So why are we as taxpayers paying a ridiculous amount of money to police officers who have not duty to protect the average citizen? What is their primary duty, if it's not to protect citizens from felony type crimes? We might as well abolish the police department and just walk around armed and take matters into our own hands, IMHO.

Courts typically find that no duty has been established and deny recovery for “injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.”16For example, a plaintiff was unable to establish a duty on behalf of police when police failed to respond to a plea for assistance forty-five minutes before a homicide.17

The courts, however, have found that police officers may create a “special relationship” with individuals in certain circumstances, thereby establishing a duty of care to that individual. This “special relationship” may be created when an officer performs an affirmative act which places a person in peril or increases the risk of harm. For example, an officer who investigated an accident and instructed an individual to follow him to the middle of the intersection, where the individual was hit by another car, established a duty of care for that person;18 a highway patrol officer established a duty to an individual when he parked his vehicle with lights engaged behind the stalled motorist, but later left the scene without warning the motorist who had relied upon his protection and was struck by another car.19

Hicarry, after reading the court document, specifically the definition of special relationship, I will conceded that in fact you are right from a legal standpoint however I maintain that a level of accountability does exist in the form of departmental policy. Granted some departments might not have such policy but here on Oahu officers can be held accountable for inaction. From reading various articles though it appears that governments can implement laws penalizing inaction. I could not find what states, if any, have passed laws requiring police action to intervene.

We know legally police don't have to put their lives in danger to protect our lives. Do you think a union would allow an officer to be fired for not doing so?

OK, so it's taken 3+ pages of posts to finally convince you that you were wrong about a long-standing, well established legal concept. Yet, it appears you still cling to some hope that you'll successfully argue that there is, at some level, somewhere in a policy or procedure, that small quasi-legal or administrative obligation to act. You confuse accountability of one's actions from an absence of action resulting from no obligation to take any action at all.

I've seen police fired or disciplined for all manner of actions, be it excessive force, drunk driving, or not doing paperwork (obviously an employer mandated obligation), but I have not heard of any case for not taking some action (unless it was because they were sleeping on the job...), but you made the claim. So your turn to supply the supporting documentation that validates your assertion that departmental policy oblige officers to respond under under threat of discipline, and provide a few case histories. Could there be some cases of officers being disciplined for not taking some protective action? I'm sure there are, but I'm betting that it's more for not supporting their brother officers in the course of some response, rather than failing to act in protection of a citizen. But, facts, not emotions, are what's important, and I'm anxious to see your research.

I don't know whether anyone has ever been fired for a failure to act, but the possibility certainly exists. If an officer were given an ultimatum of resign or be fired and the officer resigned the I don't think it would be public. It might be that no officer has ever been fired for it. The accountability exists in the department's policy, whether the department has enforced violations of that policy is another question.

Once again, not a single fact exists in all of your words.

"I don't know..."
"If an officer..."
"I don't think..."
"It might be..."
"whether ... is another question."

The only thing in that response that resembles a statement of fact is, "The accountability exists in the department's policy,"

Are you implying (or stating unequivocally) that there is a department policy holding police individually accountable for failure to protect?  Is that a fact?

I don't know whether anyone has ever been fired for a failure to act, but the possibility certainly exists. If an officer were given an ultimatum of resign or be fired and the officer resigned the I don't think it would be public. It might be that no officer has ever been fired for it. The accountability exists in the department's policy, whether the department has enforced violations of that policy is another question.

If it is in the policy then sure, you can be fired for violating policy.

Show us the policy...go ahead, we'll wait.......

So, you're still at it? Making unsubstantiated statements that you refuse to even try an qualify with facts....these are the same types of non-fact based, emotional arguments we constantly hear from anti-gun activists.....

And, it was Einstein who was famously quoted that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You guys have asked for an instance in which an officer was fired/disciplined for a failure to act. Internal discipline is not made public so how am I supposed to cite that? A lack of an instance of an officer fired for failure to act does not prove that the accountability does not exist.

