You know what words we didn't see from the left when talking about CHOP /CHAZ?
Secession or insurrection. The whole thing was glorified even by the mayor herself - it has a block party atmosphere that could leave to a summer of love.

#1 | Posted by BellRinger

This is the SECOND case like this.

Would you like to know what happened to the first case where someone was shot in the CHOP zone? Appeals Court tossed it.

WHY?

The Law: To succeed on a state-created danger claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) a state actor's affirmative actions created or exposed him to an actual, particularized danger [that he] would not otherwise have faced (2) that the injury he suffered was foreseeable, and (3) that the state actor was deliberately indifferent to the known danger.

The difference thus far is this case was filed in STATE court and the other was filed in FEDERAL COURT. Unfortunately, Washington common law mimics the Federal code and common law.

Basically it will be over in Appeals because the danger must be specific to the plaintiff, not just the public at large. And it has to be foreseeable, not just possible.

This was the 1983 claim.
But the courts opined they should seek justice else where ...
And Sinclair or others harmed by his death may be able to bring state tort claims against the City. So while Sinclair may achieve justice for her son, the Due Process Clause is not the way to do so.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

They did ... and won.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut

So was the other one.

Same situation. Different victim. It was filed in Federal Court under section 1983. Guy got shot in the CHOP zone.

State-created danger claims are insanely difficult. And I mean insanely. They are so limited that 99% of cases where you think the state SHOULD be liable, they aren't legally liable.