Replies

"Actually, that is not true. If the police fail to protect you, they are not liable. There is no "duty to protect" under the law."

The issue is not a "duty to protect". They had no obligation to accompany her on her run that day, in case she was abducted. But once they are informed that a person has mysteriously vanished four days before a lavish wedding, leaving behind a hank of hair, her keys, and her purse, there is a reasonable expectation that a crime may be in progress and they have a responsibility to investigate.

"I can understand people have a desire that she be punished for her action, but the law does not exist to satisfy every desire that another person gets "what's coming to him".

I can't speak for other people, but my "desire" is not to punish, but that people take responsibility for their actions. She incurred expense; why should the community pay for it? The issue of punishment revolves around her false claims of kidnapping and rape; this is another issue completely that I have not addressed in my above post.

...there is a reasonable expectation that a crime may be in progress and they have a responsibility to investigate.

We'll leave this issue of reasonableness aside, for now. But the police do not have a responsibility to investigate. They cannot be held criminally liable or sued civilly for failing to do so.

Now, as I said, there may be some department policy that requires them to do so, but there is no legally enforceable responsibility.

Jennifer Wilbanks did not ask anybody to look for her. She didn't leave a note, or call the police, or toss her apartment, or do anything deliberate to make it look like she had been kidnapped. How can she be held responsible for the actions of others?

But once they are informed that a person has mysteriously vanished four days before a lavish wedding, leaving behind a hank of hair, her keys, and her purse, there is a reasonable expectation that a crime may be in progress and they have a responsibility to investigate.

LEO may have a moral duty to investigate, but they do not have a legal duty and they can't be held liable for exercising their discretion not to investigate.

She incurred expense; why should the community pay for it?

There are lots of expenses that a community incurs because of the stupidity and poor judgment of its members. Think of the number of police officers that we employ because a selfish minority of the population believes that speed limits and parking regulations are intended for everyone else. And what about the cost of running our court systems that are clogged with matrimonial and family law cases because members of the community exercise poor judgment in deciding who to marry and how to end the marriage in a mature and responsible manner. Perhaps we should require judges and court personnel to keep track of the time they spend on each traffic and matrimonial case so that community can charge a pro rata share of the cost of running the judicial system back to the people who are only in the judicial system because of their own selfishness and stupidity.