85
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MxM111@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

They had moral duty, but apparently not legal duty. I see nothing wrong with this ruling, if this is what the law says.

[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 years ago

Actually I found this:

"The court finds that under the circumstances presented, there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of the responding officers and firefighters," Hernandez said in his ruling at the Hayward Hall of Justice.

https://www.officer.com/home/news/10877921/judge-rules-that-alameda-calif-police-had-no-legal-duty-to-aid-drowning-man

The reporting is a mess though. Hard to know exactly what happened.

[-] Deftdrummer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yep. Has been case precedent since 89' ya dummies. DeShaney v. Winnebago. No duty to protect legally speaking.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
85 points (96.7% liked)

Creepy Wikipedia

5090 readers
1 users here now

A fediverse community for curating Wikipedia articles that are oddly fascinating, eerily unsettling, or make you shiver with fear and disgust

image

Guidelines:
  1. Follow the Code of Conduct

  2. Do NOT report posts YOU don't consider creepy

  3. Strictly Wikipedia submissions only

  4. Please follow the post naming convention: Wikipedia Article Title - Short Synopsis

  5. Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails.

  6. Please refrain from any offensive language/profanities in the posts titles, unless necessary (e.g. it's in the original article's title).

Mandatory:

If you didn't find an article "creepy," you must announce it in the thread so everyone will know that you didn't find it creepy

image

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS