If the boys want to play in the flood, let them win a Darwin award.
.........................................................
Prosecutor: “So, officer, you saw the men in the flood water. They appeared intoxicated, and the you just left them there?”
Officer: “yes”
Prosecutor: “Do you take any reponsibilty now that the men have turned up drowned two days later?”
Nanny state. The supreme court ruled the police have no obligation to protect individuals, only the collective. In your hypothetical, the police would never face a jury. It would not happen.
better shot dead than drowned, fer sher!
Unless there is a clear state law being broken, the officer should not be able to do more than offer assistance and advise. If, upon being advised of the danger, the person refuses to vacate or rejects assistance then the officer can leave the person to his fate
That’s how it should be.
“If the boys want to play in the flood, let them win a Darwin award.
.........................................................
Prosecutor: “So, officer, you saw the men in the flood water. They appeared intoxicated, and the you just left them there?”
Officer: “yes”
Prosecutor: “Do you take any reponsibilty now that the men have turned up drowned two days later?”
.........................................................
Officer: “Those men appear to be grown up adults.”
Prosecutor: “Don’t you think you could have done something before those poor men drowned.”
Officer: “I guess I could have shot them dead.”
Offcier: Yes sir, I should have shot them before they drowned.