Cops Etc

[William S. Lear]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 19:44:04 (EST) JKSCHW at aol.com writes:
>In a message dated 00-02-16 18:58:27 EST, you write:
>
><<  Cops aren't even under an obligation
> >>to try to protect you if they witness a crime being commited against
> >>your person or property.
> >
> >Can you explain?  As far as I know, PDs have been successfuly sued for
> >failing to protect citizens from harm in domestic violence cases (hence the
> >shift in thier enforcement policy in such cases).  That implies that some
> >form of an obligation to protect must exist, no?
> 
> The Supreme Court has made it clear that states do not have an
> obligation to protect you from private harm (under the 14th
> Amendment). See the decision DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social
> Services Department, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
>  >>
>
>Why is this case relevant here? DeShaney said that you didn't have a 
>constitutional case against a children's service's dep't for child abuse 
>committed, I think, by a foster parent. It doesn't mean that the cops have no 
>obligation to protect you if they observe a violation of the law, evem by a 
>private person. It is conceivable that they have no constitutional 
>obligation, meaning, you can't sue them under 42 USC 1983 if they watch you 
>being beaten by private thugs and do nothing, although I'd like see them try 
>to argue that before my judge, but constitutional obligations are not the 
>only sort. ...

You change course in mid-stream by the word "conceivable", so I'll
assume you have ended with this possibility, which is exactly what the
case concluded (in my reading).

The case was a bit broader than the summary you give: the abuse
occurred after massive evidence of abuse, and after the state actively
removed the child from the home, then actively returned the child to
the home, and thereafter essentially ignored continuing reports from
doctors and nurses of severe abuse.

In the trial transcript, I think it is Rehnquist who essentially makes
the point that if two police officers sat by and did nothing while you
were raped, the police would not be violating your Constitutional
rights.

I agree that constitutional obligations are not the only ones, but
barring state obligations, you are basically left with what the police
come to learn, and often they come to believe that blacks and the poor
(for  example), are basically criminals by nature, and that their
concerns come after those of whiter and more affluent citizens.

So, yes, they are, at some times, in some places, under some sorts of
obligations, often very important ones; but lacking a constitutional
right to state protection from private harm, is, I think, significant,
and that is why I mentioned it.

Bill