You dragged in the Drummond case, as though it disproved my contention, for failure to state a claim.
There is no Drummond case. There is just the Pierce case. The case has not changed. It is Sharon Pierce et al., v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., (6th Cir., 1014)
Unlike your incompetent demented nonsense, I can link to an actual case, from an actual court.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
Your legal reasoning is pulled straight from your ass. It did not come from the imaginary Drummond case.
To help with your short-term memory loss, I will remind you of your original claim which you seem to have conveniently forgotten:
[grey_whiskers #201]
Pulling out a can of mace to prevent bystanders from giving aid?AND not doing CPR on a handcuffed guy in your custody, after one of your fellow cops has just told you (on video and in front of witnesses) that he doesn't have a pulse?
That's depraved indifference right there, regardless of what caused the heart to stop beating. You are irretrievably utterly and forever wrong.
First of all, your entire argument fails in a COVID-19 pandemic. You may have the intellect to run around in a pandemic giving mouth-to-mouth, but that's you.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2010758
CPR is resource-intensive and may pose risks to clinicians. In cases of cardiopulmonary arrest occurring outside intensive care units (ICUs), successful resuscitation typically requires transfer to an ICU and mechanical ventilation. Under crisis conditions, however, the hospital may have no available ICU beds or ventilators. If these resources are not available, there may be little role for resuscitation.CPR for in-hospital arrest has limited effectiveness. Excluding patients in specific settings such as cardiac catheterization labs, where arrhythmic arrests are rapidly reversible, only about 25% of patients who have an in-hospital cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge.
[...]
Third, ensuring the safety of personnel justifies selective constraints on resuscitation. Under crisis standards of care, substantial risks to health care workers may outweigh very small chances of providing benefit to a particular patient. Professional society guidelines recommend protective measures that may alter resuscitation practices and the potential for success. These include consistent use of PPE by the code team, performance of intubation by experienced personnel, and use of mechanical CPR where available.
To protect health care workers in a manner consistent with the ethical framework we’ve outlined, we believe that resuscitation should commence only after the code team has donned appropriate PPE, including a face shield for the person performing intubation. Institutions should not require resuscitation if appropriate PPE is not available. If no member of the code team is sufficiently experienced at emergency intubation, the team should perform only interventions that can be delivered safely (e.g., defibrillation and compression-only CPR with supplemental oxygen) until an appropriate clinician arrives. At the same time, we believe that adequately trained responders who have appropriate PPE should not be allowed to refuse to perform CPR out of concern for personal safety, except in patients with refractory deterioration. (Our recommendations assume that clinicians with contraindications to caring for patients with Covid-19 have been deployed elsewhere.)
The cops do not know the qualifications of bystanders and have no duty to permit bystanders to administer medical care because that is what a bystander desires, and in the George Floyd case, giving CPR was contra-indicated by the lack of personnel protective equipment, even if it were a hospital setting and the individuals were qualified.
[grey_whiskers #332] But your own citation showed, that the reason it failed, was because the executrice [sic - executrix] of the estate, sued under the wrong Amemendment. [sic - Amendment]
Pierce was a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT brought against a STATE municipality. The FOURTEENTH Amendment MUST be cited because the only legal reason any part of the bill of rights applies to the States is through incorporation via the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
At least try to read the applicable part of Pierce (yes, Pierce, there is no Drummond case), the part about PREVENTING PRIVATE RESCUE. THAT was the topic you brought up, you senile old goat.
Powers and Downs, like the defendant police officers in Tanner v. County of Lenawee, were not “aware of the would-be rescuer’s qualifications,” if any. Tanner v. Cnty. of Lenawee, 452 F.3d 472, 481 (6th Cir. 2006). To the extent the Due Process Clause encompasses a right to private rescue, the officers did not violate that right in this case.
The reason the claim failed is that there was no violation of the right to due process.
