- 05 Aug 2020 18:56
#15111690
Yes, mental health workers would need to request it, except if a third party warns they are unable to do so.
PDs don't control their funding, do they? Again, the law is about shielding localities, not cops.
As for the rest: viewtopic.php?p=15109614#p15109614
No, they can be afforded the right (yes, it's a right) to have a prosecutor being forced to establish a case before being charged and be jailed or offered bail.
I think it's more complicated than that. The cops were after all following through a court order to carry the no knock warrant out and they were therefore pursuing their duties with judicial review to boot.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
1. So cops would not need to be there. I fail to see how this is any different from using 8111, but whatever, there are mire important points: would the cops be forbidden to engage with the person with mental health issues unless the mental health workers allowed it?
Yes, mental health workers would need to request it, except if a third party warns they are unable to do so.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. So we agree that California PDs are not liable of they do not provide sufficient police protection service. Please quote the text or provide a link to the post where you quote the text from the case. Thank you.
PDs don't control their funding, do they? Again, the law is about shielding localities, not cops.
As for the rest: viewtopic.php?p=15109614#p15109614
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. So anyone can kill anyone where no one is looking and claim self defense and just walk away free?
No, they can be afforded the right (yes, it's a right) to have a prosecutor being forced to establish a case before being charged and be jailed or offered bail.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you agree or disagree that the cops created the situation that led to Breonna Taylor’s death?
I think it's more complicated than that. The cops were after all following through a court order to carry the no knock warrant out and they were therefore pursuing their duties with judicial review to boot.