Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет kouzdra ([info]kouzdra)
@ 2012-12-27 00:43:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Либертарианское:
По поводу вот этой дивной истории и решения суда:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial

Я правильно понимаю, что под "special relations" имеется в виду что-то типа отдельного договора на охрану?


(Добавить комментарий)


[info]tiphareth
2012-12-27 07:59 (ссылка)
нет, оно относится к заключенным
http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)


[info]tiphareth
2012-12-27 08:00 (ссылка)

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)

Гандоны...
(Анонимно)
2012-12-29 10:39 (ссылка)
По прочтению статьи смог только тихо орать в подушку.
Пиздец. И по новостям - ни-ни, блядь. Рожденственский спирит бы не испортить, блядь.

(Ответить)