h*****u
发帖数: 2648 | 1 靠警察不靠谱。
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an
oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state
supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police
services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way
, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.
Contents [hide]
1 Incident
2 Appellants' claims
3 Decision
4 See also
5 References
Incident[edit]
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and
Joan Taliaferro, who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house
at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam
Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old
daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door
being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James
Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas
to perform oral sex on him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren
telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being
burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee
told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be
dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at
0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was
dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although
calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "
Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the
Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible
suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining
roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one
policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the
front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting
out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer
apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he
received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five
minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard
Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that
the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once
again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second
call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;"
it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called
down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point,
Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's
apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed,
beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit
to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellants' claims[edit]
Appellants' claims of negligence included:
the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of
urgency;
the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative
procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and
position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether
there was any activity inside;
the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.
Decision[edit]
By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy
at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the
police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that
official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to
victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide
adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case
was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case
never went to trial.[3]
See also[edit]
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
via gunrightsalert.com.
Jump up ^ On 7 Jan 2012, Google Scholar listed about 212 opinions and legal
articles that cited this case.
Jump up ^ Caffrey, William (May 12, 2000). "Do You Have a Right to Police
Protection?". Taking On Gun Control. | z********2
发帖数: 6488 | 2 警察在我眼中向来和黑社会差不多，能绕着走绝不会和他们打交道…… | b*********s
发帖数: 3863 | 3 我每次被警察截停的是都想说
“you have anything better to do?”
an
way
【在 h*****u 的大作中提到】
: 靠警察不靠谱。
: Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an
: oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state
: supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police
: services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way
: , except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.
: Contents [hide]
: 1 Incident
: 2 Appellants' claims
: 3 Decision
| h*********4
发帖数: 12966 | 4
我觉得也是
【在 b*********s 的大作中提到】
: 我每次被警察截停的是都想说
: “you have anything better to do?”
:
: an
: way
| z********2
发帖数: 6488 | 5 对他们来说，这是最安全高效的生财之道~
【在 h*********4 的大作中提到】
:
: 我觉得也是
|
|
