Five officers shot, 1 ofc dead, suspect wounded in Ogden, UT

[Kamakazie Sith]

My understanding is police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime. If that's wrong, let us know. If it's true, why are they they wasting time and lives on 'crime' like pot?

You are wrong. Where exactly in that article does it say police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime? It doesn't say that anywhere. It does say you can't hold the police liable if they don't arrive in time to protect you. Basically, someone tried to sue the police because they didn't get there fast enough to prevent what crime took place. Such an expectation is unreasonable which is why that ruling was made. Police can't be everywhere at every single point in time.

I've already explained why they have to waste time and risk lives on pot. It's mandated by their chain of command starting with their local government. Police do not have discretion for felonies, which drug distribution is a felony.

And they very often get away with murdering random people and peoples dogs the other times. Now if 1 out of 100 times I entered the wrong house coming home and shot the owner... yeah I don't think it'd be getting away with that no matter what the circumstances.

No figures. No numbers. Baseless accusations. You might as well not even post this bullshit if you're not going to substantiate it with facts. Also, your analogy is retarded.

99% was your figure. You said the right house was hit 99% of the time. If anyone else mistakenly entered the wrong house with a loaded gun, the law would not be so kind.

When I said no figures. No numbers. Baseless accusations. I meant Sea Skimmer, and now you, are saying that police aren't charged with crimes or held accountable when they hit the wrong house. Back that up. Show me where they weren't held accountable. I'm sure it has happened but what was the specific reason why. In order to commit a crime the mental state needs to be shown for that crime.

And the analogy is perfectly valid, and would apply just as well for one in ten thousand. Googling 'police wrongful death' turns up a plethora of cases and these are only the ones that are public.

No, it isn't. The analogy is stupid because anyone else has no reason to be charging into someones house with a gun to seize evidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why didn't they attempt to arrest him outside his residence?

Instead of showing up at night, approach him as he's about to enter/leave his place. He's less likely to have a rifle on him then.

Think "to catch a predator". Get the guy when he least expects trouble.

Of course, even a garand could (loosely) classify as an "automatic" & would be devastating in the right hands. There isn't much that can stop a .30-06 rd.

A search warrant is for the evidence and not the person. They also must be executed within a certain time period.

[Simon_Jester]

Can you not search the house when the occupant isn't there?

[Pelranius]

Can you not search the house when the occupant isn't there?

I believe so. (Either the warrant has so say you can, or if it explicitly doesn't require the occupant's presence. I forgot which one).

[S.L.Acker]

Can you not search the house when the occupant isn't there?

If you can then the police should always try to watch the house, wait until the suspect leaves, search his house, get a tail on the suspect, and nab him once they find evidence with the warrant. Safer for all involved.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

My understanding is police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime. If that's wrong, let us know. If it's true, why are they they wasting time and lives on 'crime' like pot?

You are wrong. Where exactly in that article does it say police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime? It doesn't say that anywhere. It does say you can't hold the police liable if they don't arrive in time to protect you. Basically, someone tried to sue the police because they didn't get there fast enough to prevent what crime took place. Such an expectation is unreasonable which is why that ruling was made. Police can't be everywhere at every single point in time.

I've already explained why they have to waste time and risk lives on pot. It's mandated by their chain of command starting with their local government. Police do not have discretion for felonies, which drug distribution is a felony.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

[4] Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
[5] See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

8th paragraph. Bolding mine.

[Ariphaos]

My understanding is police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime. If that's wrong, let us know. If it's true, why are they they wasting time and lives on 'crime' like pot?

You are wrong. Where exactly in that article does it say police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime? It doesn't say that anywhere. It does say you can't hold the police liable if they don't arrive in time to protect you. Basically, someone tried to sue the police because they didn't get there fast enough to prevent what crime took place. Such an expectation is unreasonable which is why that ruling was made. Police can't be everywhere at every single point in time.

I've already explained why they have to waste time and risk lives on pot. It's mandated by their chain of command starting with their local government. Police do not have discretion for felonies, which drug distribution is a felony.

Thank you, Andrew_Fireborn. I was actually looking for a similar case in Iowa which struck closer to home for me, but I couldn't find it, so I linked the article.

I had friends who would publicly use pot in front of police officers when they were kids to get rides home. One was on a first-name basis with several officers. Often the police in Minneapolis would just wave.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not happy about an officer's death in a city where I now live. And the officers in Minnesota and South Dakota always treated me with a great deal of respect, and I've no personal horror stories to give unlike people from other cities. But this bullshit is costing lives, and actual crimes are getting less attention because of it.

When I said no figures. No numbers. Baseless accusations. I meant Sea Skimmer, and now you, are saying that police aren't charged with crimes or held accountable when they hit the wrong house. Back that up. Show me where they weren't held accountable. I'm sure it has happened but what was the specific reason why. In order to commit a crime the mental state needs to be shown for that crime.

Every case where the police get held accountable, that is easily found (without relying on hearsay), is one where they basically lose control of the evidence. I don't view that sort of situation as equitable. Even Kathryn Johnston's shooters only ended up being found guilty of "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death". I can appreciate that that is an actual crime. I would appreciate it more if it were treated similar to premeditated murder or worse.

