statute. Once again, this is a classic case of federal constitutional law vs. state law. And Ms. Gonzales, while she had every right of an expectation for police officers to fulfill their RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE the court protective order, she had NO expectation of civil liability compensation for a violated property right if they happened to fail to do so within a specific period of time. Because the state statute never provided such a guarantee. It merely said that people who violate domestic protection orders WILL be arrested. Period.

Now Justice Scalia is well within his authority to minimize that obligation as "discretionary" with respect to federal law under the 14th Amendment. And state law certainly need not extend a "property interest" justifying civil compensation for a statutory guarantee that does not exist. But neither should be confused with a LAW ENFORCEMENT "DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY, OBLIGATION" MANDATED BY STATE LAW THAT REMAINS VERY MUCH INTACT.

But here's the final bow on this package of your legal ignorance. You are alleging that the police have no legal or contractual obligation under state law to PROTECT US AT ALL. And then you're bitching at me for holding them to a lesser standard of performance in fulfilling the mandate I damn well know they have.

Go figure.

Not having a constitutional duty is NOT about liability. Liability was only brought forth in the civil case.

Duty= obligation.

Cops don't need to protect you.

 

[richard_daily]

Horseshit.

From your link:



OF COURSE the cases you cited are talking about "liability." Can you not READ?? What is wrong with you?

The New York Times lead paragraph "police did not have a constitutional duty to protect" is technically correct. But the emphasis from the full legal context of the story you cited MUST be on "constitutional duty" and NOT the state mandated "duty, responsibility, liability" of the police officers who failed to affect the arrest REQUIRED by the court protective order.

In other words, the LACK of a constitutional duty under a non-existent property right otherwise granted by the 14th Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the "duty, responsibility or liability" MANDATED by a state statute. Once again, this is a classic case of federal constitutional law vs. state law. And Ms. Gonzales, while she had every right of an expectation for police officers to fulfill their RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE the court protective order, she had NO expectation of civil liability compensation for a violated property right if they happened to fail to do so within a specific period of time. Because the state statute never provided such a guarantee. It merely said that people who violate domestic protection orders WILL be arrested. Period.

Now Justice Scalia is well within his authority to minimize that obligation as "discretionary" with respect to federal law under the 14th Amendment. And state law certainly need not extend a "property interest" justifying civil compensation for a statutory guarantee that does not exist. But neither should be confused with a LAW ENFORCEMENT "DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY, OBLIGATION" MANDATED BY STATE LAW THAT REMAINS VERY MUCH INTACT.

But here's the final bow on this package of your legal ignorance. You are alleging that the police have no legal or contractual obligation under state law to PROTECT US AT ALL. And then you're bitching at me for holding them to a lesser standard of performance in fulfilling the mandate I damn well know they have.

Go figure.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose disagrees with you. So does the text you quoted.

 

[richard_daily]

Or you could try:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S.

Bowers v. Devito,

There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations

Davidson v. City of Westminister

etc. etc.

The police have NO duty to protect you.

No obligation to protect you.

If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.

 

[Que]

Those cases are not talking about liability... They are talking about the officers responsibility to act, and the supreme court stated that they do not have an obligation to act to protect you.

They do not have a responsibility to ensure the safety of YOU, an individual citizen. They are charged with protecting the public writ large.

 

[richard_daily]

They do not have a responsibility to ensure the safety of YOU, an individual citizen. They are charged with protecting the public writ large.

Show me some cases where this is upheld.

 

[Que]

Show me some cases where this is upheld.

Right after I show you the cases for firemen are charged the responsibility with extinguishing fires, but not responsible for getting to you "in time."

Also water is used to get things wet.

Just because they don't HAVE to do something, does not mean that we as a society have not empowered them to do that thing or that you can interfere with them in the performance of the thing that they don't have to do but routinely do in the course of their job. Which is why they have the protections that they do.

 

[richard_daily]

Right after I show you the cases for firemen are charged the responsibility with extinguishing fires, but not responsible for getting to you "in time."

Also water is used to get things wet.

Just because they don't HAVE to do something, does not mean that we as a society have not empowered them to do that thing or that you can interfere with them in the performance of the thing that they don't have to do but routinely do in the course of their job. Which is why they have the protections that they do.

What people SHOULD do, and what people are REQUIRED to do are vastly different things. We SHOULD have politicians that represent us democratically. What we have, is a two party system where only corporations and the rich are adequately represented. Yesterday's removal of the senate voting to remove banking protections for consumers and their ability to sue for violating their rights (Wells Fargo for example?) shows that clearly.

The police aren't REQUIRED to protect you.

I'd be interested in seeing what cases you are looking at in regards to firemen.

 

[Que]

What people SHOULD do, and what people are REQUIRED to do are vastly different things. We SHOULD have politicians that represent us democratically. What we have, is a two party system where only corporations and the rich are adequately represented. Yesterday's removal of the senate voting to remove banking protections for consumers and their ability to sue for violating their rights (Wells Fargo for example?) shows that clearly.

The police aren't REQUIRED to protect you.

I'd be interested in seeing what cases you are looking at in regards to firemen.

No one is saying they ARE.

Just because they aren't required to do something doesn't mean that they do not enjoy the protections that they do enjoy, specifically because frequently they are doing those things that they are not required to do.

 

[daimoniotica]

What people SHOULD do, and what people are REQUIRED to do are vastly different things. We SHOULD have politicians that represent us democratically.

"politicians" only enter office by swearing on their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

They do not swear to "represent us democratically" because there is no possible way they can: they certainly can't/don't "represent" those who intentionally voted against them, nor the many, many more who intentionally didn't vote at all. They can only possibly "represent" some of those who actually voted for them.

Also: socialists, by their political "democratic" nature, are both direct foreign and domestic enemies to the Constitution's mandated republican form of government.

 

[Hypoxia]

Also: socialists, by their political "democratic" nature, are both direct foreign and domestic enemies to the Constitution's mandated republican form of government.

Your use of the null term 'socialists' renders your comment meaningless. And the Constitution establishes the United States as a democratic republic. 'Republic': representative gov't, not monarchy, theocracy, etc. Democratic: representatives are elected by voters, not selected by inheritance, church councils, mafiyas, or lots.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Not having a constitutional duty is NOT about liability. Liability was only brought forth in the civil case.

Duty= obligation.

Cops don't need to protect you.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose disagrees with you. So does the text you quoted.

Or you could try:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S.

Bowers v. Devito,


Davidson v. City of Westminister

etc. etc.

The police have NO duty to protect you.

No obligation to protect you.

If you believe otherwise, you're a fool.

You are correct. NOT having a constitutional duty is NOT about liability. But here is where you are mind-fuckingly dense. HAVING a constitutional DUTY is ALL ABOUT "LIABILITY" -- either civil OR criminal depending on the penalties within federal statutes that deal with the constitutional duty imposed.

You keep confusing a general responsibility and obligation and, more specifically, the contractual obligation between state or municipal employer with police officer employee with "liability." In the Gonzales case, the woman was attempting to recover civil damages (liability) based on an alleged property right under the 14th Amendment that her property could not be "taken" without compensation. GET THIS IF YOU GET NOTHING ELSE: Had she been successful, the city of Castle Rock (NOT the police officer) would have been civilly LIABLE for violating her rights under the 14th Amendment. So that case MOST CERTAINLY WAS a civil case as are MOST cases alleging constitutional infringement.

Now here's the kicker. Every fucking one of the cases you cited above involve plaintiffs ALLEGING CIVIL LIABILITY AND ATTEMPTING TO RECOVER MONETARY DAMAGES BASED UPON THAT LIABILITY:


Hartzler v. City of San Jose

South v. Maryland

Bowers v. DeVito

Davidson v. City of Westminster

Every. Fucking. One.

You insist upon defining "duty" of a police officer to provide law enforcement and public safety services SOLELY UPON whether he has civil liability to individual citizens when he fails to perform that duty in such a way as to protect them from harm or suffering other damages.

That is the glaring floodlight of your legal ignorance. And I cannot fix it for you no matter how hard I try.

They do not have a responsibility to ensure the safety of YOU, an individual citizen. They are charged with protecting the public writ large.

Show me some cases where this is upheld.