To succeed on the FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS claim, the plaintiffs must prove that there was an unlawful deprivation of a FEDERAL RIGHT.
FEDERAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS are claimed under the FOURTEENTH Amendment when the suit is not brought against an element of the Federal government. It comes from THIS part, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
In denying the rendering of private assistance by persons of unknown qualification, did the police deprive the subject of a FEDERAL RIGHT? No, they did not.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-i/sec-1983/
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018)§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
If you desire to make it a FEDERAL CRIMINAL action, here is what the prosecution would be up against:
Andrew J. Costello, A Closer Look at the Eric Garner Incident, Journal of Criminal ustice and Law, Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 122-135 (2018) at 127:
On the same day, December 3, 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would conduct its own investigation into the death of Eric Garner (Danna, 2014). Staten Island falls under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of New York, which was under the control of Loretta Lynch at the time, before she became the U.S. Attorney General. Federal prosecutors generally charge police officers for the excessive use of force under 18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. To bring charges, the federal government would be required to show that Officer Pantaleo had deprived Eric Garner of his rights under the Constitution or federal law “… on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race.” For this claim to be made successfully, it would have to be shown that Officer Pantaleo willfully initiated the encounter on the basis of Eric Garner’s race under the guise of a state action.The government would have several problems bringing a federal charge. Officer Pantaleo did not initiate the encounter. The enforcement action against Eric Garner for selling untaxed cigarettes was initiated because of 311 complaints, QOL complaints, and instructions given to the 120th Precinct Commander at Compstat sessions. Also, there was no guise of a state action. Eric Garner sold untaxed cigarettes to an undercover police officer in violation of NYS Tax Law 1814. Although the crime is an unclassified misdemeanor and it can be debated whether the NYPD should be involved in such enforcement, it did subject Eric Garner to arrest. Therefore, Officer Pantaleo and the other officers at the scene neither initiated the action nor used an enforcement action as a guise for discrimination.
You must be a Democrat.
You said:
There is no Drummond case. There is just the Pierce case. The case has not changed. It is Sharon Pierce et al., v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., (6th Cir., 1014)
But in your post #328 you quoted:
"We sympathize with Drummond’s relatives, but we agree with the district court’s cogent analysis that the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right. In this case, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Pierce, Springfield Township did not violate Drummond’s rights under the Due Process Clause. Because Pierce fails to state a claim under § 1983, we agree with the district court’s reasoning and AFFIRM its judgment"
See, DRUMMOND'S relatives. So I was referring to the case involving a human being named Drummond. Using language YOU cut-and-pasted into the thread.
Because the issue was NOT the name of the person pursuing the lawsuit, but the actual behaviour and circumstances, of the man who was the SUBJECT of the lawsuit.
Next step.
You wrote again in post 322, the very post I'm replying to:
Your legal reasoning is pulled straight from your ass. It did not come from the imaginary Drummond case.
The cut and paste is VERBATIM (that's what cut-and-paste means) from this link: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
This is the link YOU gave, in post#260 this thread.
So, you're lying through your teeth again.
So, what did the link say, YOUR link, which YOU said proved there would be no Constitutional violation in the case of George Floyd?
Oh, yeah.
"In this case, even viewing the facts in Pierce’s favor, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes.3 He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes."
Direct quote from the court, defining custody for DeShaney purposes, which governs custody for the purposes of Constitutional rights violations.
Oh, yeah, in case you forgot.
YOUR website, for YOUR case sitation, for YOUR assertion.
Read that again with your poor overworked, lonely brain cell.
Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police.
Whereas George Floyd was handcuffed; he had been arrested (for passing a bad $20; and "resisting arrest" was the favorite excuse of the JBT lickers for why the victim "deserved it"); he was restrained -- two cops on his legs; and touched by the police -- one kneeling on his neck.
Your increasing desperation is showing. You're lying like CNN, you're lying like a Democrat.
You're getting caught trivially.
This is even easier that shooting fish in a barrel.