No, it isn't. The analogy is stupid because anyone else has no reason to be charging into someones house with a gun to seize evidence.

People have a right to enter their own home, which is what Sea Skimmer was referencing. It would be incredulous to walk into the wrong home, but it is certainly possible to construct cases where it may happen (brain damage, or housing developments where developers and the post office get cute and identical numbers are assigned to identically planned houses on roads with the same street number. "Oh, you're on 123rd Parkway, you're looking for 123rd Place, he's just over there." That was embarrassing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

8th paragraph. Bolding mine.

Yup. My point still stands. The case is specifically talking about protection. The lawsuit was for failure to protect. Xeriar stated "My understand is police have no legal obligation to respond to a crime". This is not a correct interpretation of Warren vs. D.C. Read the article. The subject is regarding specific services such as protection.

That being said I don't agree with the ruling. The police in Warren vs. D.C. didn't check the home. They knocked on the door...which is not enough if you're responding to a burglary just occured. You need to get in and verify that the home is safe.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not happy about an officer's death in a city where I now live. And the officers in Minnesota and South Dakota always treated me with a great deal of respect, and I've no personal horror stories to give unlike people from other cities. But this bullshit is costing lives, and actual crimes are getting less attention because of it.

I agree.

Every case where the police get held accountable, that is easily found (without relying on hearsay), is one where they basically lose control of the evidence. I don't view that sort of situation as equitable. Even Kathryn Johnston's shooters only ended up being found guilty of "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death". I can appreciate that that is an actual crime. I would appreciate it more if it were treated similar to premeditated murder or worse.

That doesn't substantiate Sea Skimmers claim which was "They very often get away with murdering random people and peoples dogs". That comment shows a lack of understanding regarding what murder is. The officers responsible for what happend to Kathryn Johnson did not get away with it.

People have a right to enter their own home, which is what Sea Skimmer was referencing. It would be incredulous to walk into the wrong home, but it is certainly possible to construct cases where it may happen (brain damage, or housing developments where developers and the post office get cute and identical numbers are assigned to identically planned houses on roads with the same street number. "Oh, you're on 123rd Parkway, you're looking for 123rd Place, he's just over there." That was embarrassing.

And if you could prove that the person had brain damage or some other mental illness then you probably couldn't convict that person of murder if he shot someone in that house. Again, mental state.

[Dominus Atheos]

Aren't you the one who always claims to withhold judgement until actually reading the case? Or is that only when the news article is unfavorable to the police?

The   trial   judges   correctly   dis­missed both complaints.   In a care­fully   reasoned   Memorandum   Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79­6   on   "the   fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide pub­lic services, such as police protec­tion,   to   any   particular individual citizen."  See  p. 4,  infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the   public   at   large,   and,   absent   a special relationship between the po­lice   and   an   individual,   no specific legal duty exists.

Mind you, I strongly disagree with the idea that the government is not obligated to serve people and that rape victims don't have standing to sue the police when they call 911 and the police just knock on their door then leave; but the fact remains that the police do have a way of getting out of enforcing marijuana prohibition by just saying they enforce it on any individual.

[Alkaloid]

Is it more a case of the police not so much refusing to prosecute a crime than just assigning so low a priority to it that it is essentially never looked at, sort of "well we could arrest this guy growing pot, but there are six murders three rapes and twelve burglaries I have to deal with first." I seem to recall something similar in Canada, where there was talk about new anti piracy laws that the federal police would be in charge of enforcing, and the mounties pretty much said they wouldn't wast time on it because they had more important shit to do? Although obviously, different laws because Canada.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Aren't you the one who always claims to withhold judgement until actually reading the case? Or is that only when the news article is unfavorable to the police?

Yes, and that remains true in every situation. Not sure why you'd think otherwise.

The   trial   judges   correctly   dis­missed both complaints.   In a care­fully   reasoned   Memorandum   Opinion, Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 79­6   on   "the   fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide pub­lic services, such as police protec­tion,   to   any   particular individual citizen."  See  p. 4,  infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the   public   at   large,   and,   absent   a special relationship between the po­lice   and   an   individual,   no specific legal duty exists.

I'll throw everyone a bone concede that it gives police an escape during a civil lawsuit even though we aren't arguing that. The argument is whether the police can refuse to respond to a crime. Do you honestly believe that I would be just fine if I waved Warren vs. D.C. in the face of my supervisor, my division commander, the chief, or the mayor if I refused to respond to a call? LOL! You're hilarious, Dominus.

Mind you, I strongly disagree with the idea that the government is not obligated to serve people and that rape victims don't have standing to sue the police when they call 911 and the police just knock on their door then leave; but the fact remains that the police do have a way of getting out of enforcing marijuana prohibition by just saying they enforce it on any individual.

No, they do not. It will be probably help them in a civil suit against them from a citizen but again from the very start of this thread it is the civilian government that mandates the police will prosecute drug crimes. They will secure warrants and raid drugs houses. This teaches me a lesson. I shouldn't have entertained this red herring. The existence of this lawsuit will not protect a drug unit from their supervisor, the supervisor from his division commander, the division commander from the chief, and the chief from the mayor. They will be replaced with someone that will get the job done.