Yes it sounds like common sense to hold them accountable, but it's been ruled in multiple lawsuits that police in the US have no duty to protect and are not responsible for your safety.
This is true. However, assuming this guy sues, I'd be curious to see how the court handles "no duty to aid" vs. active interference. I would assume some liability attaches when the police actively prevent you from protecting life and/or property.
It’s a complicated legal situation and I haven’t researched it so I can’t speak with any confidence. Having said that, in general, you can become liable, both civilly and criminally, if you actively interfere with a rescue or prevent someone from rendering aid. The complicating factor here is sovereign immunity that limits the liability of government agents from tort liability, so IDK if the police department could be sued. It’s possible that the chief or whoever grabbed this cop could be federally sued under § 1983, but § 1983 suits exist in a limited world of possible claims and I don’t know if this would qualify.
Specifically, under the current law, there’s no obligation to protect anyone in particular. However, laws can be passed to create that obligation. Maybe that’s something that we as a society should consider, at least in specific situations like when children are under attack from active shooters.
Yes it sounds like common sense to hold them accountable, but it's been ruled in multiple lawsuits that police in the US have no duty to protect and are not responsible for your safety.
There isn't a jury in the world that that would haved rule against them.
This is true. However, assuming this guy sues, I'd be curious to see how the court handles "no duty to aid" vs. active interference. I would assume some liability attaches when the police actively prevent you from protecting life and/or property.
It’s a complicated legal situation and I haven’t researched it so I can’t speak with any confidence. Having said that, in general, you can become liable, both civilly and criminally, if you actively interfere with a rescue or prevent someone from rendering aid. The complicating factor here is sovereign immunity that limits the liability of government agents from tort liability, so IDK if the police department could be sued. It’s possible that the chief or whoever grabbed this cop could be federally sued under § 1983, but § 1983 suits exist in a limited world of possible claims and I don’t know if this would qualify.
Specifically, under the current law, there’s no obligation to protect anyone in particular. However, laws can be passed to create that obligation. Maybe that’s something that we as a society should consider, at least in specific situations like when children are under attack from active shooters.