Im somewhat amused that Ive been having a conversation with people who conclude from numerous court documents which explicitly say that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect anyone that what the courts mean is that really they DO have that obligation, and the courts mean only that if the police dont do their job, you cant sue them. Setting aside that the courts have specifically stated that the REASON the courts say you cant sue the cops is because they DONT have an obligation to you, what could such a conclusion possibly mean? Any of my lawyer friends want to chime in on this? If courts have found that cops have no legal duty to protect any individual, but only a general duty to preserve the peace and apprehend criminals, does it make any legal sense whatsoever to claim that police really DO have an obligation to protect you? Im curious as to whether there is some sort of arcane legal reasoning that says that denying someone relief on the basis that police have no legal duty to provide a service to you DOESNT mean that police are free to deny anyone protection for any reason, including just deciding that youre not that important.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:08:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015