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.
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.