Question for everyone who thinks the police did not act "adequately". Define, please, the legal definition of the word adequate.

I'll wait. Go ahead.

The Supreme Court test of an officers behavior in those situations where a police officer must act ( keeping in mind he is not, as a matter of law, REQUIRED to respond ) is reasonableness. Did an officer act in a reasonable manner? Clearly, he did. No one has offered any tangible action the police could have legally done to contradict that fact. Go back to the house with her in the squad car? Leave her standing by the side of the road while they went in to investigate--knowing full well she would, in all likelihood, follow?? According to 1983, either of those two options WOULD have opened them up to liability had they followed either of those ideas. That being said--any other ideas?


Now, whatever answer that popped into your head, keep it in mind while reading the prior Supreme Court rulings on police conduct--feel free to start with the one I already posted which states very clearly what you or I feel or believe an officer SHOULD have done is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The LAW says an officer is NOT obligated to offer assistance. Period. Therefore, filing a claim against an officer without being able to offer any OTHER (legal) option they could have exercised will do little more than garner you ill will with the police--oh yes, and good luck calling them NEXT time you need assistance. Now, if they had ridiculed her, made racist remarks, or harmed her, that would be completely different. In any regard, by all means, complain at will--it is your right as a taxpayer to be heard if you are dissatisfied.

Far be it from me to point out that it is not an attorneys job to determine "if criminal charges are worth pursuing". She and her attorney, if she hires one, can ASK the PROSECUTOR to bring charges, but--it is not their decision to make, nor can they BRING charges against ANYONE ( unless, of course, it is small claims court/civil trial). If she hires an attorney, it would be to act on her behalf--NOT in prosecuting the young man, NOT in determining if the case is "worth pursuing", but in guiding her through the process if the STATE brings charges against the young man. The prosecutor does not act on behalf of the victim. The prosecutor acts on behalf of the STATE. The DA (prosecutor) is the one who makes the determination if the case has enough evidence to proceed and she will be a witness for the State.

It is NOT "all about her"---telling her this gives her a false impression that the state is bringing this case against this young man for HER. This is untrue. It is NOT "all about her"--it is all about The Law being broken. The case is not HER vs. the defendant, it is the STATE vs. the defendant--the victim, aside from being a witness in the STATES case , is incidental. Any victim that goes into a trial expecting to be revered and served with deference is going to be alarmed and in all probability, deeply pained. ANY attorney will promptly tell her, it ISNT all about her from a legal standpoint.

Another misunderstanding about the attorney "advice"--even if she DOESN'T want to proceed, the STATE can proceed without her. So, once again, what SHE or HER ATTORNEY thinks of the merits of the case is immaterial.

Example: She alleges rape ( hypothetically ). The police investigate, decide to pursue charges against the young man. She decides for whatever reason she doesn't want to participate---she doesn't want to "press charges". Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the STATE still wants to press charges, and there is nothing she OR her attorney can do. This happens in cases where they discover, for example, that the alleged rapist has committed other crimes against other women. The State can subpoena her as a hostile witness and she can be forced to testify against her wishes. Obviously, this is extreme for the alleged charge she is describing, but the point is--it CAN and DOES happen. The STATE is the only entity that can bring criminal charges.

Obviously, there is a relationship between forensics, crime, law and psychology. Peruse a law school curriculum in your free time--you will see that to be the case. However, I do not see "criminal psychology" as one of the categories of this forum, nor am I qualified to dole out psychological advice (got to love it when a person sticks to their discipline--if, in fact, they actually HAVE one). And, in fact, the poster wasn't ASKING for psychological advice. She was asking for PROCEDURAL LEGAL advice, which, fortunately for her, is precisely what I've given.