Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
They certainly didn't protect a friend when her husband was beating her up and raped her more than once. They let her down again when he was stalking her. Eventually he wore her down and she went back to him -- when the cycle continues today.

I feel the need to clarify this. I think police have a hard job and I do think many of them try to do what right...I think some of them are just arrogant assholes. I still wouldn't want to do their job (especially when I lived in the Bay Area). It must be very stressful.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
04-04-2013, 09:05 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 08:44 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  This has gone before the US Supreme Court and their ruling is that Police have no duty to protect you. The 'Protect and to Serve' crap painted on the side of a cruiser is just feel good bullshit. They exist solely to maintain domestic peace and enforce the law.

So this is where it gets interesting.

[1] No, it isn't their constitutional duty to protect the individuals.

[2] Yes, they will protect the individuals because the law (if any) demands so and the police have to enforce it.

One option should be true, but which one?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 09:05 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 08:44 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  This has gone before the US Supreme Court and their ruling is that Police have no duty to protect you. The 'Protect and to Serve' crap painted on the side of a cruiser is just feel good bullshit. They exist solely to maintain domestic peace and enforce the law.

So this is where it gets interesting.

[1] No, it isn't their constitutional duty to protect the individuals.

[2] Yes, they will protect the individuals because the law (if any) demands so and the police have to enforce it.

One option should be true, but which one?

It all depends on the officers' safety. If crimes are being committed in a highly dangerous area, the police may not intervene, or intervene at a later time when the odds are more in their favor.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
04-04-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 09:05 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 08:44 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  This has gone before the US Supreme Court and their ruling is that Police have no duty to protect you. The 'Protect and to Serve' crap painted on the side of a cruiser is just feel good bullshit. They exist solely to maintain domestic peace and enforce the law.

So this is where it gets interesting.

[1] No, it isn't their constitutional duty to protect the individuals.

[2] Yes, they will protect the individuals because the law (if any) demands so and the police have to enforce it.

One option should be true, but which one?

False dichotomy. Neither are accurate. A more accurate statement would be, "the police enforce the law, and the law is in place to protect the public. The police do not directly protect the public. That means that if someone is not protected, the law needs to be adjusted, NOT the actions of the police."

Remember, the law doesn't demand the police protect the public. Only that the police enforce the law. Saying that the police are required to protect the public by default is just too big of a leap. The separation exists for a reason.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
04-04-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
In a capitalist state the judicial system and it's police exist to enforce and maintain the rule of the corporations.

Has any policeman ever attempted to arrest a corporate criminal that was involved in the numerous economic scandals that caused the economy to go bad? NO

Policeman only harass working class neighborhoods and beat up poor people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 09:36 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 09:18 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 09:05 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  So this is where it gets interesting.

[1] No, it isn't their constitutional duty to protect the individuals.

[2] Yes, they will protect the individuals because the law (if any) demands so and the police have to enforce it.

One option should be true, but which one?

False dichotomy. Neither are accurate. A more accurate statement would be, "the police enforce the law, and the law is in place to protect the public. The police do not directly protect the public. That means that if someone is not protected, the law needs to be adjusted, NOT the actions of the police."

Remember, the law doesn't demand the police protect the public. Only that the police enforce the law. Saying that the police are required to protect the public by default is just too big of a leap. The separation exists for a reason.

May I ask for what reason there is separation?

Thank you for you clarifications so far.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 09:18 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 09:05 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  So this is where it gets interesting.

[1] No, it isn't their constitutional duty to protect the individuals.

[2] Yes, they will protect the individuals because the law (if any) demands so and the police have to enforce it.

One option should be true, but which one?

False dichotomy. Neither are accurate. A more accurate statement would be, "the police enforce the law, and the law is in place to protect the public. The police do not directly protect the public. That means that if someone is not protected, the law needs to be adjusted, NOT the actions of the police."

Remember, the law doesn't demand the police protect the public. Only that the police enforce the law. Saying that the police are required to protect the public by default is just too big of a leap. The separation exists for a reason.

I really do get what you're saying but honestly, I've seen the police not enforce the law. They often pick and choose which laws they want to follow....

At least that's how it seems to me. I'm not really talking about corruption either...because let's be honest that's a problem everywhere. I dunno. I know the police are overwhelmed in certain areas so maybe things get pushed aside?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:40 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
(04-04-2013 09:32 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 09:18 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  False dichotomy. Neither are accurate. A more accurate statement would be, "the police enforce the law, and the law is in place to protect the public. The police do not directly protect the public. That means that if someone is not protected, the law needs to be adjusted, NOT the actions of the police."

Remember, the law doesn't demand the police protect the public. Only that the police enforce the law. Saying that the police are required to protect the public by default is just too big of a leap. The separation exists for a reason.

May I ask for what reason there is separation?

Thank you for you clarifications so far.


Did you follow the links I provided?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
HU,

I think the separation exists to make the job possible. If the job of the police was simply to protect people, it would be an impossible job. It would leave far too much responsibility in the hands of officers who would inevitably fail if they were charged with simply "protecting people". Know what I mean?

Having the police enforce the law gives them cut and dry (well, as cut and dry as it can be anyways) rules to follow and duties to uphold.

Momwithboys,

I totally hear ya. I'm more commenting on what the intent of the law and law enforcement is, and not so much how it's actually practiced.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
04-04-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Any law in the U.S. that said the it is the Police's DUTY to protect individuals?
Just as an aside.....many officers take it upon themselves to protect the public directly by bypassing the separation I mentioned earlier. These officers, though they may be well intentioned, do a disservice to both themselves and the public. Themselves because they are taking on an impossible task and so dooming themselves to failure. The public because protecting the public involves making judgement calls that should not be made. In fact, I think it's fair to say that when an officer decides to make a judgement call, s/he is taking the power of the law out of the publics hands where it belongs.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: