abandoned its written operational policy of aggressive high visibility pro active the force of law enforcement to protect the public safety and pioneer square in favor of an ad hoc policy  but it was just changing one policy to another policy that in retrospect turns out to perhaps not been as colpus that it is it might otherwise be it wasn't it wasn't even in to people come to pioneer square there was no specific statement of that effect obviously the whole purpose of the police presence there was to protect the public safety so the fact that the police were going to be present is certainly a statement if you will but conduct aimed at a specific point otherwise every time we had a riot there would be a constitutional violation if anybody heard well i don't think that's true because i don't think that you can prove but that's that's comes back to my point if you're correct then every time there's a riot and somebody gets hurt there's a constitutional violation i well i don't believe that to be true you have the need to how do you separate it how do you distinguish or  was in this case an affirmative decision placing those plaintiffs in a more much more dangerous situation than had they not for instance on friday and saturday night it's they had a riot for instance on friday saturday and no one was injured why not we have a ch charts in the in the record the reason was they have effect of forceful and presence of law enforcement and that was the operational plan and they had commanders that knew what they were doing in tuesday night they had no operational plan that had been abandoned court held on the motion to dismiss in situations where specific individuals not the general public are owed a duty in this case they they were able to do the police commanders regular visualize the specific individuals and this is the class of general rule of the due process clause is that the government owes no duty to individuals to protect them from the violence of other private parties the due process clause protects people from violence from the government if that's what is happening does that was private party created danger we have to remember that we're a free society our freedom depends upon the government leaving us alone it doesn't depend on us leaving each other alone  what what steps a police officer or governmental agency needs to take in order to have itself in a special relationship with a person so that they can be liable despite the public duty doctrine and under those circumstances the court said just because a police officer or a governmental entity knows that there's a risk ongoing unless they do something additionally which stops the person from taking action to protect themselves for example in that case saying we have are going to pursue this case we are going to put it in front of the prosecuting attorney the court so that's the only thing that gets you beyond the public duty doctrine there is because there was an affirmative statement of the systems that created a relationship in the in the event that a person is merely a person  really approaches a police officer and says i'm in danger in the police officer takes no action it falls squarely within the provisions of over to you doctor so what we're talking about here is whether under these facts which are undeniably sympathetic facts the danger process violation if the state has judged crime or not and takes direct affirmative action which places a person in danger that they had not previously experienced now the plaintiffs are arguing for this really sweeping expansion of the danger creation theory despite acknowledging that the police had no contact whatsoever with the individuals in the crowd that night let alone with these individual plaintiffs they admit that there was no hijacked with the assailants until after the riots most of these people have been arrested based on video camera evidence and so forth and a based upon this absolute lack of state contact they say because people were hurt you should say that the police had an obligation to step in and do something i quite agree and i think frankly if you ask people in the in the seattle police department including the name in retrospect would you have gone back and made a different decision i think you would say yes but when a police officer even if it's the chief of police is faced with two bad choices chooses one and harm results where it could very easily have been choosing the other one and greater harm would have resulted that is a deliberate indifference the other requirement for the state created a danger except one thing that hasn't been discussed here and frankly was not discussed in any detail at the district court level in the plaintiff's argument either is the case why if one reads the cases and looks at what the supreme court which of course we're bound to follow here and what this court has said about the case a man crossed the center line and was involved in a serious head on collision and fled into the desert civilians happened by the scene and started to look for the man because it was obvious he had to be hurt there was blood in this car was a terrible collision and the other the other  driver of the car had to be cut out of the vehicle police arrived at the scene and pursuant to their policy told people to go home so they stopped the private rescuers from doing their job were doing what they're trying to do and then the police undertook only a cursory search of the area around the cars they went to the to the car and they saw fit on the car they knew the man was injured they went into the desert they found signs that he was stumbling on his hands and knees walking in circles and yet the event of the search and he was course now dead later they didn't go back to search again until about a month later individuals from taking care of themselves stopping other people from taking care of the boneheads or if any contact so within amos versus the city of page there is no due