What's your opinion of Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[David Hume]

Warren_v._District_of_Columbia:

“a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.”

“absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”

I personally think this is probably the correct decision legally, but a bad one for the society. This made gun control way more difficult. But on the other hand, I don't know how we can legislate to change the situation. Creating a statutory duty for the police officers to protect every citizen from crimes is not practical. There is simply no way to enforce, even if we have a CCP level government. To my knowledge even CCP don't allow private citizen to sue police officers for not effectively protecting them from crimes.

I am not very familiar with how other Western countries treat this. But I would be surprised if they allow individuals to sue PO for not protecting them from crimes. In UK, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and Osman v United Kingdom all agreed that the police owed no duty of care to the applicants. The European Court of Human Rights disagreed with the Osman ruling, but I don't think they can enforce anything. In Canada, "The duty is owed to the public generally and not specific individuals, including victims of crime."

[Vosem]

Freedom service; the government is organized to provide services which cannot be provided in any other way, but there is no duty to provide any particular service, because as civilization progresses we logically discover more ways that things can be done without governance.

[Torie]

If the facts were that the police witnessed someone beating someone else up, to the point that the victim was left paralyzed, while the police did nothing, and it is proven that but for the failure to intervene, such permanent injury would not have occurred, would/should the victim have no recourse against the police department?

[Mr. Reactionary]

An example of why we need guns.

[David Hume]

If the facts were that the police witnessed someone beating someone else up, to the point that the victim was left paralyzed, while the police did nothing, and it is proven that but for the failure to intervene, such permanent injury would not have occurred, would/should the victim have no recourse against the police department?

I agree they should, but based on the current legal framework, they don't. And I don't know how to change it.

[Torie]

If the facts were that the police witnessed someone beating someone else up, to the point that the victim was left paralyzed, while the police did nothing, and it is proven that but for the failure to intervene, such permanent injury would not have occurred, would/should the victim have no recourse against the police department?

I agree they should, but based on the current legal framework, they don't. And I don't know how to change it.

I suspect a court would draw distinctions between duties of due care, duties to avoid being negligent, duties to avoid gross negligence, reckless behavior shocking to the conscience, and intentional refusal to perform one's duties. One back door way to navigate through these various categories, is to invoke doctrines or reasonable detrimental reliance and expectations.
Hey, if I had known the police were useless, I would have owned my own gun arsenal, hired my own security forces, and/or gotten the hell out of Dodge and into a private gated community in the town of Tuxedo, a suburb nestled in the hills of Orange County, NY.

One reason we love the law so much in the US, with its legal and equitable categories, the inheritance of the English common law, juries or no juries and when (the Depp case shows how much that matters), the system of federalism in the US with its very different federal and state court systems, jurisdictional and venue fights and shopping, all of which frictions in the administration of this system of justice, the product of an accident of history and tradition, create simply splendid and lucrative career opportunities. God bless America.

[David Hume]

If the facts were that the police witnessed someone beating someone else up, to the point that the victim was left paralyzed, while the police did nothing, and it is proven that but for the failure to intervene, such permanent injury would not have occurred, would/should the victim have no recourse against the police department?

I agree they should, but based on the current legal framework, they don't. And I don't know how to change it.

I suspect a court would draw distinctions between duties of due care, duties to avoid being negligent, duties to avoid gross negligence, reckless behavior shocking to the conscience, and intentional refusal to perform one's duties. One back door way to navigate through these various categories, is to invoke doctrines or reasonable detrimental reliance and expectations.
Hey, if I had known the police were useless, I would have owned my own gun arsenal, hired my own security forces, and/or gotten the hell out of Dodge and into a private gated community in the town of Tuxedo, a suburb nestled in the hills of Orange County, NY.

One reason we love the law so much in the US, with its legal and equitable categories, the inheritance of the English common law, juries or no juries and when (the Depp case shows how much that matters), the system of federalism in the US with its very different federal and state court systems, jurisdictional and venue fights and shopping, all of which frictions in the administration of this system of justice, the product of an accident of history and tradition, create simply splendid and lucrative career opportunities. God bless America.

I think this would need legislations. The Constitution did not mention any of these duties, and I am not a great fun of judges "interpret" them into the Constitution just because we need it.

I also worry that such legislations are beyond the power of the Congress, and must be done at state level.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If the facts were that the police witnessed someone beating someone else up, to the point that the victim was left paralyzed, while the police did nothing, and it is proven that but for the failure to intervene, such permanent injury would not have occurred, would/should the victim have no recourse against the police department?

I agree they should, but based on the current legal framework, they don't. And I don't know how to change it.

I suspect a court would draw distinctions between duties of due care, duties to avoid being negligent, duties to avoid gross negligence, reckless behavior shocking to the conscience, and intentional refusal to perform one's duties. One back door way to navigate through these various categories, is to invoke doctrines or reasonable detrimental reliance and expectations.
Hey, if I had known the police were useless, I would have owned my own gun arsenal, hired my own security forces, and/or gotten the hell out of Dodge and into a private gated community in the town of Tuxedo, a suburb nestled in the hills of Orange County, NY.

One reason we love the law so much in the US, with its legal and equitable categories, the inheritance of the English common law, juries or no juries and when (the Depp case shows how much that matters), the system of federalism in the US with its very different federal and state court systems, jurisdictional and venue fights and shopping, all of which frictions in the administration of this system of justice, the product of an accident of history and tradition, create simply splendid and lucrative career opportunities. God bless America.

I think this would need legislations. The Constitution did not mention any of these duties, and I am not a great fun of judges "interpret" them into the Constitution just because we need it.

I also worry that such legislations are beyond the power of the Congress, and must be done at state level.

Many of these concepts have been around at common law for centuries and thus wouldn't need to be "found" in the text either of the Constitution or of any specific statute in order for judges to decide they apply.