| blueash |
06-30-2023 07:02 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
(Post 2230830)
Also - important to understand - he no longer has -criminal- charges to face. He can still be sued by the families of the victims in civil court for failure to act. For those who say "no one should be expected to play the hero" - that was his job. That's what he was paid to do: to protect students and keep the peace at the school. He was a Sheriff's deputy - he accepted the responsibility, then failed.
I don't think he should be held criminally responsible, because there's no way of knowing that - even if he DID act, he would've acted in time to save anyone. But he chose not to act at all, even though that was his job. And for that - he deserves to be held accountable and pay damages. That's my opinion.
|
You never know what an individual judge or jury might do, but our wonderful Supreme Court has ruled that cops have no obligation to protect citizens, period. The only successful cases are when it can be shown the cop actively committed a tort or deprived a citizen of a known right. Keep in mind that under sovereign immunity that cops are not expected to know the law, although your ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and thus they have a nearly 100% freedom to abuse your rights.
The law now, simplified, says that unless that cop was told in advance that a very specific act is unconstitutional, he may not be held responsible for a violation. Unless the cop knows he shouldn't do a cavity search on a woman standing in the open on the side of a street, he is free to do so. And no court can make a finding that such an act was a violation without there being a previous case so stating. Thus because no previous case exists with this exact set of actions, Cop A gets away with it. Then when Cop B does the same thing, because there still is no previous case, etc...
Read this case summary... cops had a search warrant and removed items from a home. The home owner reported that much more was removed and not listed on the inventory. The cops did not admit to theft, there was no criminal trial. The homeowner sued for recovery which would seem a question for a jury. But no... such suit was prohibited because, there was no existing rule saying cops couldn't steal while executing a search. Immunity. and this court could not impose such a rule, so the next one can't and the next one can't
Quote:
Jessop v. City of Fresno, No. 17-16756 (9th Cir. 2019) Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the City Officers’ motion for summary judgment in an action alleging that City of Fresno police officers violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when they stole Appellants’ property after conducting a search and seizure pursuant to a warrant. Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from Appellants’ properties. Appellants alleged, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins. Appellants alleged that the City Officers stole the difference between the amount listed on the inventory sheet and the amount that was actually seized from the properties. The panel held that it need not decide whether the City Officers violated the Constitution. The panel determined that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant.
|
|