Well, had you actually READ your cited case of South v. Maryland, you might have stumbled across it:

The powers and duties of the sheriff are usually arranged under four distinct classes:

******************

3. As conservator of the peace in his county or bailiwick, he is the representative of the King, or sovereign power of the state for that purpose. He has the care of the county, and though forbidden by magna charta to act as a justice of the peace in trial of criminal cases, he exercises all the authority of that office where the public peace was concerned. He may upon view, without writ or process, commit to prison all persons who break the peace or attempt to break it; he may award process of the peace, and bind anyone in recognizance to keep it. He is bound, ex officio, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to jail for safe custody. For these purposes he may command the posse comitatus or power of the country, and this summons, everyone over the age of fifteen years is bound to obey under pain of fine and imprisonment.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/59/396/case.html

"bound ex officio" is legal speak that simply means he is REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE ALONE and no other statute or warrant to "pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to jail for safe custody." In short, to perform a DUTY which arguably "protects" the public.

He is just not subject to civil liability if he does not do so in an efficient or timely manner that prevents all harm and damage.

Now if you want to continue representing THAT as a total abdication of any duty whatsoever, then by all means, keep being stupid.

In the meantime, if police don't have a "duty" to "serve and protect" the public, they sure picked a funny business to get into and an even stranger motto to adopt.

 

[Rightguide]

You are correct. NOT having a constitutional duty is NOT about liability. But here is where you are mind-fuckingly dense. HAVING a constitutional DUTY is ALL ABOUT "LIABILITY" -- either civil OR criminal depending on the penalties within federal statutes that deal with the constitutional duty imposed.

You keep confusing a general responsibility and obligation and, more specifically, the contractual obligation between state or municipal employer with police officer employee with "liability." In the Gonzales case, the woman was attempting to recover civil damages (liability) based on an alleged property right under the 14th Amendment that her property could not be "taken" without compensation. GET THIS IF YOU GET NOTHING ELSE: Had she been successful, the city of Castle Rock (NOT the police officer) would have been civilly LIABLE for violating her rights under the 14th Amendment. So that case MOST CERTAINLY WAS a civil case as are MOST cases alleging constitutional infringement.

Now here's the kicker. Every fucking one of the cases you cited above involve plaintiffs ALLEGING CIVIL LIABILITY AND ATTEMPTING TO RECOVER MONETARY DAMAGES BASED UPON THAT LIABILITY:


Hartzler v. City of San Jose

South v. Maryland

Bowers v. DeVito

Davidson v. City of Westminster

Every. Fucking. One.

You insist upon defining "duty" of a police officer to provide law enforcement and public safety services SOLELY UPON whether he has civil liability to individual citizens when he fails to perform that duty in such a way as to protect them from harm or suffering other damages.

That is the glaring floodlight of your legal ignorance. And I cannot fix it for you no matter how hard I try.





Well, had you actually READ your cited case of South v. Maryland, you might have stumbled across it:



"bound ex officio" is legal speak that simply means he is REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE ALONE and no other statute or warrant to "pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to jail for safe custody." In short, to perform a DUTY which arguably "protects" the public.

He is just not subject to civil liability if he does not do so in an efficient or timely manner that prevents all harm and damage.

Now if you want to continue representing THAT as a total abdication of any duty whatsoever, then by all means, keep being stupid.

In the meantime, if police don't have a "duty" to "serve and protect" the public, they sure picked a funny business to get into and an even stranger motto to adopt.

^^^

The patience of Job.

 

[richard_daily]

You are correct. NOT having a constitutional duty is NOT about liability. But here is where you are mind-fuckingly dense. HAVING a constitutional DUTY is ALL ABOUT "LIABILITY" -- either civil OR criminal depending on the penalties within federal statutes that deal with the constitutional duty imposed.

You keep confusing a general responsibility and obligation and, more specifically, the contractual obligation between state or municipal employer with police officer employee with "liability." In the Gonzales case, the woman was attempting to recover civil damages (liability) based on an alleged property right under the 14th Amendment that her property could not be "taken" without compensation. GET THIS IF YOU GET NOTHING ELSE: Had she been successful, the city of Castle Rock (NOT the police officer) would have been civilly LIABLE for violating her rights under the 14th Amendment. So that case MOST CERTAINLY WAS a civil case as are MOST cases alleging constitutional infringement.

Now here's the kicker. Every fucking one of the cases you cited above involve plaintiffs ALLEGING CIVIL LIABILITY AND ATTEMPTING TO RECOVER MONETARY DAMAGES BASED UPON THAT LIABILITY:


Hartzler v. City of San Jose

South v. Maryland

Bowers v. DeVito

Davidson v. City of Westminster

Every. Fucking. One.

