1. When you say that the mental health workers would heed to request it, do you mean that cops would not be allowed to be present unless explicitly told to by the health workers?
Yes, but they should be nearby since the presumption is that the workers would request police assistance because their lives are in danger.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. The Warren decision explicitly states that police are not liable if they fail to protect an individual, which is my claim. You even agree and quote the part where it says that cops are not liable for failing to protect an individual because they protect society at large instead. And the California law affirms that.
Yet it also explicitly states that they are
liable if they engage in a willful neglect of their duties ("In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C.Code 1973, § 4-121."
). The issue is that the duty to "protect the public" cannot be interpreted as a duty to protect all individuals, one for which anyone who wasn't protected by the police would be able to sue even when the police was performing its duties in good faith. Or else, one could go on and sue elected officials for all sorts of behavior that could be regarded as benefiting the public at large while not addressing the problems of, or even harming, specific individuals ("The absence of a duty specifically enforceable by individual members of the community is not peculiar to public police services. Our representative form of government is replete with duties owed to everyone in their capacity as citizens but not enforceable by anyone in his capacity as an individual. Through its representatives, the public creates community service; through its representatives, the public establishes the standards which it demands of its employees in carrying out those services and through its representatives, the public can most effectively enforce adherence to those standards of competence. As members of the general public, individuals forego any direct control over the conduct of public employees in the same manner that such individuals avoid any direct responsibility for compensating public employees."
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. So yes, you are saying that cops and anyone else can simply kill someone where there are no witnesses and then claim self defense and the law would let them walk free unless the state can prove otherwise. That seems to be what you are claiming.
Yes, that's how it works in some states: The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not
act in self-defense once it is claimed (even in a he-said-she-said situation).
In others, the accused needs only to fulfill a preponderance of evidence standard that he did indeed act in self-defense, because it is deemed to be an affirmative defense.https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste ... ntext=jclchttps://www.swthayer.com/blog/who-carri ... f-defense/https://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0984.htmhttps://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt%5Colr%5 ... R-0642.htm
I'm guessing that's also why it can sometimes be hard to prosecute law enforcement, but video evidence would help a lot to clarify these incidents. And making it an offense for cops to refuse to properly use their bodycams would, at least, make them face jail time for it even if a more serious unlawful homicide charge would not be able to be proven.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the police in combination with the courts and a judicial review created the situation that led to Breonna Taylor’s death. Do you agree or disagree?
Yes. But if we had to establish a culpability scale, neither Kenneth Walker, the judge nor the cops directly involved in the incident are at the top. The main culprit would be whoever didn't collect the proper intelligence thereby leading to the request of the no-knock warrant to begin with, this guy is a cop indeed but he didn't participate in the killing - not directly at least. So why would you place the burden on the cops who were at the site and who (in good faith) simply performed their duties?