Rob. And run!

[gryeyes]

Id imagine its so that victims of the witnessed crime can't sue the shit out of a police officer who did nothing? I have a lurking suspicion that the mayor was also the escaped crack head in the story.

[Salamok]

I guess (I don't know the extent of the ruling) that it's so that police officers who witness a crime being committed by a large gang of armed villains aren't breaking the law by not rushing to certain death. Or that undercover officers can't be prosecuted for witnessing a crime that they didn't prevent so as not to blow their cover.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure why it should be a law that police have to prevent crimes. It's their job, let failure to do their work be handled by internal discipline rather than the courts.

I would think that the reasoning behind it is so that officers are free to use their judgement and allowed to consider the safety of everyone invloved.  I can think of many a hghly charged confrontational situation where if I were the victim the last thing I would want is Barney Fife rolling in all half cocked and ready for action.  Unfortunately this mayor seems to have gone to the opposite end of this argument by telling the policy that instead of using their own judgement they are forbidden to pursue the criminal.

Also, IIRC she did say pursue not intervene, so chases are out but they are allowed to intervene in other ways.  Sounds like an extension of many existing policies that say you do not instigate a high speed car chase.  If she was able to express herself intelligently maybe there would be a defensible point in there somewhere.

[NowhereMan]

It sounds like there were a number of injuries sustained during foot chases by officers so she responded by banning them from chasing suspects on foot because it was affecting the department's insurance premiums. She could have made an argument that the department's officers had proved incapable of correctly juding risks to themselves and others or that this was a temporary measure until there had been further skills reviews or training (probably bullshit but at least it sounds sane). Instead she just went full retard.

Also giving officers leeway in terms of whether they have to intervene in a crime means that police officers aren's spending all their time issuing tickets for minor problems with people's cars or homes or taking down names for any of a host of pointless violations people commit in a normal day. If police officers were liable for failing to prosecute every crime they saw they would spend a lot of their time dealing with small and pointless shit and generally pissing everyone off.

[Kitsune]

Full-retards are largely immune to consequences of any and all of their actions.  Just talk to a special ed teacher and they'll have several tales of horror about acts performed by the retarded kids, which the teachers were forbidden to stop.  Half-retards will totally get the chair at the drop of a hat, but if someone's blatantly mentally crippled, they get carte blanche to do whatever.

[Broughden]

No, as decided by the US Supreme Court police officers are under no legal obligation to stop a crime in process.

WTF? Really?

I mean off-duty I can see that. But when they are on duty as well?

Yes, on duty as well. Woman was beaten and robbed in a late night clothes laundromat. Two cops were outside and for whatever reason did not intervene or stop it. She sued. Case went to Supreme Court. She lost.
This was one of two cases before the USC dealing with the same topic IIRC.

[Tebonas]

Thats unexcusable. Sorry, but your judical system sucks! Thats exactly what the police is there for!

[schild]

No, as decided by the US Supreme Court police officers are under no legal obligation to stop a crime in process.

WTF? Really?

I mean off-duty I can see that. But when they are on duty as well?

Yes, on duty as well. Woman was beaten and robbed in a late night clothes laundromat. Two cops were outside and for whatever reason did not intervene or stop it. She sued. Case went to Supreme Court. She lost.
This was one of two cases before the USC dealing with the same topic IIRC.

Should've gone to jail for gross criminal negligence imo. This is, in fact, the definition of it. This places cops above the law and I have a personal problem with that.

Edit: Actually, since she wasn't murdered it's probably just criminal negligence. The fact they still managed to get away with not helping is utterly repulsive and indicative of deeper problems really.

[Nerf]

At the very least, I hope the two cops in question were fired for not doing their fucking jobs.

[schild]

If it went to the supreme court, it means it was appealed at least twice. Which means they lost 3 times, unless we're talking about the supreme court of whatever state. Which means they almost assuredly lost their job to save face for whatever shitass police department they worked for. But it also means they had friends, because I can't think of the worst kind of weasel anywhere that would defend a cop that would do that, and I'm generally as cynical as they come.

[Lantyssa]

It wasn't necessarily three losses.  Either side can appeal.

[Broughden]

At the very least, I hope the two cops in question were fired for not doing their fucking jobs.

IIRC the case was they were doing their jobs; ie they were on a stake out and therefore could not compromise their surveillance to help out.

And please keep in mind Im not saying I agree with what happened, just reporting the case FYI as I remember it.

[schild]

At the very least, I hope the two cops in question were fired for not doing their fucking jobs.

IIRC the case was they were doing their jobs; ie they were on a stake out and therefore could not compromise their surveillance to help out.

That's a great argument for a movie but not a great one for the well-being of the American people.