You insist upon defining "duty" of a police officer to provide law enforcement and public safety services SOLELY UPON whether he has civil liability to individual citizens when he fails to perform that duty in such a way as to protect them from harm or suffering other damages.

That is the glaring floodlight of your legal ignorance. And I cannot fix it for you no matter how hard I try.





Well, had you actually READ your cited case of South v. Maryland, you might have stumbled across it:



"bound ex officio" is legal speak that simply means he is REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE ALONE and no other statute or warrant to "pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to jail for safe custody." In short, to perform a DUTY which arguably "protects" the public.

He is just not subject to civil liability if he does not do so in an efficient or timely manner that prevents all harm and damage.

Now if you want to continue representing THAT as a total abdication of any duty whatsoever, then by all means, keep being stupid.

In the meantime, if police don't have a "duty" to "serve and protect" the public, they sure picked a funny business to get into and an even stranger motto to adopt.

Ah, a motto. That proves your case then.


The police do NOT have a duty to protect. You disagreed, and claimed that all of those cases were all about liability. They aren't, and you know it.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

which stems from:

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

The reason that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez was framed as a liability case is because of DeShaney v. Winnegabo County.

All of those cases talk about the duty of officers, and that they have no legal duty to protect you. They can break their "oath" at any time without legal repercussion. As such, that oath is meaningless.

Officers do not have a duty to protect you. The motto on their door doesn't change that fact.

 

[Que]

An usher is given the responsibility and authority to maintain order in the theater and incurs no liability if he performs that responsibility imperfectly.

 

[richard_daily]

An usher is given the responsibility and authority to maintain order in the theater and incurs no liability if he performs that responsibility imperfectly.

Wrong. An usher would be fired for not picking up spilled popcorn. A cop can fail to protect and serve and he'll still be on the job years later.

 

[Que]

Wrong. An usher would be fired for not picking up spilled popcorn. A cop can fail to protect and serve and he'll still be on the job years later.

No, he won't.

 

[richard_daily]

No, he won't.

You sure about that?
It took this cop 23 cases of her not doing her job, in a two month period to get fired.

SAN ANTONIO -- The San Antonio Police Department fired an officer earlier this year after GPS records showed she neglected her duties 23 times during a two-month period.

http://www.kens5.com/news/investiga...-who-drove-away-from-fatal-shooting/264097816

 

[Hypoxia]

I'm not familiar with the legal subtleties but my gut feeling is that deliberately shooting a fleeing, immobilized, or distressed person not brandishing a weapon is murder. Law and punditry may justify such police killings. Morality does not.

 

[Que]

Wrong. An usher would be fired for not picking up spilled popcorn. A cop can fail to protect and serve and he'll still be on the job years later.

You sure about that?
It took this cop 23 cases of her not doing her job, in a two month period to get fired.



http://www.kens5.com/news/investiga...-who-drove-away-from-fatal-shooting/264097816

Yes, I am quite sure.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The police do NOT have a duty to protect. You disagreed, and claimed that all of those cases were all about liability. They aren't, and you know it.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose

Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, s 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: ‘Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.’

************

appellant claims that although the language of the above statutes appear to establish a blanket immunity for acts or omissions of law enforcement officials and agencies, we must construe it as providing immunity only from liability for discretionary, not ministerial, acts and omissions.

*******************

In all the cases in which governmental liability is established despite the fact that the act or omission complained of fell within the realm of ‘discretionary immunity,’ there was present ‘(t)he critical element . . . of a special relationship between employee and plaintiff that justified reliance by plaintiff on the employee's statement or promise.

****************
Even though there is initially no liability on the part of the government for its acts or omissions, once it undertakes action on behalf of a member of the public, and thereby induces that individual's reliance, it is then held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.

********************

Absent an indication that the police had induced decedent's reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide her with protection, it must be concluded that no special relationship existed and that appellant has not stated a cause of action.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1831140.html

"Cause of action" is nothing more than a legal euphemism for "liability." But you wouldn't know that because you are a certifiable dumbass.

South v. Maryland

The action is brought on the official bond [as in financial bond paid guaranteeing the dutiful completion of responsibilities under pain of forfeiture by Sheriff South] of South, as Sheriff of Washington County. The declaration sets forth the condition of the bond at length. The breach alleged is, in substance,

**************************

That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing [i.e. the "bond"] obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.

