Good Samaritans Fined After Rescuing Deer From Icy Water

[Keyser Soze]

you do know the police have no obligation to help someone right? there only there to investigate the crime and take witness statements. You need to find another forum to go troll in if you can't take peoples opinions.

I dont mind peoples opinions but you absolutly have a duty to act. I just listed 5 failure to act lawsuits. This is what I am talking about...You have ZERO clue about leo but you start talking about something you believe to be a fact probably because of some left wing youtube video you watched. It would be like me talking about the inter workings of a kimber.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I would encourage the deer to sue that DNR officer for not diving in the icy water with the upstanding citizens.

I thought it was bad enough that its a criminal action to "not wear your arm floaties." Now I am informed that it is also a criminal offense to be a bystander. God have mercy on this country. Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.

I am not speaking about bystanders. I am talking about the LEOs present. Did you not read for comprehension ? They were on the scene. Civilians do not have a duty to act?

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

im done with you. on to the next one.

 

[jedi]

I would encourage the deer to sue that DNR officer for not diving in the icy water with the upstanding citizens.

I thought it was bad enough that its a criminal action to "not wear your arm floaties." Now I am informed that it is also a criminal offense to be a bystander. God have mercy on this country. Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.

I think PETA has sued on behave of animals in fed court so I'm sure PETA can sued the DNR on behalf of the deer for you rambone!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

South v. Maryland
Bradshaw v. Prince George's County
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County

Leo's/cities countys sued for failure to act.


I gaurentee there would have been a law suit if someone would have fallen through that ice and got hurt. Why didnt the cops stop them?

Yes they were sued. The people suing lost every one. As have virtually every one that has tried to sue a county/city/leo for failure to act.

I dont mind peoples opinions but you absolutly have a duty to act. I just listed 5 failure to act lawsuits.

Again the courts have found time and time again, that LEO have no obligation to protect a person. Except perhaps in a few very limited instances. Such as when granted police protection of a witness(and I'm not even sure about that).

For instance see Warren v DC.
2 women heard some men break in and start raping their roommate, they called police repeatedly over the course of a half hour. They never showed up. After their roommate stopped screaming they thought the police had arrived so they went down to check. They were wrong, and all three of them were tortured and raped repeatedly for something like 14 hrs. During that time the police never showed up. They had"'lost track" of the repeated calls.

The court found that "the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals"

Oh and you listed 3, but who's counting.

 

[ak keep the second]

Yes they were sued. The people suing lost every one. As have virtually every one that has tried to sue a county/city/leo for failure to act.



Again the courts have found time and time again, that LEO have no obligation to protect a person. Except perhaps in a few very limited instances. Such as when granted police protection of a witness(and I'm not even sure about that).

For instance see Warren v DC.
2 women heard some men break in and start raping their roommate, they called police repeatedly over the course of a half hour. They never showed up. After their roommate stopped screaming they thought the police had arrived so they went down to check. They were wrong, and all three of them were tortured and raped repeatedly for something like 14 hrs. During that time the police never showed up. They had"'lost track" of the repeated calls.

The court found that "the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals"

Oh and you listed 3, but who's counting.

Thanks for this great post I was planning on reading the cases but you saved me some time and laid down the back hand before I could +1!!! It is clear that keyser soze hasn't read the cases as I had expected. Thanks for pointing out how none of those cases supported his ignorant theory that LEO's have a legal responsibly to provide personal protection. This was a topic that came up in a Law and Public Affairs class I took this last semester and my professor/Monroe County Prosecutor made it clear that an LEO is not required by law to provide personal protection. But I guess some people who like to live in a nanny state would argue otherwise.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Yes they were sued. The people suing lost every one. As have virtually every one that has tried to sue a county/city/leo for failure to act.



Again the courts have found time and time again, that LEO have no obligation to protect a person. Except perhaps in a few very limited instances. Such as when granted police protection of a witness(and I'm not even sure about that).

For instance see Warren v DC.
2 women heard some men break in and start raping their roommate, they called police repeatedly over the course of a half hour. They never showed up. After their roommate stopped screaming they thought the police had arrived so they went down to check. They were wrong, and all three of them were tortured and raped repeatedly for something like 14 hrs. During that time the police never showed up. They had"'lost track" of the repeated calls.

The court found that "the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals"

Oh and you listed 3, but who's counting.

Thanks for the report on the court decisions. It really helps to hear the whole story.

 

[Clay]

huh.... kinda like Indiana seat belt laws. both are a bunch of BS.

 

[kedie]

Good on them for saving that deer. If it was that big of a deal the cop should have stopped them before they went out into the water.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Yes they were sued. The people suing lost every one. As have virtually every one that has tried to sue a county/city/leo for failure to act.



Again the courts have found time and time again, that LEO have no obligation to protect a person. Except perhaps in a few very limited instances. Such as when granted police protection of a witness(and I'm not even sure about that).

For instance see Warren v DC.
2 women heard some men break in and start raping their roommate, they called police repeatedly over the course of a half hour. They never showed up. After their roommate stopped screaming they thought the police had arrived so they went down to check. They were wrong, and all three of them were tortured and raped repeatedly for something like 14 hrs. During that time the police never showed up. They had"'lost track" of the repeated calls.

