Talk:Duty to protect

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Duty to protect is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

USA-centric[edit]

This article fails to mention whether this duty exists in non-U.S. legal systems. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police duty to protect[edit]

Should add a section about this. Heard about this on RadioLab- several court cases have established that the police have no constitutionally mandated duty to protect any citizen from harm. Need reliable ( law review &other) sources, of course Lexein (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is that this should go in a separate article because it's distinct from this because i. this is about mental health and ii. i think violating confidentiality is such a core part of this principle that adding things without this violation of confidentiality could mislead; iii. there is something very specific about simultaneously encouraging people to be completely open about their thoughts and feelings and then giving a clinician freedom to judge this information and divulge it to the police. Talpedia (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]