Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« "laws are for the little people" | Main | "Progressive" San Francisco prosecutor recalled »

Uvalde shooting: government liability?

Posted by David Hardy · 7 June 2022 10:20 AM

General legal premise: no person owes a legal duty to another, absent some special relationship. As they teach in Torts 101, if a person sees another person drowning, realizes he can save them at no risk to himself, and instead decides just to watch, he may have breached a moral duty, but not a legal one. The same holds true (with much less basis) of a law enforcement agency and a victim of crime. Warren v. District of Columbia being a particularly stunning case.

BUT -- if others choose to rescue the drowning person, the onlooker must not hinder them. Nor can the onlooker create the false impression that he is trying to rescue the person, because that might inhibit other people from trying to do it. The onlooker need not attempt a rescue himself, but if he does anything to reduce the chance that another might choose to do it, he becomes legally liable for the outcome.

I'd say that tackling and handcuffing people who were trying to go in meets that test. So would stopping the Border Patrol agents who were willing to charge in.

Hat tip to reader Jay Dee for this idea.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Marcus Poulin | June 7, 2022 11:47 PM | Reply

In France Tort Law is Different.

dittybopper replied to comment from Marcus Poulin | June 8, 2022 9:14 AM | Reply

In Japan, the hand can be used like a knife. But this doesn’t work with a tomato.

Flight-ER-Doc | June 8, 2022 9:40 AM | Reply

And a tort would be a personal suit against the officers, not the department, right?

LawFirmofSolitaryPoorNastyBrutishnShort | June 8, 2022 10:03 AM | Reply

"personal suit against the officers, not the department, right?"

I hope we find out.

Would be interesting to find that an officer working for the on-scene commander could claim he was following orders of that commander, and that liability rolls uphill (for once) to the on-scene commander himself.

I think tort liability also follows a standard of care model---everyone in the peace office profession is taught that the standard is "charge in, find the shooter, bypass injured" and the on-scene commander failed that standard.

wrangler5 | June 8, 2022 8:58 PM | Reply

Not sure the standard of care kicks in until after action begins. If the competent authority chose to do nothing, the standard of care probably wouldn’t apply.

montieth | June 22, 2022 1:40 AM | Reply

With the release of the time line and the less than 5 minute gap for cops on scene and standing around inside, I have to wonder if the liability is not just civil but potentially criminal? Involuntary Manslaughter? Negligent Homicide?

Leave a comment