Police Gave Boy No Aid After Shooting in Cleveland

There isn't anything to exonerate. The cops have no duty to provide aid, if they called for medics, that is sufficient.

Having a 14 year old girl screaming and running towards her brother isn't preventing care of the victim. She was likely not qualified to administer any aid.

 

In terms of providing medical care:

Not doing anything (which is what the cops did) has no negligence whatsoever. Negligence only occurs if the officers actively PREVENTED care from being administered.

 

We'll see what happens, but chances are I'm right, as I have been right in what was the best course of action in all of these recent shootings that have been discussed on this board. You can talk about what was the moral thing to do, but as far as what was the correct legal thing to do, they limited their liability by doing what they did.

If they called 9/11 immediately, that's all that they needed to do. Keeping the sister away, again, is probably preventing more injuries by having an unqualified person doing God knows what to the shooting victim.

 

http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/7982463-Celebrating-15-cops-who-saved-lives-in-2014/

 

They have no such obligation to provide aid. It isn't part of due process, show me where it says that.

 

Last sentence:

The Sixth Circuit then held that, based on the above principals, the Township and officers are not liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for preventing Drummond’s relatives from providing aid.

As such, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.​

and

The Sixth Circuit then held that in this case, since Drummond was merely being covered by officers with weapons drawn after he shot himself, but not “incarcerated, institutionalized or subject to a similar restraint,” Drummond was not in custody for liability to attach under the Fourteenth Amendment and Deshaney.

Further, regarding the officers duty to provide medical aid to Drummond, the court also noted that the officers had no special training, beyond basic first aid, in treating gunshot wounds. The court then stated that, because of the officer’s lack of training in this area, “any failure to treat would be, at most, negligent and thus not actionable under Section 1983.” [vi] The Sixth Circuit did not speculate whether the officer’s would have had a different duty if they had more advanced medical treatment. ​

 

They made no decision whether or not the 4th Amendment was violated.

 

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

 

That was an opinion as a side note on a ruling, not a ruling itself. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that a police officer calling for qualified medical services in a timely manner would suffice as protection if this were actually a court decision.

 

Just because one judge in the majority wrote something, doesn't speak for the entire court. The court's decision is their decision. What is written in the opinion is non-relevant and not legally binding. They would need to raise the issue separately.

The ACLU is involved? I guess they've won 100% of their cases, so I might as well give up now.