Comment 18 for bug 836847
Revision history for this message
| Carlo - Didotech.com (iw3hxn) wrote Re: some new stuff | #18 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Hey,
Don't miss up this new stuff, you're going to be delighted, read more here http://
Yours faithfully, iw3hxn
From: Bug 836847 [mailto:<email address hidden>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:50 PM
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: NVIDIA Shadowplay?
It's a complicated ruling, and any summary that I give would be called out for being over-simplified.
Essentially, it is not the police's obligation to prevent crime. Moreover, it isn't their obligation to be present to stop any particular crime on any particular occasion. Their duty is to the public in general, not to you in particular.
This was in response to a lawsuit by a citizen about how the police didn't protect her. It's meant to prevent lawsuits against police due to crimes committed because they weren't present.
On one level, it makes sense. On an entirely different level, it establishes a precedent with far reaching implications.
I believe one of the incidents involved in the case was when a woman called 911 in response to a break-in , and the police didn't do their due diligence in investigating, which led to a brutal rape-a-thon by the burglars. The implication of the ruling is that the police are not obligated to show up because you reported a crime. It's sort of a "best effort" sort of thing.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10