What do you think about the fact that the police have no duty or obligation to protect citizens?

[Anonymous]

[OlderAndWiser]

In the application of the law, the police have no duty or obligation to protect any particular citizen but they do have a duty to protect citizens in general. What this means is that the police can he held responsible for not doing their job at all but they cannot be held responsible for failing to protect an identified, individual citizen unless they promise protection.

The idea is that there are limited resources available and the police must allocate those resources in the way they think is most helpful to the public in general. If, in retrospect, the allocation they choose leads to someone not being protected from a criminal, the victim cannot later sue the police department for failing to protect them.

[lightbulb27]

helpful to know and I wish this was taught and explained in life/school. I did not know... This another reason why people need to be able to defend themselves.

[Bluemax]

Are you familiar with the YouTuber Legal Eagle?

[OlderAndWiser]

@Bluemax No, I am not.

[Texaskid1]

It does not surprise me.

I read about this year's ago. Law enforcement is the primary body that the state uses to protect its own interests. But they are under no obligation to put their lives at risk for others.

This is something that most people don't know about. For example if a fire fighter refuses to go into a burning building to save some one he can not be arrested or sued. From the fire fighters perspective it is a job. In any job your employers are usually responsible for training you and providing the resources and manpower needed. If a situation is deemed too dangerous the firefighter can refuse to act and later on he can allege that he did not have the proper resources or training or back up for that situation. He might get some flack from the public and from journalists ( most of whom erroneously believe he is under some obligation to risk his life for others) but he is not going to be dragged off to jail or even fired.

[normalice]

I've never been comfortable with the fact that the only people routinely encouraged to do whatever they have to to make it home safe to their families are the cops. Everyone else is expected to sacrafice themselves to protect the police from any real or imagined threat. Seems kind of nuts.

[Asker]

“Everyone else is expected to sacrifice themselves to protect the police form any real or imagined threat.”

What do you mean?

[normalice]

When cops kill someone because they "feared for their life" or they "thought they saw a gun," we're all supposed to be understanding of that. But if anyone kills a cop for the exact same reason, that calls for pitchforks and torches.

[jshm2]

Neither do the military, firemen or any other USA government agency.

The USA is the only Western state which got rid of Habeas Corpus.

Hence it's the only state which can kidnap, rendition and imprison it's citizens indefinitely and without legal authority, and face no legal consequences. It can also do this to foreign citizens, provided it's own are not caught in the act of doing so.

[hahahmm]

I think of police like guard dogs. Somebody else's guard dogs. I don't call them and I make sure I have all the tools needed to deal with criminals myself. Of course there's a lot of sheep out there who need cops to make them feel safe.

[BeMuse]

It is what it is... If you get corrupt police with a lack of a moral compass they will pick and choose who gets services even though everyone is taxed forcefully.

[SlangSlayer]

Police job is protect law and order and property not you.

They are there to keep. Humans from acting like cave men.

You are supposed to protect yourself and items.

[alderoth]

It makes sense now why they don't go running into mass shootings and actually try and save the day.

[Rangers]

It doesn't matter to 96% of officers as if they wouldn't put the safety of the innocent above their own, they wouldn't wear the uniform but there's exceptions to every rule as we saw in Uvalde

[Anonymous]

But they do have an obligation to write you a ticket and lock your ass up in the clink.

It’s almost like they are just glorified tax collectors and turnkeys with guns...🤷‍♂️🤔

[MrTaboo]

Ok, maybe they should take "to serve and protect" off their cars.

[LeeannaDD]

They literally do tho...

[SlightlyEccentric]

Not according to the Supreme Court they don't

[WhitneySnow]

They don’t?

[MrOracle]

No, they don't. Legally, their responsibility is to."society as a whole" and not to any specific person, place, or event.

You know how police didn't enter the school in Texas during an active shooting? They can't be sued for that, the lawsuit would be thrown out.

The police decide which calls they respond to, and you can't do anything about their decisions, aside from voting for better politicians.

[WhitneySnow]

@MrOracle but I heard they were gonna be sued for the thing in Texas

[MrOracle]

They might file for show, but it will get thrown out. Lots of theatrics are performed to build a narrative in the media.

[WhitneySnow]

@MrOracle okay

[Fuentes]

In what world?

[Asker]

This is based in the US.

[Fuentes]

You let some small town Texas shooting dictate all police? Small crappy police dept.

[jimmy2]

Yes they do