Ok, but where does police obligation begin and end? If the police have an obligation to intervene in a crime being committed does that obligation cease if hostages are taken? Is a SWAT unit exceeding its legal responsibilities by doing anything more than maintaining a standoff?
The article/essay is intriguing but fails to answer too many of these sorts of questions? I simply cannot wrap My mind around how the police are supposed to function with these sorts of legal decisions.
Those are all great questions! Obviously it would seem the police have to do SOMETHING to try to protect the citizens, especially when called for that purpose.
I’m glad you found the article intriguing, and I share your frustrations that it didn’t go into as much depth as you’d like. Seems like a good candidate for a follow-up post. Stay tuned.
Thank you for the personal response. I see far too much of what I would term “casual coverage” of a story from mass media journalists: Obvious questions that are never asked, questions that don’t receive answers and are not repeated, and a rush to get incomplete information out to the public. There is no urgency to post the sort of stories you are covering. You have the luxury of taking the time to get the details right the first time without having to resort to follow ups.
I appreciate the feedback as I figure out how best to cover a wide variety of legal news and topics without getting too bogged down in the details. Believe me, I often have to stop myself to keep from getting too much into the weeds! (It doesn't help that once I get close to 3,000 words, the Substack software warns me that my post is getting too long for email.)
Thanks for your patience as I figure out the best balance! I really appreciate your taking the time to read this.
I think your newsletter is serving a beneficial goal of informing your readers about, what during my school days, was called “social studies/civics” ( which I do not think is stressed much anymore). You have almost certainly deduced by now that I am not in the demographic you are seeking to attract … The only person seeking to attract me is the grim reaper.😉. I wish you good luck and success.
Check out footnote 2. About fifty years ago, one of the California statutes decided to include aquatic "invertebrates" under the definition of fish. So now "fish" basically just means anything that lives in the water. Language evolves quite differently in the law than it does in the real world!
People keep arguing this like it's profound but it isn't. Profoundly obtuse maybe.
It is not "tragic" that police have no legal duty to protect everyone, because if they did, every single person who had something bad to them would sue the cops for failing to prevent it and civilization would collapse under mountains of litigation.
This has nothing to do with the expectation people have for police to render aid when they are nearby when someone is in danger, have the training, the weapons, and a much stronger legal authorization to use those weapons than non-police.
You're on to something. If it widely protects invertebrates, California should be a safe haven for Congress
Ok, but where does police obligation begin and end? If the police have an obligation to intervene in a crime being committed does that obligation cease if hostages are taken? Is a SWAT unit exceeding its legal responsibilities by doing anything more than maintaining a standoff?
The article/essay is intriguing but fails to answer too many of these sorts of questions? I simply cannot wrap My mind around how the police are supposed to function with these sorts of legal decisions.
Those are all great questions! Obviously it would seem the police have to do SOMETHING to try to protect the citizens, especially when called for that purpose.
I’m glad you found the article intriguing, and I share your frustrations that it didn’t go into as much depth as you’d like. Seems like a good candidate for a follow-up post. Stay tuned.
Thank you for the personal response. I see far too much of what I would term “casual coverage” of a story from mass media journalists: Obvious questions that are never asked, questions that don’t receive answers and are not repeated, and a rush to get incomplete information out to the public. There is no urgency to post the sort of stories you are covering. You have the luxury of taking the time to get the details right the first time without having to resort to follow ups.
I appreciate the feedback as I figure out how best to cover a wide variety of legal news and topics without getting too bogged down in the details. Believe me, I often have to stop myself to keep from getting too much into the weeds! (It doesn't help that once I get close to 3,000 words, the Substack software warns me that my post is getting too long for email.)
Thanks for your patience as I figure out the best balance! I really appreciate your taking the time to read this.
I think your newsletter is serving a beneficial goal of informing your readers about, what during my school days, was called “social studies/civics” ( which I do not think is stressed much anymore). You have almost certainly deduced by now that I am not in the demographic you are seeking to attract … The only person seeking to attract me is the grim reaper.😉. I wish you good luck and success.
What California idiot says fish are invertebrates?
Check out footnote 2. About fifty years ago, one of the California statutes decided to include aquatic "invertebrates" under the definition of fish. So now "fish" basically just means anything that lives in the water. Language evolves quite differently in the law than it does in the real world!
How about beavers and otters?
OK, *almost* anything that lives in the water
People keep arguing this like it's profound but it isn't. Profoundly obtuse maybe.
It is not "tragic" that police have no legal duty to protect everyone, because if they did, every single person who had something bad to them would sue the cops for failing to prevent it and civilization would collapse under mountains of litigation.
This has nothing to do with the expectation people have for police to render aid when they are nearby when someone is in danger, have the training, the weapons, and a much stronger legal authorization to use those weapons than non-police.