There have been FIVE murder convictions of police officers since 2005: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123386/convictions-poli...
Five minutes of research shows the Supreme Court has confirmed that police have no obligation to protect: https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protec...
In summary the court said: The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the due process clause protects against state action only. Police action was never mentioned or effected by that case.
Here is due process (5th Amendment): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause
Due process protects individuals from intrusion by the state. In that vein the case effectively says state agents without policing authority are not obligated to intervene as police would against private citizens.
It's also not true that police are obligated to do anything. They don't face any liability if they decide not to engage with a violent suspect. They might lose their job, but that's an ongoing choice they make, not an obligation.
I wanted to say that this is hyperbole, but it's just an obviously flagrant misuse of a word.
Rules of conduct that dictate a profession are obligations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation
I guess I thought that's the context you were using the word in, here where we are discussing how the law applies to police.
In most other professions there exists licensing and such licensing establishes rules of conduct. Violation of such results not just in termination of a job but failure to practice, usually forever. In those professions obligations are essentially laws, except violating such may not, but can, result in incarceration. Instead they will just be poor and forever unemployable in their invested trade.
That's literally what qualified immunity provides; in addition to all the special laws they lobby for that undermine the rule of law e.g investigating themselves, reviewing footage of their crime prior to giving testimony etc.
Qualified immunity is a shield from civil suits not criminal liability.
For example if paramedics are performing life saving functions and the injured party still dies those paramedics shouldn’t be at risk of law suit attempts to save life. The consequence is paramedics would let people die without life saving actions in full knowledge that in most circumstances their actions would prevent death because there is great personal financial liability for performing their jobs in some rare circumstances.
"generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts."
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
It's not a crime if there is no precedence; cannot establish precedence because there is no precedent.
Sounds like immunity to me; but please, feel free to point me to the high number of court cases of criminal cops held accountable in a court of law.
You should also send that to the american bar association; they are clearly wasting their time pursuing criminal justice reform for the complete lack of accountability.
That question lacks validating context.
According to activity in Atlanta last year the answer is generally no even if the suspect remains armed and in prior moments was in a physical altercation with police. However, if the suspect remains an imminent threat to anyone, such that they continue to point their weapon at people as they are fleeing then I would say they remain an active imminent threat and thus can be shot by law enforcement. That is an extraordinarily narrow and unlikely scenario though.
Either way it is a rush judgment call in the field and all shootings between people demand investigation. People, even police, are not above the law and are not granted special exceptions of hostility, but they are obligated to put themselves at risk for the protection of all parties which warrant additional considerations in review.