Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Do Police Have To Protect You?" video.

@justinortiz9350 Not true. What do you think most domestic calls are? There are also calls when someone is acting erratically as is the case with this. They do indeed respond to those calls. They have to make sure the subject isn't a danger so they can be taken in to receive the help they need. The police should respond if you are in imminent danger regardless if the threats were only verbal. 911 isn't going to listen to your recording of being threatened. That's only if the person threatening isn't currently near you for you to take to the police to show a pattern. That's not for when you're in danger of imminent harm as was clearly the case here. What you're describing is a slow escalation of a threat, what she's describing is imminent danger. Completely different things.
11
Correct. The duty is to the public at large, not the individual. Someone shooting is a threat to many because bullets travel through things. Someone beating you up, they'll get there eventually maybe. If they don't, your family has no legal recourse, but they'll arrest who it was and maybe prosecute them. Edit: Also if they see you being beaten they have no duty to intervene unless there's a greater risk to the public. You can't sue them if they don't and they know it. You could sue the police department, but good luck with that.
3
@Gurfi28 A special relationship would be if they put you in that situation. An informant that's wired is an example. Other than that, if the police standby and watch you get beaten, they can't be held liable. Meaning there's nothing to enforce their protection of you. So it is indeed saying the police have no duty to protect an individual, but only when the public at large is at risk is there a duty to protect.
2