See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
There is even an infamous case where a policeman showed up, at a drowning scene, ordered (I think) at gunpoint, that a trained professional giving CPR stop and go home and produce credentials, before being allowed to proceed, and of course the guy died, and the cop had qualified immunity.
But if you are in custody they have the literal legal responsibility for you at that point.
You are very good at cutting and pasting, and you're attempting proof by intimidation, but you remain utterly incorrect.
You're completely wrong.
Blather is not an argument
See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
Irrelevant, but that is hardly surprising.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
Lunacy.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
Madness. Qualified immunity only applies to CIVIL actions. We have not been discussing a George Floyd CIVIL action. Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to a criminal case. You do not know what you are talking about. "qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. Before slinging legal terminology around, look it up in a legal dictionary so you have a clue about what it means.
There is even an infamous case where a policeman showed up, at a drowning scene, ordered (I think) at gunpoint, that a trained professional giving CPR stop and go home and produce credentials, before being allowed to proceed, and of course the guy died, and the cop had qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity still only applies to CIVIL actions. It has nothing to do with criminal actions.
But if you are in custody they have the literal legal responsibility for you at that point.
"Downs kept his gun trained on Drummond while Downs left to retrace Drummond's path in search of the weapon." Do you think Drummond was free to leave?
The requirement that an arresting officer provide medical care varies by jurisdiction, depending on statute law, if any. In the absence of statute law, there is no common law requirement to render assistance. Minnesota has a Good Samaritan statute. "604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW. Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor."
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody can be prosecuted as a constitutional violation of rights.
The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:
"Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).
To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.
Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.
- - - - - - - - - -
You are very good at cutting and pasting, and you're attempting proof by intimidation, but you remain utterly incorrect.
I wouldn't intimidate rude old curmudgeon such as you. I would just demonstrate that he is full of bluster but supremely incompetent and unable to actually discuss the law without acting the fool.