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

[EternalFantasies]

There:

Addressing cops' confusion over 'the public duty doctrine'.
Jan 5, 2012

Confusion and Conflict
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created, by his words or deeds, a danger to another, is not liable for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.2 The application of these general principles in the area of law enforcement and other police activities has produced some confusion and conflict. The confusion is further exacerbated by widely-held misconceptions concerning the duty owed by police to individual members of the general public.3

By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”4

https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/



Now can we go back to the freaking subject of how the Colonel was not only wrong on this, but wrong from page one?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”4

https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/



Now can we go back to the freaking subject of how the Colonel was not only wrong on this, but wrong from page one?

Whether you believe it or not, the boldfaced portion of your previous post is all I ever meant to imply with respect to a police officer's "duty."

Secondly, it was not my point to necessarily take issue with your contention that a major problem of policing at the local level is due to poor judgment by police officers.

My primary purpose in this thread was to was to focus attention on the widely varying state statutes that mitigate in favor of a police officer's judgment, regardless of its otherwise apparent negligence, and make it difficult to prosecute them criminally while simultaneously allowing states to impose tough standards under civil administrative law (i.e. aka "employment" law) that make it relatively easy to fire their asses. I was always thinking of "civil" law as being disciplined at the departmental level, but I can see that my misuse of the word may have left an impression that state local police officers retain a common civil liability to individual citizens. They do not, of course, which is the very running argument I had with R. Daily over the last several posts.

As your own above link makes clear, however, that civil liability, while not common is not completely unheard of:

The courts, however, have found that police officers may create a “special relationship” with individuals in certain circumstances, thereby establishing a duty of care to that individual. This “special relationship” may be created when an officer performs an affirmative act which places a person in peril or increases the risk of harm. For example, an officer who investigated an accident and instructed an individual to follow him to the middle of the intersection, where the individual was hit by another car, established a duty of care for that person; a highway patrol officer established a duty to an individual when he parked his vehicle with lights engaged behind the stalled motorist, but later left the scene without warning the motorist who had relied upon his protection and was struck by another car.

At the federal level, 42 USC 1983 holds anyone, including state officers, potentially civilly liable for a violation of a person's constitutional rights. It would behoove many here to go read it. But most of the cases involving alleged police malfeasance under this statute have alleged violation of a 14th Amendment "property" right alleging a "taking" of property without compensation. And as the relevant earlier cited cases demonstrate, that level of civil liability will not fly due to the lack of a civil duty to perform or the lack of a "special relationship" that would impose such a duty.

But I suppose it is at least theoretically possible for a police officer violating a person's civil rights under some OTHER constitutional provision than the 14th Amendment to be held civilly liable under 42 USC 1983.

But, frankly, at this point, I don't much care either.

 

[richard_daily]

Whether you believe it or not, the boldfaced portion of your previous post is all I ever meant to imply with respect to a police officer's "duty."

Secondly, it was not my point to necessarily take issue with your contention that a major problem of policing at the local level is due to poor judgment by police officers.

My primary purpose in this thread was to was to focus attention on the widely varying state statutes that mitigate in favor of a police officer's judgment, regardless of its otherwise apparent negligence, and make it difficult to prosecute them criminally while simultaneously allowing states to impose tough standards under civil administrative law (i.e. aka "employment" law) that make it relatively easy to fire their asses. I was always thinking of "civil" law as being disciplined at the departmental level, but I can see that my misuse of the word may have left an impression that state local police officers retain a common civil liability to individual citizens. They do not, of course, which is the very running argument I had with R. Daily over the last several posts.

As your own above link makes clear, however, that civil liability, while not common is not completely unheard of:



At the federal level, 42 USC 1983 holds anyone, including state officers, potentially civilly liable for a violation of a person's constitutional rights. It would behoove many here to go read it. But most of the cases involving alleged police malfeasance under this statute have alleged violation of a 14th Amendment "property" right alleging a "taking" of property without compensation. And as the relevant earlier cited cases demonstrate, that level of civil liability will not fly due to the lack of a civil duty to perform or the lack of a "special relationship" that would impose such a duty.