Let me ask you this then, do you doubt that policy exists holding officers accountable for failure to act? Do you think there would be no internal repercussions if an officer failed to act without good reason?


Ok, here is something I was able to find from the police commission annual report where it states certain violations. Refer to page 12 under dereliction of duty.
http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC2013AnnualReport.pdf
"Officers and employees shall render assistance to another officer, an employee or to the public during an incident that may result in personal injury, property damage or loss."


Notice it says shall and not "should render assistance", or "render assistance if you feel like it."  Failure to render aid is clearly a punishable violation of policy.

CONGRATULATIONS!  It was like pulling teeth, but you finally did some research and found actual substantiating information for one of your suppositions!  Well done!
The problem I see is these are not policies.  These are standards of conduct used for complaints reported by the public. 
For an officer to be punished, the complaint must be filed by a citizen within 60 days of an incident, must contain facts vs. hypothetical speculation, and must be within the jurisdiction of the Honolulu Police Commission.
Therefore, if a citizen fails to file a complaint in a timely manner, the officer will not be punished. 
Nothing in the document eludes to disciplinary action under these guidelines as a matter of policy in absence of a public complaint.
It's nice they have these complaint guidelines to give the public a framework when reporting misconduct.  But I don't see anything here that would be, as you stated, "a punishable violation of policy."
Close!  There may be similar internal policies, but this isn't it.

Dude, you still don't get it....you made the claim, now own it. If not, quit trying to state as fact that which is only your "belief," your unsubstantiated belief with no factual basis on which to rest your argument. You ask on one hand how you should know this information since it's not made public, failing to see the irony of you asking us to then believe something we can't validate either, just because it seems reasonable or logical to you.

Furthermore, that same document says that officers "shall be courteous toward the public and shall not use harsh, abusive, disparaging or insulting remarks..." How many cops have been "punished" for  violating these standards, based on how frequently we all know them to happen? It also says that they shall not use profanity in public. Again, how many do you think are punished for this infraction?

As to your question, I have already stipulated that these policies may exist, and if they do, that any failure to act that resulted in disciplinary action would most likely stem from the perception that he failed to assist his brother officer, not that he failed to protect a citizen. You are the one that continues to argue otherwise. Please try to keep up.

Of course you need a public complainant since the incident would really require someone to suffer or witness a suffering of the officer's lack of action. Since the Dereliction of Duty is under the standard of conduct policy it is something that an officer could be disciplined by a supervisor as well if the supervisor were to witness it. Why do you think that this could be a policy that is not punishable if violated. Any policy violation could be punished otherwise no one would have any reason to follow policy.

Now you say that if someone fails to file a complaint in a timely manner then the officer will not be punished, this is not that surprising, criminal laws have statutes of limitations and if you miss those then you are just as out of luck.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO AND NO!

You cannot extrapolate an HPC Guideline specifically related to public complaints and deduce that this equates to an internal policy without some sort of evidence.  To argue otherwise is not rational. 

Show us a link to the HPD policies on officer conduct and the internal reporting and related disciplinary actions for each standard.  Policies require more detail than guidelines for public complaints.  Policies have standards, reporting procedures, and consequences.  They also go into whether you can have a lawyer or union rep present when answering the charges against you. 

If you think these guidelines rise to the level of department policies, you haven't been around much!

These guidelines address violations of departmental policy. Do you think it is just a suggestion when it says "shall render assistance"?

Why would the police commission investigate a complaint unless it was something that the officer was doing that was against the rules? Would the police commission address a complaint of an officer having pink sunglasses if there were no regulations on the color of officer's sunglasses? Then why would it bother to investigate complaints of profanity if there was nothing prohibiting officers from using profane language.

Believe me, if I carried a police policy in my back pocket I would post it for you. The Chief has said he will make police policy more available to the public but for now I cannot seem to find a link on the internet anywhere. If I call up a friend and he gives you the specific page and section would that satisfy you?