Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a good time to remind everyone that in general the police have no legal obligation to protect you or to file charges against someone.

View on HN

Yep. Here are the relevant Supreme Court cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonza...

And a federal appeals court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...

Your comment distracts from the argument of the case that the FBI failed in their duty and lied. This isn't just not showing up.

What would the world be like if they did have a legal obligation to protect you?

If you're beefing with neighbor Bob, should the police station an officer outside your house in case Bob gets violent?

I'm not saying that they should. It's common for people to believe that police are obligated to protect them. I'm pointing out that is a misconception in the hope that will empower people to look out for themselves when the system fails them (like filing a private criminal complaint).

Police may not be obligated, but almost always, if you call the police and tell them someone broke into your house and is holding you at gunpoint, the police will come and deal with the situation.

Who exactly are you helping by sowing FUD about police behavior? Even if it is technically true that police have no obligation to help you, putting that statement out there without any kind of context of how often they will help you even without the obligation is engendering uncertainty and doubt.

This isn't FUD - it's just the facts. It's quite common for police to decline to get involved, especially in lessor cases. The example you gave is of a particular type of serious situation. They are likely to get involved, but the outcome is still uncertain (plenty of people killed in their own home due to a call to police by a neighbor thinking they're a burglar). You don't have to be in fear. You just need to understand that the police won't always help you and there are other approaches one can take if they don't help you.

> if you call the police and tell them someone broke into your house and is holding you at gunpoint, the police will come and deal with the situation.

Very likely, the cops would declare that a "hostage situation" and wait outside instead of coming in to save you.

I'm fairly confident you can't accurately quantify "very likely".

I'm fairly confident that you can't produce a quantifiable metric backing up your position either.

Sure I can. We can do a literature review, identify say 1000 relevant events, and determine the likelihood through that method.

s/can't/won't/

Either way makes no difference because you aren't going to produce quantifiable data that shows police waiting outside during hostage situations is unlikely.

You're right, because I wouldn't waste my time on that to merely convince you of reality, when there is a very low chance you would actually update your viewpoints with the information I could present.

You can't and won't because the truth of the matter is that police very frequently wait outside during anything even remotely resembling a hostage crisis, and a gunman holding a gun to your face inside your house isn't even ambiguously a hostage situation. The street cops who respond to this won't have any interest in running into the building to get shot, and they'll use concern for you as their excuse not to do it. They'll wait outside and call a hostage negotiator if you're lucky, or just yell at the building with loudspeakers until the gunman gets bored and gives up or shoots you in your face. If you're very lucky, an hour or two later a SWAT team might show up, but there is a good chance they'll stall for time too.

I think most people have more of a problem with the fact that “no legal obligation to protect you” means that the cops can watch you get stabbed by an assailant from the safety of another subway car, and only come out once you’ve subdued the criminal and they can get the credit for capturing them.

I don’t think anyone reasonable expects the police to protect the citizenry from all danger. We do expect them to protect us from _something_ however, and the police are currently indicating that they will not even meet that low bar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree

Yeah, it sucks that those cops were cowards, and Lozito is lucky to be alive. However, even if those cops did have a legal requirement to intervene, they probably still would have just watched it all go down. That would affect their careers after the event, but it would have no bearing on the outcome of the attack for Lozito for example.

Let's look at it from a statistical perspective though - what percentage of knife attacks or assaults do you think occur where cops observe it happening, but do nothing about it?

In every country?

The police are the ones who ultimately arrested him, not the FBI.

The FBI are a police agency. "The Police" is not a single organization, it's a collective term to refer to any government agency tasked with policing society for law breakers. The FBI are a federal police agency tasked with a broad scope of investigations into federal crimes. The FBI office in Michigan is the group that dropped the ball on this investigation, but the FBI office in Los Angeles was the first agency to begin a serious investigation, and it was soon after that investigation got rolling that the Michigan State University Police Department started their investigation and arrested Nassar. The FBI later filed charges as well, but idk if it was the LA office that filed charges or if the Michigan office decided to save face and file charges.

I understand the distinction. I was mostly refuting what seemed to be a suggestion that the collective police did nothing because they technically didn't have to.

One organization (FBI) failed, another (MSU Police) did not.

no, it's a terrible time to bring up what is, charitably, a non-sequitur. "oh, it's ok, it just women, so let's not care if they get protection and justice under the law. and it's not even guaranteed, harhar!"

the same with the discussion about the amount demanded elsewhere. "it's just women, why so much?!"

there's yet to be any discussion about the merits of the case, just sideglance comments like these. try to be a little more empathetic and thoughtful.

The point is that this can happen to others. That people should know that they are the only ones truly responsible for their safety, and that these systems people put their trust in can fail.

For example, many states allow an individual to press charges without going to the police. If the police or FBI decline to charge, the person can file it themself. They can also file board complaints to have his license revoked. Most states also have exceptions to secret recording when serious crimes are committed so you have evidence. That's not to say this is always necessary or that it will always work. But it's important for people to know their rights and options.

the point is that this is a deflection, whether consciously intended or not. you didn't have anything more relevant to say so you succumbed to subconscious biases to post this random factoid.

How is it a deflection? This same topic has been seen when it was victims of other demographics. Most recently there has been scrutiny of the actions where a homeless man jumped into water and drowned while talking to police, and the delay in entry for the Uvalde school shooting.

This "factoid" is not random. This is a pattern that we continue to see, that affects many demographics. We need to eliminate these misconceptions so that people know their rights and options. Maybe that will help curb the future damage, or at least allow people to make decisions based on reality.

no, you're posting all over this thread about random other factoids rather than focusing on how systemic sex abuse was fostered in not one, but multiple, public institutions, or about how and why the legal system should attack such affronts with the vigor they go after gang members with. why don't you talk about the mechanics of police looking the other way around sexual violence? anything that's actually relevant, rather than these sidelong glances.

Why do I have to focus in one small piece - the only piece you are interested in? Is it not possible that other pieces are more interesting to other people? Perhaps I'm already well aware of police looking the other way on sexual misconduct, including legally raping those in their custody. To me its old news and throughly explored, and thus, uninteresting to me. (Unless we're talking new ways to change that)

I brought up the "police looking the other way" in the grander context - that they can do this for things other than just sexual assault. This is relevant.

Sorry that you think everyone needs to think nd feel exactly like you, and that other people's opinions and views aren't as important as your's.

i'm challenging you to do better. how you respond to that challenge is up to you. it also reveals who you are, if you care to self-examine.

You seem to be pretty confused about the comments you’re reading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com