But I suppose it is at least theoretically possible for a police officer violating a person's civil rights under some OTHER constitutional provision than the 14th Amendment to be held civilly liable under 42 USC 1983.

But, frankly, at this point, I don't much care either.

And yet, you continue to ignore and deny this part of the quoted text:

A police officer does not assume any greater obligation to others individually.

This shows very clearly the fact that an officer does not have an obligation to protect you, which is what I stated before you went histrionic and started slinging insults.

 

[Que]

And yet, you continue to ignore and deny this part of the quoted text:



This shows very clearly the fact that an officer does not have an obligation to protect you, which is what I stated before you went histrionic and started slinging insults.

I n d i v i d u a l l y

 

[Que]

You also conveniently clipped of the part of the quote that indicated a "DUTY to the public AT LARGE."

Which just happens to be what I said. Repeatedly.

Just because they are not responsible for your particular individual safety does not mean that they do not have a general responsibilitiy for Public Safety at large. Which you've been denying. Repeatedly.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I n d i v i d u a l l y

You also conveniently clipped of the part of the quote that indicated a "DUTY to the public AT LARGE."

Which just happens to be what I said. Repeatedly.

Just because they are not responsible for your particular individual safety does not mean that they do not have a general responsibilitiy for Public Safety at large. Which you've been denying. Repeatedly.

That and the fact that his litany of cited court cases are not in any way "about liability," nor are they "civil" cases nor will he begin to admit that Eternal Fantasies most recent link demonstrates how the police might STILL establish a "special relationship" with an individual to incur liability in a given circumstance.

Nope. Just won't go there. Which is typical of people who are ignorant of the law. They just abhor detail. And the law IS all about details.

 

[EternalFantasies]

the switch in subjects happened when you objected to his saying " a police officer does not have a constitutional obligation to protect you " .

And he was right.

So everything mentioned here is irrelevant.


As to your thread, your OP either implies you want more regulations, tighter laws, or you simply ignore a major reason behind the premise of your OP - the increased shootings.

I saw a video once of a cop who just was waiting to shoot a driver, and when he did, he rose his hands, and looked towards the camera and said "i feared for my life i had to shoot him"...

It's a farce.


This subject though, is extremely important. Each American needs to understand why are standards becoming so low. Why is killing becoming so easy. Why so permissible? Why have we become so numb to it? Callous? Consider it part of the usual...

Why do we accept injustices as 'shit happens'?

When one properly contempltes, one will find that either the overall quality of people needs to be re-increased, and as a consequence a police officer, or, more legislation and laws and regulations making us all more slaves.

It means we'll all either improve ourselves, or become more enslaved than we already are. Ring a bell?


Go back to Church you morons!

 

[Que]

That and the fact that his litany of cited court cases are not in any way "about liability," nor are they "civil" cases nor will he begin to admit that Eternal Fantasies most recent link demonstrates how the police might STILL establish a "special relationship" with an individual to incur liability in a given circumstance.

Nope. Just won't go there. Which is typical of people who are ignorant of the law. They just abhor detail. And the law IS all about details.

What they are arguing is exactly akin to saying that fire department should not be issued sirens and flashers in order to get to fires quickly and perform their responsibilities, because they have no liability if they don't get there in time.

"The fire department has no more responsibility than I do to put out the fire at your house therefore they shouldn't be given right of way on the road"

 

[Colonel Hogan]

the switch in subjects happened when you objected to his saying " a police officer does not have a constitutional obligation to protect you " .

And he was right.

So everything mentioned here is irrelevant.

Nope. That's not what he said. He did not initially qualify it with "constitutional" at all. Here is what he asked. Here is what I replied. And, following that, here is his generic implication that the police have no obligation to protect people whatsoever -- not legal, moral, contractual or incidental. It's as if they're out there because it's their fucking hobby.

Police should be obligated to use the minimum amount of force (up to and including lethal) required to stop a real threat. Not a perceived threat, but an actual, substantiated, and immediate threat to life.

As an individual private citizen, that's my responsibility. Why should we hold police to a lower standard than an individual citizen?

Because as a private citizen you don't have a legal responsibility to serve as an "officer of the court" to prevent crime and arrest and detain violators of the law as do police officers. That responsibility places them at great risk when protecting themselves, and YOU, from said violators. That risk takes place on a daily basis. You have certain legal protections, or your criminal liability may be mitigated based on your benevolent motivations, if you CHOOSE to get involved, but generally you are absolved of that responsibility. The value subjectively placed on the lives of these public servants and the innocent lives such as YOURS that they seek to protect is such that we have generally consented to an arguably LOWER legal standard of "negligence" when they make tragic mistakes on our behalf.

That's why. And that is indisputably what the law does.

I'll respond to the rest later, but police officers do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I. You know this, I'm sure.

Incidentally, here is Wiki's entry on "officer of the court" which is the legal obligation I first referenced to Daily prior to his unqualified denial of police responsibility:

In the United States, the generic term officer of the court (not to be confused with court officers) is applied to all those who, in some degree in function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a legal part—and hence legal and deontological obligations—in the complex functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_court

That is all I've ever meant by "obligation" -- that as an "officer of the court."

As to your thread, your OP either implies you want more regulations, tighter laws, or you simply ignore a major reason behind the premise of your OP - the increased shootings.

Not necessarily ANY of the above. As I explained to you in my last post, my objective of this thread was to simply SHARE with people the varying state standards with regard to police officers' use of force that make it arguable easy for them to escape CRIMINAL prosecution when they exercise the poor judgement that YOU (and not in many cases unreasonably) suggested they exercise.

So, it seems to me if you or anyone else want to address this problem of poor selection and training of police officers, you might also want to do something about a statutory "loophole" that all but absolves them of criminal negligence when they actually COMMIT the crime of criminal negligence.

Or maybe not. I already tried to explain to dumbfuck why that standard exists for the specific "officer of the court" known as a peace officer, but his genius rejoinder was that said officers "do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I." And then when he offered a stream of court cases proving his point, he attempted to deny they had anything to do with "liability."

THAT is what started my argument with him.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What they are arguing is exactly akin to saying that fire department should not be issued sirens and flashers in order to get to fires quickly and perform their responsibilities, because they have no liability if they don't get there in time.

"The fire department has no more responsibility than I do to put out the fire at your house therefore they shouldn't be given right of way on the road"

These clowns simply can't get their heads around the concept of "governmental immunity." That despite being in the business of providing public services, governments typically have no civil liability when they perform those services negligently and that, despite that lack of liability, they are nonetheless in the business of serving -- and, yes, protecting the public.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Nope. That's not what he said. He did not initially qualify it with "constitutional" at all. Here is what he asked. Here is what I replied. And, following that, here is his generic implication that the police have no obligation to protect people whatsoever -- not legal, moral, contractual or incidental. It's as if they're out there because it's their fucking hobby.

Incidentally, here is Wiki's entry on "officer of the court" which is the legal obligation I first referenced to Daily prior to his unqualified denial of police responsibility:


That is all I've ever meant by "obligation" -- that as an "officer of the court."


Not necessarily ANY of the above. As I explained to you in my last post, my objective of this thread was to simply SHARE with people the varying state standards with regard to police officers' use of force that make it arguable easy for them to escape CRIMINAL prosecution when they exercise the poor judgement that YOU (and not in many cases unreasonably) suggested they exercise.

