Does A Supreme Court Ruling Prevent Parents From Holding Police Legally Accountable??

[Biff_Poindexter]

The Disturbing Reason the Uvalde Police Won’t Be Held Accountable

Thanks to an old Supreme Court case, Uvalde parents will have a hard time convincing courts to hold police liable for failing to protect their kids.

www.thenation.com

"Republicans are reluctant to blame the overfunded, heavily armed police for their cowardice in the face of actual danger. Instead, they’ve blamed just about everything else. Ted Cruz traveled to Texas to blame Robb Elementary for having too many doors, which should give people a sense of how unserious the Republican Party is when it comes to protecting children.The sad reality is that police chief Pete Arredondo (currently in hiding) and his officers will likely escape any legal accountability or even punishment for their actions. That’s because in the United States, the police have no duty to protect children, that sorry fact isn’t the fault of Congress, or even the state or local governments, which are primarily responsible for policing. The blame lies, once again, with conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The reason for that goes back to a case called DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, William Rehnquist ruled that the state’s failure to protect a child from “private violence” was not a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution. According to Rehnquist, the protections of “life, liberty, and property” do not mean that the state has to actively protect these things. I actually agree with this first part of Rehnquist’s ruling -- it’s the rest of the opinion where Rehnquist gets it all wrong. Rehnquist argues that the state had no “special relationship” with the child, and thus had no affirmative duty to protect him. That is some cursed logic. The state does, or should, have a duty to prevent crime when it is aware that crime is being committed and it is the only entity that can step in and stop it."

So will this ruling -- which was actually aimed at Child Protective Services, could that ruling be used to shield police departments like Uvalde or officers like Chief Arredondo from accountability? Governor Abbott has the power to fire Arrendondo today, but still hasn't.....They are basically protecting the guy or at least giving him a chance to pull down as many paychecks as possible until it is no longer tenable to keep him employed.

 

[Dekster]

There have been similar cases like the fire department has no duty to save your house, and other police cases. All that said, the school system will probably reach a settlement at some point with the families.

 

[Concerned American]

All that said, the school system will probably reach a settlement at some point with the families.

Blood money. Like a settlement makes things all better. This line of thought is getting ridiculous.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Disturbing Reason the Uvalde Police Won’t Be Held Accountable

Thanks to an old Supreme Court case, Uvalde parents will have a hard time convincing courts to hold police liable for failing to protect their kids.

www.thenation.com

"Republicans are reluctant to blame the overfunded, heavily armed police for their cowardice in the face of actual danger. Instead, they’ve blamed just about everything else. Ted Cruz traveled to Texas to blame Robb Elementary for having too many doors, which should give people a sense of how unserious the Republican Party is when it comes to protecting children.The sad reality is that police chief Pete Arredondo (currently in hiding) and his officers will likely escape any legal accountability or even punishment for their actions. That’s because in the United States, the police have no duty to protect children, that sorry fact isn’t the fault of Congress, or even the state or local governments, which are primarily responsible for policing. The blame lies, once again, with conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The reason for that goes back to a case called DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. Writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, William Rehnquist ruled that the state’s failure to protect a child from “private violence” was not a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution. According to Rehnquist, the protections of “life, liberty, and property” do not mean that the state has to actively protect these things. I actually agree with this first part of Rehnquist’s ruling -- it’s the rest of the opinion where Rehnquist gets it all wrong. Rehnquist argues that the state had no “special relationship” with the child, and thus had no affirmative duty to protect him. That is some cursed logic. The state does, or should, have a duty to prevent crime when it is aware that crime is being committed and it is the only entity that can step in and stop it."

So will this ruling -- which was actually aimed at Child Protective Services, could that ruling be used to shield police departments like Uvalde or officers like Chief Arredondo from accountability? Governor Abbott has the power to fire Arrendondo today, but still hasn't.....They are basically protecting the guy or at least giving him a chance to pull down as many paychecks as possible until it is no longer tenable to keep him employed.

The state is not the parent. The duty to protect belongs to the parent. You're missing the reasonable clause. Is it reasonable for a school to protect your child? How can they do this with teaches and class sizes of 25-40? IT is not reasonable. You can expect it but it doesn't make it reasonable.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone else "surprised" that this is more about protecting the police rather than the children?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Anyone else "surprised" that this is more about protecting the police rather than the children?

I guess being reasonable isn't good for your agenda... demonize the cops... defund the cops... oooohhhh that will make it all better... Moron... This is why security in schools is so important, but you want to make it all about officers and cowards... Yes, we need to deal with the cowards but let's use our resources to protect our children instead of being stupid.

 

[lennypartiv]

Another liberal blaming the police.

 

[Mac-7]

Anyone else "surprised" that this is more about protecting the police rather than the children?

My position on protecting children in school is that the kids deserve at least as much police protection as any fat ass judge at the local county courthouse who has cops surrounding the building when its open for business

 

[whitehall]

Winnebago social services? Where do lefties find this stuff?