Ironic, that I would be supporting the Public Duty Doctrine, as a defense!!!!!
The Public Duty Doctrine claims that government and its agents (primarily police officers and district attorneys) have a duty only to society as a whole, not the individual. Local, state, and federal law, all across this land, recognize this doctrine.
The doctrine only surfaces, generally, as a defense by government and their agents when they are sued by individuals; these individuals were generally harmed by agents' failure to protect his or her interest.
So, what if....the federal government refuses to protect society as a whole, like defending our borders? What if....a state chooses to exercise its duty, under their Public Duty Doctrine, and defend their state from illegal immigration?
The question is: What if Arizona whips out the Public Duty Doctrine in defense of their law that's going into effect on the 29th?
Here is the New York Times' account of what is happening and the "alleged" issues involved: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07immig.html
Then somebody may think that our human rights do not exist and they would be wrong.
ReplyDeleteKaren Dawe
Are the human rights of illegal aliens more important than the human rights of a raped American citizen? Do rape victims in America have a right to know that police and district attorneys have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect; they have no legal duty to disclose same? How humane is that?
ReplyDelete