The court found that "the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals"

Oh and you listed 3, but who's counting.

Folks, I think there's some misinterpretation concerning this court case.

I'm quite familiar with these cases and have frequently cited them when making speeches in support of gun rights.

There is a difference between failure to act on the part of an agency and failure to act on the part of an individual officer.

In the Warren case there was a breakdown in communication wherein the officers simply could not locate the young women who were being attacked. It is not true that they "didn't show up." The officers were acting in good faith. They can't be expected to act in a case where they are unable to determine that a crime is taking place, and that court decision was completely appropriate.

If an individual officer DOES determine that something is taking place and deliberately fails to take appropriate action, that a completely different story.

If someone runs into a cafe and tells an officer that a woman is being attacked around the corner, and he responds that he'll look into it after he finishes his coffee, he and his agency both are going to be in trouble. The officer is guilty of a CRIMINAL dereliction of duty, and he'll be civilly liable as will his agency.

If the officer had no way of knowing that the attack was taking place, then neither he or his agency can be held liable. This is only common sense.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Folks, I think there's some misinterpretation concerning this court case.

I'm quite familiar with these cases and have frequently cited them when making speeches in support of gun rights.

There is a difference between failure to act on the part of an agency and failure to act on the part of an individual officer.

In the Warren case there was a breakdown in communication wherein the officers simply could not locate the young women who were being attacked. It is not true that they "didn't show up." The officers were acting in good faith. They can't be expected to act in a case where they are unable to determine that a crime is taking place, and that court decision was completely appropriate.

If an individual officer DOES determine that something is taking place and deliberately fails to take appropriate action, that a completely different story.

If someone runs into a cafe and tells an officer that a woman is being attacked around the corner, and he responds that he'll look into it after he finishes his coffee, he and his agency both are going to be in trouble. The officer is guilty of a CRIMINAL dereliction of duty, and he'll be civilly liable as will his agency.

If the officer had no way of knowing that the attack was taking place, then neither he or his agency can be held liable. This is only common sense.

+1 They were probably only reading a summary of the cases since that is typically what you find.

 

[Ashkelon]

I just can't figure out why the heck any sane person would venture out onto the ice to save a deer? Maybe if I were homeless and saw a hundred pounds of free meat but to risk two human lives for a deer? Not sure who is more the dumbarse the two twits floating around to get a deer or the DNR nit issuing tickets for lack of life vests. Sheesh.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Folks, I think there's some misinterpretation concerning this court case.

In the Warren case there was a breakdown in communication wherein the officers simply could not locate the young women who were being attacked. It is not true that they "didn't show up." The officers were acting in good faith. They can't be expected to act in a case where they are unable to determine that a crime is taking place, and that court decision was completely appropriate.

If an individual officer DOES determine that something is taking place and deliberately fails to take appropriate action, that a completely different story.

If someone runs into a cafe and tells an officer that a woman is being attacked around the corner, and he responds that he'll look into it after he finishes his coffee, he and his agency both are going to be in trouble. The officer is guilty of a CRIMINAL dereliction of duty, and he'll be civilly liable as will his agency.

I stand corrected on part, I was going by memory. The officers did show up for the first call. How they responded when they got their was part of the suit stating negligence on their part. One of the officers just drove down the alley, never stopped or even leaned out the window to check the back door, another just walked up and knocked on the door received no answer and left. At no time did they check the windows or back door. The second call was never dispatched at all.

From the opinion in Warren citing another case

Dereliction in the performance of police duties may,
therefore, be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and
not in a private suit for money damages.
Massengill, supra.

And it is quite possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe IN has criminal dereliction of duty. And according to IC IC 34-13-3-3 Immunity of governmental entity or employee
Sec. 3. A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following:
(8) The adoption and enforcement of (bold mine)or failure to adopt or enforce a law (including rules and regulations), unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment.

+1 They were probably only reading a summary of the cases since that is typically what you find.

Nope I always try to read at least the full opinion and when I can the arguments. I look for the full opinion because sometimes the summaries can be a bit misleading.

Are you saying that I was incorrect that in the three cases you cited none of them was found liable.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I stand corrected on part, I was going by memory. The officers did show up for the first call. How they responded when they got their was part of the suit stating negligence on their part. One of the officers just drove down the alley, never stopped or even leaned out the window to check the back door, another just walked up and knocked on the door received no answer and left. At no time did they check the windows or back door. The second call was never dispatched at all.

From the opinion in Warren citing another case
And it is quite possible that I am wrong, but I don't believe IN has criminal dereliction of duty. And according to IC IC 34-13-3-3 Immunity of governmental entity or employee
Sec. 3. A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following:
(8) The adoption and enforcement of (bold mine)or failure to adopt or enforce a law (including rules and regulations), unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment.



Nope I always try to read at least the full opinion and when I can the arguments. I look for the full opinion because sometimes the summaries can be a bit misleading.

