Very curious about something - The US Supreme Court has ruled that no one is entitled to police protection. IOW - if I understand the impact of the decision - the police can’t be held liable if they fail to show up (in time, or at all) for my emergency after I call them.
So how could they be held responsible for George Floyd not getting immediate care? I know the facts are irrelevant because a picture is worth a thousand words; .... so an 8 minute video must be worth about $80 billion of damage?
But as to my original curiosity - can anyone explain that?
So how could they be held responsible for George Floyd not getting immediate care? I know the facts are irrelevant because a picture is worth a thousand words; .... so an 8 minute video must be worth about $80 billion of damage?
But as to my original curiosity - can anyone explain that?
That's covered by something called the deShaney standard.
It was named after a god-awful Children's Destructive Services case, I think in Chicago; it sets a pretty high bar for conditions where the state actually *IS* liable for your well being.
But in this case, George Floyd was in the policemens' custody (as in, "the suspect was taken into custody"); he was not free to leave; he was under direct immediate bodily restraint; and there was *coercive* physical contact, i.e. he didn't have any possibility of going to seek help on his own, as one might say.
So when he said he couldn't breathe, and even one of the cops said he didn't have a pulse, but Chauvin *continued to kneel on his neck*, that I think is what the case is going to hinge upon. This is think is the highest-probability of getting a conviction against Chauvin with respect to this case, which will actually not get blown away by the new video.
But he has other problems, such as getting divorced and charges of tax fraud & stuff.
Not that *that* would satisfy the mobs.
What about all the deaths and injuries?