**************************

This declaration does not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which Pottle, the real plaintiff in this case, was personally interested, but a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob. It assumes as a postulate that every breach or neglect of a public duty subjects the officer to a civil suit by any individual who, in consequence thereof, has suffered loss or injury, and consequently that the sheriff and his sureties are liable to this suit on his bond because he has not "executed and performed all the duties required of and imposed on him by the laws of the state."

**************************

The object of these bonds is security, not the imposition of liabilities upon the sheriff, to which he was not subject at common law.

**************************

It is an undisputed principle of the common law that for a breach of a public duty an officer is punishable by indictment; but where he acts ministerially and is bound to render certain services to individuals for a compensation in fees or salary, he is liable for acts of misfeasance or nonfeasance to the party who is injured by them.

***************************

The history of the law for centuries proves this to be the case. Actions against the sheriff for a breach of his ministerial duties in the execution of process are to be found in almost every book of reports. But no instance can be found where a civil action has been sustained against him for his default or misbehavior as conservator of the peace by those who have suffered injury to their property or persons through the violence of mobs, riots, or insurrections.

***************************

The case of Ashby v. White, 2 Lord Raym. 938, has been often quoted to show that a sheriff may be liable to a civil action where he has acted in a judicial, rather than a ministerial capacity. This was an action brought by a citizen entitled to vote for member of Parliament against the sheriff for refusing his vote at an election.

****************************

The later cases all concur in the doctrine that where the officer is held liable to a civil action for acts not simply ministerial, the plaintiff must allege and prove each of these propositions.

****************************

The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/59/396/case.html

"Cause of action" is nothing more than a legal euphemism for "liability." But you wouldn't know that because you are the dumbest fucking bag of nails that ever fell off the back of a rusted out pickup truck.

Bowers v. DeVito

Plaintiff, the brother of the deceased, then brought this action alleging that the defendants' negligent release of, and failure to supervise, Vanda was the cause of Marguerite Bowers' death, and thus constituted a deprivation of life without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [42 USC 1983 is entitled "Civil action for deprivation of rights"]

********************************

The Supreme Court, in affirming dismissal of the action, observed that while section 1983 is a specie of tort liability, not every injury which might be attributable to a state official is actionable thereunder. Cf. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). Even in cases where under tort law a state actor "could be said either to have had a `duty' to avoid harm to his victim or to have proximately caused her death," liability under federal law cannot attach unless there is the requisite state action for the purposes of section 1983. 100 S.Ct. at 559. In Martinez, there had been a five-month lapse between the parolee's release and the killing. During this period, the defendants had engaged in no direct supervision of the parolee. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the defendants were not aware of any danger the parolee posed to the decedent over and beyond that posed to the community at large. On these facts, the Court held that "appellant's decedent's death is too remote a consequence of the parole officers' action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19801228486fsupp74211112

"A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers." (Source - Wex Law dictionary published by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School)

But you wouldn't know that because you're so fucking stupid you simply thought it was a misspelling of a Kellogg breakfast pastry.

Davidson v. City of Westminster

Yolanda seeks to recover [monetary damages] from the city and the officers on the basis of causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect, and failure to warn. The causes of action in negligence allege that special relationships existed between Yolanda and the officers as well as between the assailant and the officers, each of which imposed a duty of care on the officers.

Defendants demurred, contending (1) that no "special relationship" giving rise to a duty of care existed under the allegations of the complaint, and (2) that, in any event, the action was barred under the immunity provisions of Government Code section 845, which absolve a public entity or employee of liability for failure to provide adequate police protection.

*************************

Conceptually, the question of the applicability of a statutory [32 Cal.3d 202] immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.

*************************

"The parties assume that if we conclude the alleged facts establish as a matter of law the existence of a 'special relationship' (a relationship giving rise to the county's duty to act prudently, and appellants' justifiable reliance thereon) we will obviate the need to consider whether respondents are immune from liability under sovereign immunity principles. Implicit in this exception theory is the assumption the 'special relationship' creates an affirmative governmental responsibility which when breached gives rise to governmental liability

As Professor Van Alstyne summarizes the problem in California Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) section 2.65: "Some of the cases represent an unnecessary effort to categorize the acts or omissions in question as immune discretionary functions, when the same result could be reached on the ground that the facts fail to show the existence of any duty owed to plaintiff or any negligence on the part of the police officers.

