"Fun" fact. I seem to remember a court case similar to this where the guy sued and lost because the courts found there is no duty to protect in a situation like this.
It's Warren. Which basically says the police aren't responsible for the health of the general public, unless there's a special circumstance. So ironically a criminal in custody would be more protected by police than a normal citizen
Curious if the victim would have a case if he sued the city for failing to protect him from a violent mob? A legal statement saying "the city is under no obligation to protect you" would be yet another justification for the second amendment.
"Fun" fact. I seem to remember a court case similar to this where the guy sued and lost because the courts found there is no duty to protect in a situation like this.
Which one? Was it Warren v. District of Columbia? Or Castle Rock v. Gonzales?
It's Warren. Which basically says the police aren't responsible for the health of the general public, unless there's a special circumstance. So ironically a criminal in custody would be more protected by police than a normal citizen
Then there should be no duty to obey an officer when an uninvolved member of the public is not present.
"I need your I.D."
"No, you want my I.D."
Curious if the victim would have a case if he sued the city for failing to protect him from a violent mob? A legal statement saying "the city is under no obligation to protect you" would be yet another justification for the second amendment.