1. But if you are focusing on that unlikely scenario, you are conceding that cops are not necessary in the majority of situations involving mental illness.
Again, the point is to limit cop involvement as much as possible in order to safe lives.
No issues with that, and I said so from the beginning
The only thing cops would be expected to do most of the time is to stay nearby, out of the mentally ill person's sight, ready to intervene if the medical workers requested so. They can conceivably not afford to wait 10 or 20 minutes to get them dispatched if their lives are in danger.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I already posted the law, the court cases, and the statements by judges and lawyers taht clearly shows that cops do not have an obligation to protect the public.
But I can provide even more evidence:
The leading case on the subject is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1981), in which three women who were being held hostage by two men twice managed to telephone police and request their help. The police never came, and the three women were beaten, robbed, and raped during the following 14 hours.
The women sued the police, but the appellate court held that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” The women had argued that, since they had twice-alerted police to the crimes being committed, the police had a duty to protect them. But the court ruled in favor of the police, following the “well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.”
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the only duties of care required by the Constitution are those extended to individuals who are restrained by the government and therefore unable to protect themselves. This includes prisoners and involuntarily committed mental patients.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/ ... red-serve/
You already provided those two examples, and (again) there is a difference between negligent nonfeasance (such as refusing to stop a crime being flagrantly committed in a cop's presence, mentioned in the first ruling), failing to protect individuals in a "special relationship" with the cops (such as the police giving directions to this person that end up with the individual being victimized by a crime or the relationship between people under police custody and the cops, such as prisoners - also mentioned by the court in the first ruling) and failing to protect the "general" security of the community (such as, for instance, not having the police properly deployed to deal with crime hotspots or taking too long to arrive after a 911 call). The latter does not create a liability for the police (or else, for instance, you would have the right to sue the police if they took too long to arrive to a crime scene when calling 911 - but if this was the case, couldn't you also sue a fire department if they take too long to arrive to put a fire down or couldn't you sue a hospital if their ambulance takes too long to arrive?)
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. The fact that they have not been charged is exactly why they are free to walk around and kill again. Thank you for explaining why I am correct.
Yet they are not being charged because they are still being investigated. Presumably, you would complain if BIPOCs were charged and put in jail without bail if there was no evidence provided to that effect, wouldn't you?