News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” by rcavezza on Sunday July 07, 2013 @06:42PM (#6003898)
I just read this article and it blew my mind. What type of "special relationship" are they referring to in the decision?
Re:“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” by ryanSrich on Sunday July 07, 2013 @07:01PM (#6003977)
Well that's the joke.

They can construe, manipulate and torque that to mean whatever they want or rather the lack of whatever they want.

Re:“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” by wdewind on Sunday July 07, 2013 @07:38PM (#6004108)
No they can't. It's pretty defined actually. A really simplified way to understand it is: the police have specifically said "we will protect $PERSON from $THREAT." Take for instance a hypothetical domestic violence case. Say the victim reports an incident, and then is later murdered. Because the victim reported the first incident does not imply a special relationship under the law. But, if the police told the victim specifically that they would protect him/her from the alleged perpetrator of the crime and then another crime occurs they would be liable. This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection: it creates that special relationship. For more info check out this source: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseac...
Re:“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book” by gohrt on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @02:35AM (#6011420)
> This is why you very rarely would find an officer promising protection:

Then we must update the motto: <strike>protect and</strike> serve.