Refusal to aid an officer?

[Nodonutz]

I keep seeing "Peace Officer" When police stop being violent and start being peaceful this law will apply. LOL

A cop's job is not always 'peaceful'.... no one calls them to have tea and crumpets to chat about gardening. It's because there's a problem and people are behaving badly. If I had a dime for every time someone said, "You guys should just kick his (bad guy's) ass and teach him a lesson." Then they see said ass-whoppin' and complain about brutality. The citizenry is much more violent than the cops.

 

[Nodonutz]

I've had citizens jump in to help, w/o my asking.... Actually, one guy saved my life - literally. I call him my 'Guardian Angel w/ a crowbar'. I honestly believe it was Divine Intervention he showed when he did, else I may not be here. I never tried to be disrespectful to folks, unless they were. One of my guiding philosophies:
People do not 'earn' your respect, they 'dis-earn' it.
Show respect, you get respect. If they don't return it, all bets are off.

 

[Nodonutz]

My thought on this: if you see someone in need of help, whomever it is, and you don't assist in some way, then you have some serious issues and karma will come back and hopefully 'whoop you upside the head', as my Momma would say. But she'd say it in Hungarian!.... and start swinging

 

[The Keymaster]

I have no problem helping someone, if I choose to. Then my actions become my responsibility. I do have a problem with being ordered or expected to help someone or face arrest. In that case my actions are not my own, and I still have to take responsibility. IF the law stated that the officer or his department would be responsible for any litigation pertinent to a citizens actions performed under the order of the officer I would be more inclined to help. Needless to say, that will never happen.

 

[Nodonutz]

That would be an interesting legal issue for sure. I know as a LEO once you arrest a person, you are responsible for their safety until they are no longer under your direct supervision - ie, released or transported to jail, etc.... I would posit that the same principle would apply in that they are 'commanding you under penalty of law' to take action, and therefore you are under their direct authority and it is a de facto detention.
Don't get me wrong, I bristle at the thought of being compelled to become involved under threat of arrest (as if they could due to an obvious emergency) as opposed to participating of my own free will. I think it would have to be under extreme and exceptional circumstances that this law would even be used. Like I said, I never used it, never thought of using it, and never heard of anyone using it. I believe due to that infrequency the law may not have been challenged. And as Chip mentioned before, I think it would be difficult to stand up against the 4th Amendment.... but I also thought that about the ACA vs. the Constitution.

 

[stephen87]

Sounds like an instance of "throw everything and hope something sticks."

 

[Nodonutz]

Sounds like an instance of "throw everything and hope something sticks."

Without knowing full context of the incident, I'd have to agree.... seems like a stretch at first blush.
Back in the day, we had a rash of shoplifting in an area. We would have to document the value of the items taken and how much $$ the (S) had in their possession. If their ability to pay wasn't equal to the items taken, we started charging them with felony burglary, instead of a misdemeanor shoplifting. In CA burglary is defined as entering a building with the intent of larceny (paraphrased). That eliminated the argument they were going to pay, but simply forgot. We would explain what was happening, why, and told the crooks, "Tell a friend" (there was an ad campaign at the time and that was the tag line). Word spread and the incidents in the area dropped dramatically.