process violation to what the police did how the possibly be an archi and surely that was a bad decision made surely was it was an improper or not improper but it was perhaps an imprudent policy to not certify that the state didn't create the danger the question so it is so that they had that the existence of the police force and the expectation that they would be there have nothing to do with the creation of the danger no actually i think this is a completely analogous to the repeatedly went into the police and asked real time after time after time the police refused to do anything about it in fact at times they were just talking about one officer when she went in at midnight to say my kids still aren't home  exactly what they were deciding is perhaps more telling because the due process claims have been disposed of at the district court level and have been disposed of on appeal by the question by the circuit court of appeals and was not even they didn't bother to bring it up at the supreme court level but interestingly what judge the improper act of a private party so even under that extreme scenario your honor there is no liability for the city when the city simply does not some steps to protect the from violence now that cheney case is another very troubling case that if you weigh the facts of this case to the cheney case one must wonder how how could we possibly be liable for this into shame there was a lot of  five seconds six nights in that case the police responded to a call of domestic violence when they arrived there was ample evidence of domestic violence the plaintiff case was very sure acquired medical attention predicament or that the officers know of that or even from officers expressions of an intent to help but rather from changing the plaintiff or the victim's position so that they cannot take care of themselves now could only furtively look out of the crowd because when they peered over the edge there were soldiers with bottles of rocks surely if they could see that there was danger brewing in the crowd of people in the crowd as well the police never took their ability to in the crowd assaulting people comes from one radio dispatcher one nine one one call at about ten thirty in the evening the civilians called up and said couple of carlos of guys that look like gang members just pulled up outside of tahrir square and they're practicing fight if they're going into the into the pioneer square area i think they may be heading in to commit crimes or to cut what it says is caused by disturbances was the fact that the police actually sought i mean just for hypothetical process violation and the question is not because the cases we've already discussed malice rary di maria where the police actually saw the violence going on and did nothing the course of ruled that that is the due process violation of the second question is what if the people didn't know about the risk they didn't know the gang members were coming that's been handled by dozens of cases in which people have claimed the state agencies state actors police departments corrections officers have negligently or  have intentionally released dangerous people into the population without warning the population about it and those people end up committing crimes against them one of the cases that is relevant to that is cited arca in our brief it's the wheelchair not guilty because of criminal insanity state institutions for five years eventually they released him he was not cured they knew it was cured they knew it was deliberate so he subsequently went out and murdered another person and the cause of action was how could you do this without warning the populace they didn't know that this risk was out there and of course that if the state had never been involved in that if the state of never held him the risk would have been any greater and that's that's what the key to one of the keys to this court's decision in this case has to be a look at amos versus city of page look at this cheney and the courts in both us the ninth circuit and the u s supreme court say the same thing and they say the test is did if the police created it here's the test country sturgis a number of music events where people show up knowing darn good well there's not going to be any flues protections are there in just as much danger there is that would be in my grandma to grow situation a downtown seattle or any other large scale or that the fact of the matter is you're on i think that you're that you're not actually right there's no fact to suggest that the evil in and relying on police protection and if i think they went and to go to bars and have fun on margaret that's what people think about when they're going downtown running very long time but i do want to point out so that the whole thrust of the plaintiff's case was this change of policy thing that the city seattle failed to abide by standard policies or accepted procedures and yet in his deposition which is cited in our brief relayed to the police regarding the increased presence of gangs in the area this was not a mystery and it's absolutely true that the plaintiffs in this case had no idea that all of the sudden gangs were entering that the police didn't do anything to stop or have a plan to let them enter answering the danger is if you read the plan itself the operational plan was to intercede and interject aggressively with high visibility to intercede to make sure that those criminal actions don't occur that was the plan and that plan then was discarded and eleventh hour attempts where was a reason why it was discarded is not true the reason it was discarded you are quite right is because the shop owners and the businesses in the area of friday saturday night complained of overaggressive holds that you need a distinct class of individuals who are subject to a negligence claim and doesn't fall within the public duty doctrine the public duty doctrine and you know in the in the decision the court's raising i