Around 11:00 a.m. today, officers in District 2 (Wahiawa) observed a vehicle with expired registration and safety tags on Ohai Place in Wahiawa. Officers approached the parked vehicle and that's when the driver, a 47-year-old man, tried to run them over. One of the officers was injured as he jumped out of the way. The vehicle fled in an unknown direction, but officers were able to locate it in Mililani driving erratically. The vehicle later crashed and was found on Makaimoimo Street near Lanikuhana Avenue.

The driver then gets out of the vehicle and assaults responding officers. The suspect was later arrested for numerous charges including attempted murder (2x), assault (3x), reckless driving, refusing to stop, and resisting arrest. His passenger, a juvenile female, was also arrested.

Three officers were injured in stable condition. The officers have 12, 14 and 26 years in the department; all are assigned to District 2 Crime Reduction Unit.

Just because a duty to provide a standard of care to an individual does not exist for the police in tort law, does not mean there is no duty.  Their contracts may require it, especially if uniformed.

Last I checked swear words don't justify blows to the face. Now lets say you did have good reason to hit him in the face and then you go for the keys per the rest of your plan. Guess what, this has happened before (grabbing the keys) and often the officer gets dragged by the vehicle. Not so simple is it.
Oh and forgot to mention if the guy drives away dragging the officer and the officer shoots because his life is in danger they will still turn around and say the officer put him/herself in danger.

Officers have a job which requires them to place themselves within danger. If someone tells you that there is no duty to step in and protect then they don't know what they are talking about. If one person is beating up another and the officer stands and watches because he doesn't want to place himself in any danger then he gets fired for cowardice. Now there are limits of course, an officer isn't expected to go into a burning building, for example, but yes they are required to go protect someone.

If a cop watched a suspect stab your grandma to death and did nothing are we all just going to sit around and say to ourselves, sucks for grandma since the officer has no duty to protect.?

An officer sprays the driver who then takes off and crashes into people because the pepper spray blinds him temporarily. Officers will be held liable, sorry it really isn't that simple.

But "commoners" also don't have the duty to protect the public that officers do....

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

( "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Explain to me that statement, Chris. Are you saying that some duty to respond exists in SOME agencies due to contractual obligations? And, that of all the court cases that have found that police have no duty to protect you, those just happened to have been agencies that did not have said contractual obligation?

Well, that could be an affirmative statement.  I think those being paid to perform security functions could possibly be held liable for failing to act when being paid in that manner.   I think that would be a different spin, and I would have to go look up the actual facts of the other case.

What I am really saying is that these officers are under a contract / obligation with the city. Failure to act could see them getting dinged by the city.

Some states also criminalize failures for police to perform some functions, like execute a warrant.   Whether or not they have pursued those types of charges, I don't know. But they have it on the books.

Interesting. But in terms of the police having a legal duty to protect you, that doesn't really change anything. They may suffer some employer sanction, but no real legal jeopardy.

I think I mentioned to you previously that one of the recent candidates said, in response to my statement that police have no duty to protect anyone, that in Hawaii, there was a court case that essentially said the police had an affirmative duty to protect citizens. I asked him to cite the case and of course he couldn't, but I'd like to see if that is actually true....which I doubt.

There's an app for that

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en

Not likely. The officers acting in accordance with accepted practices and departmental policies will enjoy qualified immunity. So, no personal liability for the officer if the blinded driver runs into a crowd of people.

Explain to me that statement, Chris. Are you saying that some duty to respond exists in SOME agencies due to contractual obligations? And, that of all the court cases that have found that police have no duty to protect you, those just happened to have been agencies that did not have said contractual obligation?

I have a clarifying question for people here related to these occurrences.

If an officer steps in front of a stopped car, instructing the driver to stop, and the driver of the car accelerates quickly towards the officer, is that driver guilty of attempted murder/attempted assault with a deadly weapon?

I ask this question because it has been repeatedly portrayed here that officers are throwing themselves in front of speeding cars and claiming self defense which is different than most of the recent shootings of drivers by the HPD.

Officers are not supposed to use pepper spray on drivers for that very reason. I was just pointing out that certain other non lethal/less lethal options are not allowed to officers when it comes to these types of situations.

One of the commonly cited article for that argument is in a separate part of the USA (NYC I believe) covered by a different circuit court so it might be faulty to assume that Hawaii would fall under the same ruling.

Ahhh, you lost me here. Which argument are you referencing? If it's that the police have no legal duty to protect anyone, then you are totally incorrect. Castlerock v. Gonzales, a SCOTUS case, definitively stated that fact clearly and as a SCOTUS decision, is the law of the land, Hawaii included.

