Originally Posted by txleapd
The SCOTUS came about when a family tried suing a police department after their daughter was murdered by her ex-husband, who she had a restraining order against. The contention was that they expected the police to protect her.
The ruling was that there is no Constitutional requirement for the police to protect a single individual over society as a whole, unless a previous special relationship exists. We serve the people, not a person.
The ruling was not the "cops get to thumb out noses at anyone who calls for help, and ignore them" that people like you make it out to be.
As a practical matter, we cannot be everywhere all the time, and protect everyone. So if something happens to you, you don't get to sue the cops, because we couldn't be there to stop it.
That's what the ruling was about.
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I was involved in an incident in the early 90's where I and my doorman were getting the crap beat out of us by 8 guys. 2 town cops pulled up in their car, and then left us to get beat up even more.
After we got out of the ER we went to the police department to file a complaint. The cop a the desk refused to discuss the incident with us and we were told to leave. I figured I had already gotten one ass kicking that night, and didn't really need another one, so we left. We tried setting up an appointment with the police cheif, but he would not meet with us.
My quesstion is this. If 2 cops are not held responsible for leaving people to be beaten, what kind of message does that give the public?