So, it seems to me if you or anyone else want to address this problem of poor selection and training of police officers, you might also want to do something about a statutory "loophole" that all but absolves them of criminal negligence when they actually COMMIT the crime of criminal negligence.

Or maybe not. I already tried to explain to dumbfuck why that standard exists for the specific "officer of the court" known as a peace officer, but his genius rejoinder was that said officers "do NOT have an obligation to prevent crime, or to act to protect you or I." And then when he offered a stream of court cases proving his point, he attempted to deny they had anything to do with "liability."

THAT is what started my argument with him.

Contrary to your style, he's addressing why these officers do so, and so, by contrasting two extremes. You're just being specific and following a logical legal argument no more.

His extremes are: if an officer doesn't have an obligation to protect me (see the article I posted on that which says the officer enjoys the same freedom as every citizen of no obligation to come to aid or protect), he more has an obligation to apply the law, then why on the other side of that equation does he rush so easily to shooting me?

Now, will we be able to bring back the social values that existed when the law was written? I suppose not in the short term. So, I agree with you, an adjustment to the law may be in order. One perhaps that makes it harder for the officer to make the decision to shoot.

And yes, shooting a guy in the back running away from a traffic violation can certainly be legalized to avoid. Shooting a kid holding a fake gun... shooting someone under the influence... or ptsd... by God especially ptsd... promote more use of tasers... .

But people took matters into their own hands and went on to shoot officers in retialiation. Why? To make the officers think more before they shoot themselves...

And that's just sad.

How can that be done legally? if that's what the OP's purpose is?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Contrary to your style, he's addressing why these officers do so, and so, by contrasting two extremes. You're just being specific and following a logical legal argument no more.

His extremes are: if an officer doesn't have an obligation to protect me (see the article I posted on that which says the officer enjoys the same freedom as every citizen of no obligation to come to aid or protect), he more has an obligation to apply the law, then why on the other side of that equation does he rush so easily to shooting me?

Now, will we be able to bring back the social values that existed when the law was written? I suppose not in the short term. So, I agree with you, an adjustment to the law may be in order. One perhaps that makes it harder for the officer to make the decision to shoot.

And yes, shooting a guy in the back running away from a traffic violation can certainly be legalized to avoid. Shooting a kid holding a fake gun... shooting someone under the influence... or ptsd... by God especially ptsd... promote more use of tasers... .

But people took matters into their own hands and went on to shoot officers in retialiation. Why? To make the officers think more before they shoot themselves...

And that's just sad.

How can that be done legally? if that's what the OP's purpose is?

Ultimately, I don't think the question is how it can be done legally. Hell, that's the easy part. Draft, debate, vote to pass and sign the bill.

The difficult part is to how to do it responsibly that protects both the rights of the suspect and police officers rights', including that of self-defense, AND his "obligation" (not to be confused with "civil liability") as an "officer of the court" to protect the public through the use of force against criminal SUSPECTS. And, yes, that "obligation" still exists even though they haven't been convicted of anything.

This is a three-pronged problem/challenge any way you look at it:

The cop.

The suspect.

And you, me and everybody else as a "third party" with a very, very "vested interest." Particularly if we are on scene and within range. Of anybody.

But only somewhat less so even if we're not.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Ultimately, I don't think the question is how it can be done legally. Hell, that's the easy part. Draft, debate, vote to pass and sign the bill.

The difficult part is to how to do it responsibly that protects both the rights of the suspect and police officers rights', including that of self-defense, AND his "obligation" (not to be confused with "civil liability") as an "officer of the court" to protect the public through the use of force against criminal SUSPECTS. And, yes, that "obligation" still exists even though they haven't been convicted of anything.

This is a three-pronged problem/challenge any way you look at it:

The cop.

The suspect.

And you, me and everybody else as a "third party" with a very, very "vested interest." Particularly if we are on scene and within range. Of anybody.

But only somewhat less so even if we're not.

We thus go back to my first 2 replies on page 1, and post 35.