The article you cited is about a lawsuit, and the department's defense. It says nothing about who won the suit or the legitimacy of the departments defense argument. Again unless is goes to the supreme court we are talking about a different circuit.

Really? Google is your friend and your lack of legal acumen and unwillingness to actually research information before making stupid comments is a telling indication that you have a closed mind unreceptive to any information that is counter to your position. All you had to do is spend 10 seconds to google the name of the stabbing victim that brought the suit to find that the Judge dismissed the case, finding (based on multiple cross circuit and SCOTUS decisions) that the police had no legal duty to protect him (or any individual not in police custody). So, try and get this through your myopic and predetermined mind, that case will NEVER go to the SCOTUS. It DOESN"T NEED TO. THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE SCOTUS.   

http://nypost.com/2013/07/26/zero-for-hero-judge-snubs-man-hurt-stopping-butcher-of-brighton-beach/

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf

Here's a little excerpt from the Judge's ruling since I doubt you'll actually read it....

Quote

However, it is well settled that absent a special relationship, discretionary governmental
functions such as the provision of police protection are immune from tort liability (see Valdez v City
of New York, 18 NY3d 69 [2011]; CufJL v City ofNew York, 69 NY2d 255 [1987]; Kircher v City
of Jamestown, 74 NY2d 25 1 [ 19891 Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667 [ 19841). Despite
even very sympathetic facts, public policy demands that a damaged plaintiff be able to identify the
duty owed specifically to him or her, not a general duty to society at large (see Lauer v City ofnlew
York, 95 NY2d 95 [2000]; Johnson v Jamaica Hosp., 62 NY2d 523,527 [1984]; Palsgraf v Long
Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 [ 19281). “This is especially so where an individual seeks recovery out of
the public purse.” (see Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d at 100). The law is abundantly clear that
no liability flows from negligence in the performance of a police function unless there is a special
relationship (see Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667). Even giving Mr. Lozito every
favorable inference (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1987]), this court
nonetheless is bound to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiffs have failed to allege a
prima facie case of negligence as these facts do not establish a special relationship.

As for the supreme court cases you cite, notice how it repeats the word "individual." Granted I am not a lawyer but I do believe that this means the department is not required to provide special protection to a particular individual, a cop doesn't have to provide you with more protection than it does the rest of the public. I highly doubt it is a license for officers to simply ignore a crime occurring because they feel like it. Are there any lawyers here who would like to clarify the use of the word individual?

Jeez man, did you not read the article about the NYC stabbing? Two NYPD officers hid in a locked motorman's cab and watched the bad guy repeatedly stab the citizen. It was not until the citizen, despite his grievous wounds, had subdued the stabber that the two officers left the safety of the motorman's cab to take custody of the him. So, despite your highly researched opinion that " I highly doubt it is a license for officers to simply ignore a crime occurring because they feel like it..." that is EXACTLY what happened in this case (and others if you actually chose to research the subject), the police not only "ignore[d]" the crime, they actually stood by and witnessed the attack without even attempting to intervene. So much for your erudite opinion....

On top of whatever legal obligation may or may not exist, officers can be fired for things like cowardice. So in the end there is an obligation for officers to act.

There may be some employment consequences for failing to act, but in most cases, such as the NYC case cited, the Warren v. Washington D.C. case, or the Castlerock v. Gonzales case, no extrajudicial (employer) sanctions were effected. And, there may be some moral or ethical obligations, but these too are meaningless in terms of making a victim whole in the instances police do fail to respond. Your argument is not based on legal fact and reality, and your attempt to somehow infer even some modicum of obligation clearly shows how terribly uninformed you are and how unwilling you are to accept that you're wrong.

First, if the car is already stopped, why would the officer be instructing the driver to stop? Wouldn't the officer be better off instructing the driver to exit the vehicle?

Second, if the officer has placed themselves in front of a 1.5 ton mass of metal, capable of smashing them like a bug, they have put themselves in an untenable situation. Basically like begging to be run over. Where I'm from we call this "stupidity" as the officer has placed their life in the hands of a criminal, who by definition, doesn't give rats ass about the law. Much less the officer trying to enforce it.

Is the driver guilty of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon?  Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the officer in question has made some pretty poor decisions in how to handle the situation.

No, you were not. You were asserting that an officer could be held liable for unintended consequences resulting from their actions. With rare exception, police acting in accordance with department policy and procedures are rarely held personally liable.