There are a couple examples. Just do a search for more. A motto is a nice, but not legally biding. Google’s is “Do No Evil”. Right.
But anyway, yeah, if your in your house screaming you’re being killed, or something worse, like a Sandy Hook or Columbine thing, they are under no obligation to bust in and save the day, putting themselves in harm’s way.
I would like to think that many cops out there would do “the right thing” and risk themselves for their fellow man. In my eyes that comes as part of the job. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it. This is one reason why some people have a heightened interest in self defense.
Thanks for the information, that is truly eye opening.
Another question. In both those cases the ruling was that the police weren’t obligated to be dispatched to investigate a situation. Do you know if they have have an obligation to intervene if they are actively witnessing a crime of violence taking place? That might be the differentiating factor.
OK, I sort of vaguely understand this, I think. Let’s say there’s a situation involving, say, a crazy person with guns and hostages. The police don’t want to be legally obligated to bust down the door immediately in every circumstance, yet sometimes taking a more measured approach will lead to a bad outcome. They don’t want to be liable in those situations.
I guess the question is, shouldn’t there be some line of reasonableness? Maybe even if individual police aren’t liable, maybe the police force at large should be, or the municipality something takes place in? There should be a difference between individual liability and the liability the police for or municipality have to keep people protected and do their job.
Eh, all that case really does is bar people from suing incompetent police. It’s totally sensationalistic to interpret that as a general statement that “the police don’t have a duty to protect you.” The policies, tactics and procedures of just about any police department will disagree with that premise. Plus, that case is only applicable in DC.
“Pullen says he suffered a broken nose, needed surgery that required him to miss work, and had a concussion which affected his memory of the events” … Umm … so if his memory of the events in question is affected, how can he know he wasn’t warned the guy was violent? I don’t see any possible way he could win this lawsuit.
It’s important to note:
He’s not suing the wife who called 911 who he claimed did wrong somehow - Nor is he suing the Paramedic who called for backup - He’s suing the Mother-In-Law who wasn’t there or involved BUT whose name is on the mortgage/homeowner insurance policy.
The cops lawyer said the woman should’ve just forwarded his letter about the deputy’s claim to her insurance company in the first place rather than waiting for the hassle of a lawsuit.
See, this isn’t the cop protecting himself or his actions - nor a mode to increase 911 caller responsibility. It’s merely an attempt to exploit some people to grab money from an insurance company who’d probably’ve settled quietly (and raised the lady’s premiums) - But now this shit went public and the cop and his lawyer look like dicks.
"In his sworn statement, the paramedic, a field training officer with the Cy-Fair Volunteer Fire Department, says he requested a deputy to respond “priority 1” to the situation and instructed his partner to tell dispatch they were pulling out due “to an extremely violent patient.” Most importantly, Spradlin states that he talked to Pullen before he entered the house, explaining “what had happened and that we had retreated from the scene for our safety.”