Wednesday, August 13, 2014

So if the police put you in a situation that increases your danger,

then fail to protect you from said danger, they can't claim qualified immunity to protect themselves from charges that they failed to protect you.

Interesting mess.  First part of this covers something that's been noted before:
“As a general matter … a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). “DeShaney, however, [left] the door open for liability in situations where the state creates a dangerous situation or renders citizens more vulnerable to danger.”
Once more, the police have no legal duty to protect YOU from violence.  But, if they put you in danger, or increased danger, they DO have some liability, it seems.

It seems the Chicago PD officers were, ah, let's say maybe not 'indifferent', but 'uncaring':
Accepting the complaint as true, Defendants were recklessly indifferent to Vaughn’s safety. This is not a case where state actors were at worst negligent in protecting an individual from state-created dangers. The combination of ordering Vaughn to drop a stick he intended to use for self-protection and then watching — at a distance of only a few feet — while someone beat him to death with a baseball bat shows a reckless disregard for his life that shocks the conscience….
Think maybe?

No comments: