Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dmm 4414 days ago
Actually there are many cases where the police completely ignore calls for help and courts have found that police have absolutely no responsibility to protect individuals.

The police do however love opportunities to justify large expenditures and fancy equipment.

Many courts have upheld this principle:

BARILLARI v. MILWAUKEE http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995441194Wis2d247_1431

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
1 comments
superuser2 4414 days ago
No one would ever be a police officer if police officers were liable for damages every time they were unsuccessful in protecting someone. This is perfectly reasonable.
link
dmm 4414 days ago
I completely agree. It is every individual's responsibility to protect themselves. The police have no obligation to protect the public.
link
superuser2 4414 days ago
No, they do have an obligation to protect the public in general. That's the point of police.

What they don't have is financial liability for the death of every specific person they aren't smart/fast/legally empowered/well-funded enough to save, because that would be unreasonable.

link
dmm 4414 days ago
> No, they do have an obligation to protect the public in general.

I see your point but I think it's a pretty arbitrary one. Have a police force every been held legally accountable for failing to protect the public? The case law that the police have no particular obligation to protect individuals is well established.

What does it mean to have an obligation to protect the public when the public is made up of individuals and the police have no particular obligations to protect individuals?

link