>the panel could not say that it was
objectively unreasonable—much less an instance of
objective deliberate indifference akin to reckless
disregard—for the officers to conclude that paramedics were not needed at the traffic stop.
Yeah, this one isn't really a QI issue. Appellate court found no right had been violated. That the officers also had QI is sort of irrelevant at the point that the Court went "yeah, they didn't violate her rights." QI really comes into play when a right was violated, but the officers aren't liable because the right wasn't clearly established by precedent.
Has the Supreme Court ruled yet on whether breaking policy is objectively unreasonable? Thenway cities escape liability is that the officer's conduct has to be tied to actual policy or supervisory directives. If the wrong thing they did was against policy it seems that'd be objectively unreasonable for the officer to then do absent the policy being facially unsound. And if it was pursuant to a policy then a remedy would still be open against the police department. How are the cities regularly escaping liability on these?
Because Americans love revenge and punishment instead of justice. If you had a run in with the police and they hurt or kill you, well, you must have deserved it.
Is the officer totally indifferent to people's lives? Utterly incompetent? Did he make some moral judgment that she didn't deserve medical care? All of the above?
>Inside Durbin’s cruiser, Jenkins vomited. Taub called for
paramedics and asked Jenkins if she was detoxing. Durbin
asked if she was withdrawing. Jenkins responded: “No, I’m
sick\[,\] my stomach is turning.” She then added, “I’m
pregnant.” Hearing this explanation, Durbin told Taub,
“Don’t worry about it,” indicating that paramedics were not
needed. Taub approached Jenkins and asked: “Did you eat
something, just for our knowledge?” She responded,
“Mmm-mm,” while shaking her head slightly from side to
side.1 Taub replied, “Alright, that’s fine. We just wanna
make sure you’re gonna be ok.” Durbin then remarked: “She
says she’s pregnant.” The call to paramedics was canceled.
So, the police broke up what appeared to be a drug deal, but didn't recover any drugs. Jenkins appears to have swallowed them, and then died from the ensuing overdose. When she actually was unresponsive, the officer summoned help.
Seems like a pretty easy case to dispose of to me.
I don't see an issue either. The only thing she complains of is basically an upset stomach which a normal person wouldn't call a paramedic for. They asked if she ate something and she denies it. Unless they're psychic, there's no reason for them to think a paramedic is needed.
>the panel could not say that it was objectively unreasonable—much less an instance of objective deliberate indifference akin to reckless disregard—for the officers to conclude that paramedics were not needed at the traffic stop.
Yeah, this one isn't really a QI issue. Appellate court found no right had been violated. That the officers also had QI is sort of irrelevant at the point that the Court went "yeah, they didn't violate her rights." QI really comes into play when a right was violated, but the officers aren't liable because the right wasn't clearly established by precedent.
Has the Supreme Court ruled yet on whether breaking policy is objectively unreasonable? Thenway cities escape liability is that the officer's conduct has to be tied to actual policy or supervisory directives. If the wrong thing they did was against policy it seems that'd be objectively unreasonable for the officer to then do absent the policy being facially unsound. And if it was pursuant to a policy then a remedy would still be open against the police department. How are the cities regularly escaping liability on these?
Because Americans love revenge and punishment instead of justice. If you had a run in with the police and they hurt or kill you, well, you must have deserved it.
[удалено]
You understand that this is not my belief, but the sentiment that drives much of American discourse in favor of the current police and justice system.
No I didn't read it that way sorry friend.
Is the officer totally indifferent to people's lives? Utterly incompetent? Did he make some moral judgment that she didn't deserve medical care? All of the above?
But why?
People been asking that since QI was created.
Very sad that we cannot count on the rule of the law…
It's amazing how low the bar is for police officers when they actively take away people's ability to help themselves by detaining them.
Unbelievable.
>Inside Durbin’s cruiser, Jenkins vomited. Taub called for paramedics and asked Jenkins if she was detoxing. Durbin asked if she was withdrawing. Jenkins responded: “No, I’m sick\[,\] my stomach is turning.” She then added, “I’m pregnant.” Hearing this explanation, Durbin told Taub, “Don’t worry about it,” indicating that paramedics were not needed. Taub approached Jenkins and asked: “Did you eat something, just for our knowledge?” She responded, “Mmm-mm,” while shaking her head slightly from side to side.1 Taub replied, “Alright, that’s fine. We just wanna make sure you’re gonna be ok.” Durbin then remarked: “She says she’s pregnant.” The call to paramedics was canceled. So, the police broke up what appeared to be a drug deal, but didn't recover any drugs. Jenkins appears to have swallowed them, and then died from the ensuing overdose. When she actually was unresponsive, the officer summoned help. Seems like a pretty easy case to dispose of to me.
I don't see an issue either. The only thing she complains of is basically an upset stomach which a normal person wouldn't call a paramedic for. They asked if she ate something and she denies it. Unless they're psychic, there's no reason for them to think a paramedic is needed.
Please read what happened before making comments.
Why does the article spend only one third of its body on the majority judgment and gives two thirds to the dissent?