And your comment makes my point.

I’m fairly certain one could kill someone with a fire extinguisher without too much difficulty. It’s a heavy, rigid, club-like object – a natural bludgeon. But that’s beside the point, as guns don’t kill people, either.

The big problem with your analysis on a civil liability front, SCOTUS long ago gave cops absolute immunity against suits for failing to protect someone. As a matter of federal slaw, cops have no duty to protect anyone under any circumstances.

It seems like your analysis relates more to civil liability than criminal. A breach of a legal duty is only criminal if some provision makes the particular breach subject to criminal penalties.

Well, not quite–fire extinguishers don’t kill people.

But the point is well-taken.

ed,
That kind of puts an end to the “you don’t need a gun, the Police are there to protect you” argument.

Well, doesn’t that depend on (a) the statute and (b) the facts?

In theory, if the statute was clear, then yes. Omission under a legal duty has always supported criminal liability. In the case of refusing, obviously, there are judgments to be made about causation etc., but some pretty nebulous causation theories have supported criminal liability. The best argument, I would think, under existing law, would be some sort of reliance issue–if the police officer lied about what he was doing so that other police acted differently to the detriment of the victims,, then there are theories that could support criminal liability in that case.

Police in general ought to worry about the “omission under a legal duty” issue—when a cop commits police brutality in the presence of other cops and the other cops do nothing . . . . .

Bob