Police Gave Boy No Aid After Shooting in Cleveland

[Denny Crane]

Also See DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services (supreme court case).

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2495&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[Denny Crane]

Last sentence:

The Sixth Circuit then held that, based on the above principals, the Township and officers are not liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for preventing Drummond’s relatives from providing aid.

As such, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.​

and

The Sixth Circuit then held that in this case, since Drummond was merely being covered by officers with weapons drawn after he shot himself, but not “incarcerated, institutionalized or subject to a similar restraint,” Drummond was not in custody for liability to attach under the Fourteenth Amendment and Deshaney.

Further, regarding the officers duty to provide medical aid to Drummond, the court also noted that the officers had no special training, beyond basic first aid, in treating gunshot wounds. The court then stated that, because of the officer’s lack of training in this area, “any failure to treat would be, at most, negligent and thus not actionable under Section 1983.” [vi] The Sixth Circuit did not speculate whether the officer’s would have had a different duty if they had more advanced medical treatment.​

The people sued claiming 14th amendment right to due process was violated. The court held that the 14th wasn't. The 4th was, though.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

The people sued claiming 14th amendment right to due process was violated. The court held that the 14th wasn't. The 4th was, though.

They made no decision whether or not the 4th Amendment was violated.

 

[Denny Crane]

Rehnquist's supreme court did rule on the 4th.

It's pretty much a slam dunk.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Rehnquist's supreme court did rule on the 4th.

It's pretty much a slam dunk.

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

 

[Denny Crane]

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

You can take Rehnquist's majority opinion's word instead:



Second...

The danger they created was the kid bleeding out in the street from the gunshot wound the government was responsible for creating. Additionally, the kid was in custody (for 4th amendment purposes, he could not leave voluntarily) and has not ability to protect himself. The police had the duty to provide protection (and thus whatever first aid they could muster).

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

That was an opinion as a side note on a ruling, not a ruling itself. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that a police officer calling for qualified medical services in a timely manner would suffice as protection if this were actually a court decision.

 

[Denny Crane]

Gut shot twice, attention is immediately required. Side note(whatever that means) doesn't change that they went out of their way to spell it out.

The ACLU is involved. If existing case law was against them, they'd take a pass. They won't make the 14th argument mistake this time.

Plus the dept clearly put a cop on the street who was a known danger.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Just because one judge in the majority wrote something, doesn't speak for the entire court. The court's decision is their decision. What is written in the opinion is non-relevant and not legally binding. They would need to raise the issue separately.

The ACLU is involved? I guess they've won 100% of their cases, so I might as well give up now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why would you think the majority ruling would not be the law of the land and binding everywhere?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Why would you think the majority ruling would not be the law of the land and binding everywhere?

Because they did not rule on the fourth amendment in that case. Rehnquist expressed an OPINION but it was not a supreme court decision.

 

[Denny Crane]

They're really careful not to clarify the law and constitution for the hell of it. It is binding, and will be cited as precedent in numerous cases.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

The court's decision in that case was that there was no duty to protect. However, the portion you highlighted was an OPINION on the ruling on areas where the government would have a duty to protect and not the Supreme Court decision itself.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

They're really careful not to clarify the law and constitution for the hell of it. It is binding, and will be cited as precedent in numerous cases.

It isn't binding. It was not a supreme court decision. The case you linked up was different, it was a situation where a private party injured another, not one where the officers injured or put someone into custody.

 

[Denny Crane]

Those things are directives to the fed and state governments as to what is the law of the land.

I'm Bush v Gore, they ruled for Bush, but also specified that all the ballots must be counted. After the state didn't even bother to try, they subsequently ruled that even if the state followed their "side note", they didn't have sufficient time.

A famous case example that shows how the majority opinion is the law. The Court has remedy powers, so they can direct the lower courts and govt to follow additional rules.

In brown v boe, they ruled separate but unequal to be unconstitutional. Their side note was"undo it with all due haste."

 

[Natebishop3]

El pres you are just flat out wrong. Cops carry aid bags. You think they would just sit by and watch a fellow officer bleed to death? This was an accidental shooting. The boy was not armed. They should have administered emergency first aid. I guarantee they are trained in first aid. They probably even have quick clot in their med kit. This was murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk