Warren v. DC: “Police have no obligation to protect people.”
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales: “Police have no obligation to enforce the law.”
Heien v. North Carolina: “Police have no obligation to know the law.”
I didn’t believe you, so I looked up those cases. While there’s a little more nuance to the cases than your summaries, you are pretty spot on. We are all cursed with this disgraceful knowledge now.
This is a bizarro version of the three monkeys.
Protect no people, enforce no laws, know no laws?
Fun fact: contrary to popular belief, the United States of America is not the only country on earth, and it’s laws don’t apply to the other 195 UN member states and other unrecognized states and territories.
I’m not saying cops outside of the USA aren’t bastards, but this isn’t an argument against cops, more against the US government
Who the fuck thanks cops for their service? Is this some kind of American thing??
Some Americans worship cops as a part of their political identity. They’re the “Free-thinkers” that all seem to act identically and get their opinions handed down to them from US Reich wing media and internet personalities.
One thing about this post though is that the police DO protect and serve, it’s just who they’re protecting and serving (hint: it’s the wealthy and their businesses)
I highly recommend the six part mini series Robert Evans did called “Behind the Police” as a subset of his “Behind the Bastards” podcast.
Don’t forget Uvalde.
Can someone please factcheck this ? I don’t believe it but too lazy to do my own research.
Only done one law paper, for non American law however a few things stand out. Sorry I don’t have the cases on hand (I can look them up if anyone can give me the case name and where it was published).
“Duty to Uphold law, not protect people.” This makes sense. The job of the police is to uphold the law, not protect people unless a person coming into harm is doing so because a person is not following the law. As an example, it’s not the job of the police to protect a person who is going to kill themselves from alcoholism as drinking is not illegal - only actions taken while drinking.
“Protect people from harm”. Similar to above but this seems to be along the lines of how people can be harmed while police are upholding the law - think of a person who steals a car getting injured when the police run them off the road. That person was harmed in the action of upholding the law.
“Protect students”. I assume this was a school shooting… because Americans. The police job is to stop the shooter as soon as possible to prevent further harm, not protect the people the shooter is trying to kill. Can’t remember the name - that recent one where the police stood around a corner being useless? They could have argued that they were protecting other students, however this was not their job (cowards). Their job was to stop the shooter - and the training stated their role was to engage the shooter asap and with everything they had - not Protect people behind them.
Saying all of this, I can guarantee these decions have been manipulated to avoid responsibility.
How does this work? If cops have an obligation to uphold the law and assaulting someone is a crime…Do they not have a responsibility to stop that? Seems like judges are playing games with these rulings to me.
Basically no. They have an obligation to arrest the perpetrator. They can’t be made to risk their safety in defending you tho. So no, they don’t have to protect you in that situation and they can still do their “job” by arresting the perpetrator after.
That’s what I mean by playing games, though. You have to do some mental gymnastics to land at a place where attempting to thwart a crime being committed doesn’t fall within one’s obligation to uphold the law.
Your error is in thinking they “thwart” the crime. They don’t. They punish after the fact. That’s still upholding the law(punishment for breaking it) without protecting a person. There is no law that says they have to put their lives in danger, so they’re not breaking any laws when they don’t intervene.
It’s not mental gymnastics. It’s that laws are specific so as not to be too broad and overreaching and in this case, there is a massive Blindspot that has not only been allowed to exist, but has been further codified in legal precedent.
“Protect and serve” is a PR statement. It is not a codified law anywhere.