Are you saying that I was incorrect that in the three cases you cited none of them was found liable.

I stand corrected on Indiana law. In Ohio where I served in law enforcement it was a criminal offense for a public official to be knowingly derelict in his duty, such as a LEO failing to act to intervene in a crime.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I don't know anything I have not experienced. Unlike some people on here I dont pretend like I do. I came here to LEARN more about guns...Maybe hit up some of these classes outside of the standard range training. All the negative LEO stuff on here is crazy. I ASSUMED since everyone I personally know who enjoys guns are good people it would be more of the same on here. Its crazy to think there are so many people on here that have guns and despise the gov/leos. I don't think things are perfect or what they onces were but have been to other countries.....this is by far the best one. Anyway not trying to hijack thread just my

yeah your right it is. so why dont you talk to your dirty colleges about it instead of trying to pass blame onto innocent civilians who are just fed up with LEO abuses?
If the citizens are forced to have the "talk" with them, then I assure you the outcome will not be as ....... informal.

OATH KEEPERS!

 

[John Galt]

Citing previous law is great and all, but I believe we have gotten so far away from Natural Law that we are on the path to ruin. Two men, of sound mind, took it upon themselves to do a noble deed and save a life and they get fined for a BS reason. Cite any precedent you want, I don't care, but this is wrong. I believe the Federal Registar is over 70,000 pages of "laws", and with this many "laws", I'm sure that everyone of us is a "law" breaker at some point during the week.
If the foundation of a structure is weak, are you going to keep building on it - "Hey, let's add 5 more stories to the Leaning Tower of Pisa!"? The same goes with stupid "laws". But this is only indicative of the larger picture of where our society is heading. Remember this summer during the BP oil spill and the federal government was in full display of their incompetency in front of the entire world? Governor Jindall tried to go out in small boats to suck up the oil and the "law" wouldn't let him because he didn't have enough life preservers.
And for you, Keyser Soze, to think that you're going to get a free pass when you infringe upon our NATURAL RIGHTS just because you're a police officer, you won't find too much sympathy here. I have all the respect in the world for police officers that risk their lives to protect our Constitutional rights, but those that hide behind a badge and think they have a "right" to infringe upon my "rights" because of said badge make them as much a tyrant in my book as any.

 

[ocsdor]

Can you give me an example of a witness being punished for being a witness?

Haven't you seen the last episode of Seinfeld?

 

[Keyser Soze]

Citing previous law is great and all, but I believe we have gotten so far away from Natural Law that we are on the path to ruin. Two men, of sound mind, took it upon themselves to do a noble deed and save a life and they get fined for a BS reason. Cite any precedent you want, I don't care, but this is wrong. I believe the Federal Registar is over 70,000 pages of "laws", and with this m,any "laws", I'm sure that everyone of us is a "law" breaker at some point during the week.
If the foundation of a structure is weak, are you going to keep building on it - "Hey, let's add 5 more stories to the Leaning Tower of Pisa!"? The same goes with stupid "laws". But this is only indicative of the larger picture of where our society is heading. Remember this summer during the BP oil spill and the federal government was in full display of their incompetency in front of the entire world? Governor Jindall tried to go out in small boats to suck up the oil and the "law" wouldn't let him because he didn't have enough life preservers.
And for you, Keyser Soze, to think that you're going to get a free pass when you infringe upon our NATURAL RIGHTS just because you're a police officer, you won't find too much sympathy here. I have all the respect in the world for police officers that risk their lives to protect our Constitutional rights, but those that hide behind a badge and think they have a "right" to infringe upon my "rights" because of said badge make them as much a tyrant in my book as any.

I don't know what the hell makes you think I have infringed upon your natural rights...paranoia?....Illuminati reptilians and new world order must be knocking at your door

 

[rambone]

Haven't you seen the last episode of Seinfeld?

I thought that was based on fiction...

I don't know what the hell makes you think I have infringed upon your natural rights...paranoia?....Illuminati reptilians and new world order must be knocking at your door

We need to try a little harder to separate people expressing their concerns about their rights, and the folks discussing reptiles. They are not synonymous.

 

[John Galt]

I don't know what the hell makes you think I have infringed upon your natural rights...paranoia?....Illuminati reptilians and new world order must be knocking at your door

You personally have not infringed upon my rights, but others like you have. One of your first posts on here was expressing incredulity at the fact that leo's were getting slammed, and judging from your progressive posting, I feel pretty confident that you fit into that category of those that get slammed. I hope I'm wrong, but your confrontational, arrogant posts lead me to believe otherwise.
I am not paranoid, only cognizant of people with badges and egos that feel the need to impose their will on others under the false pretense of following some arbitrary law. Look around and start paying a little bit closer attention to what is going on in the world/America right now. The world is bankrupt and our leaders are hooked on spending their way out of it. It can't be done and when the inevitable consequences of this debt/spending starts bearing down on everyone, and it will, it's the judgementally-challenged people with badges, such as yourself Mr. Officer, who will be following blind "orders" from their "bosses" who will continue to shred the Constitution more so than what they are doing now in order to maintain the charade that concern me.