View Single Post
Old November 16, 2021, 03:47 PM   #47
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,204
Originally Posted by Koda94
somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I always thought the reason police have certain immunity is because they are required to be there where citizens are not?
While POs aren't required by any law to be somewhere and take action, i.e. they don't owe you or me a duty of protection, a core part of the police function is to apply force. That is going to get people hurt.

When a PO engages in a high speed chase for a trivial violation and kills or maims an innocent person, or shoots at a bad guy and hits an innocent, I think it is a normal reflex to view the event retrospectively and seek ways to dissuade POs to take those sorts of risks in the future. Doing that without compromising the core function of policing is difficult.

This thread is about two related but different topics. The first was whether a defensive shooter should have immunity. Zeke posted the WI immunity code. The second involves shrinking the zone of state immunity, an issue no less difficult.

I wanted a public agency to provide records my client needed. The agency sent someone and was represented, but they didn't provide the records or any excuse for withholding the records. I asked the court to assess against the agency my fees for my appearance that day, which drew an objection from agency counsel that I can't do that because it's "the peoples'" money. The court didn't find my reasoning, "Well then, screw the people", persuasive.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.02328 seconds with 8 queries