Was Derek Chauvin protected by Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)?
<p>(1)</p>
<p>Was Derek Chauvin protected by Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)<sup>1</sup>?</p>
<p>(2)</p>
<p>If Chauvin had not touched Floyd at all, would Chauvin be protected by Castle Rock v. Gonzales?</p>
<p>Meaning no attempt at arrest, no confrontation, nothing. Just let Floyd leave with his cigarettes.</p>
<p>(3)</p>
<p>Given the apparent huge disparity in the risk-reward calculation of a police officer taking action versus just sitting in the car, why don't all police just sit in their car all day?</p>
<hr />
<p><sup>1</sup>a court decision that says that a person cannot sue the police (in the US) for failing to enforce a law, and that the police have no duty to enforce any particular law in any particular case.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Was Derek Chauvin protected by Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748
(2005)?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Chauvin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Derek Chauvin</a>, the police officer whose affirmative physical acts caused the death of George Floyd is not protected by this precedent.</p>
<p><em>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</em> holds that the police do not have a duty to enforce the law that may be enforced by a private party in a civil action. Police instead have broad discretion regarding whether they will or will not take action to enforce a law.</p>
<p>But, when a police officer does take action affirmatively, this case does not apply. Instead, the question then, is whether the affirmative use of force by the officer was justified by the applicable substantive criminal law.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If Chauvin had not touched Floyd at all, would Chauvin be protected by
<em>Castle Rock v. Gonzales</em>?</p>
<p>Meaning no attempt at arrest, no confrontation, nothing. Just let
Floyd leave with his cigarettes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. (A much more complicated analysis applied if a fellow officer did what he did and he stood back and did nothing, but that is beyond the scope of this question as I understand it and would call for a separate question.)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the apparent huge disparity in the risk-reward calculation of a
police officer taking action versus just sitting in the car, why don't
all police just sit in their car all day?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Police officers who do that are routinely fired and given bad recommendation by their superiors when applying for a new law enforcement position. Law enforcement supervisors routinely punish police officers for inaction construing that as being a &quot;coward&quot; but are much less likely to punish a police officer for being unlawfully overzealous without strong pressure from civilians in the relevant government agency or local government.</p>
<p>Empirically, sitting in their car all day is not how police act. They are much more likely to be overzealous than to be docile.</p>
<p>This said, there is <a href="https://www.vox.com/22360290/black-lives-matter-protest-crime-ferguson-effects-murder" rel="nofollow noreferrer">some statistical evidence</a> that has been construed to show that following the announcement of the Chauvin prosecution and related protests before and after that was done, that police took a less active role in policing that led to higher crime.</p>

united-states police