**************************

Absence of duty is a particularly useful and conceptually more satisfactory rationale where, absent any 'special relationship' between the officers and the plaintiff, the alleged tort consists merely in police nonfeasance.

**************************

Accordingly, we turn first to the question of special relationship. Since we conclude that there is no special relationship in this case that would establish a duty of care for negligence liability purposes, we need not reach the issue of statutory immunity.

**************************

Plaintiffs urge that defendants are liable under both theories.

**************************

In determining the existence of a duty of care in a given case, pertinent factors to consider include the "foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved."

**************************

We further considered and rejected the possibility that a cause of action could be stated under the principles of Restatement Second of Torts, section 321

**************************

Stripped of its immunity issue, Johnson is a straightforward case of liability based on failure to warn of a foreseeable peril created by the defendant and not readily discoverable by the potential victim.

**************************

Nevertheless, we are urged that mere knowledge of Yolanda's danger imposed on the officers a duty to warn the potential victim. We disagree. The very facts of this case confirm us in our belief, voiced in Tarasoff (17 Cal.3d at p. 444, fn. 18), that under such circumstances the recognition of a cause of action against police defendants, based on a duty to warn, would raise difficult problems of causation and public policy.

*************************

our past decisions teach that it is [32 Cal.3d 209] inappropriate to impose such a duty -- which may paralyze a neighborhood -- under pain of tort liability.

*************************

The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress were summarized in Cervantez v. J. C. Penny Co.

**************************
The tort calls for intentional, or at least reckless conduct -- conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result. (See Spackman v. Good (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 518, 530 [54 Cal.Rptr. 78].) Yet, it is not alleged that the officers acted (or failed to act) as they did for the purpose of causing emotional injury to Yolanda.

**************************

Absent an intent to injure, such inaction is not the kind of "extreme and outrageous conduct" that gives rise to liability under the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" tort.

The judgment is affirmed.

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/davidson-v-city-westminster-28281

The reason that Castle Rock v. Gonzalez was framed as a liability case is because of DeShaney v. Winnegabo County.

No, I'm afraid not. Castle Rock v. Gonzales was framed as a liability case because Jessica Gonzales filed suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. As you may remember from earlier in this post (in the unlikely event you're NOT suffering from dementia), 42 USC §1983 is entitled "Civil action for deprivation of rights."

As the Court noted: The complaint also alleged that the town’s actions “were taken either willfully, recklessly or with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton disregard and deliberate indifference to” respondent’s civil rights.

It was a civil case because she filed a civil suit seeking damages based on alleged civil liability. She was wrong, but that's what she alleged.

But you wouldn't know that because your understanding of the law is considerably LESS than that of an autistic clump of algae.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

^^^

The patience of Job.

Do you remember earlier this year when you and I went through a similar exchange, and I called you every vile name that has ever been uttered in any nation's merchant marines?

Now do you understand my contempt for willful ignorance?

You have since done a masterful job at overcoming yours. But do you see, now? Do you get it?

 

[richard_daily]

"Cause of action" is nothing more than a legal euphemism for "liability." But you wouldn't know that because you are a certifiable dumbass.



"Cause of action" is nothing more than a legal euphemism for "liability." But you wouldn't know that because you are the dumbest fucking bag of nails that ever fell off the back of a rusted out pickup truck.



"A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers." (Source - Wex Law dictionary published by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School)

But you wouldn't know that because you're so fucking stupid you simply thought it was a misspelling of a Kellogg breakfast pastry.




No, I'm afraid not. Castle Rock v. Gonzales was framed as a liability case because Jessica Gonzales filed suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. As you may remember from earlier in this post (in the unlikely event you're NOT suffering from dementia), 42 USC §1983 is entitled "Civil action for deprivation of rights."

As the Court noted: The complaint also alleged that the town’s actions “were taken either willfully, recklessly or with such gross negligence as to indicate wanton disregard and deliberate indifference to” respondent’s civil rights.

It was a civil case because she filed a civil suit seeking damages based on alleged civil liability. She was wrong, but that's what she alleged.

But you wouldn't know that because your understanding of the law is considerably LESS than that of an autistic clump of algae.

That's nice.

Show me where any of those cases support your claim that the police have a duty to protect.

You can't, and you won't.