Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public......

    Results 1 to 4 of 4
    1. #1
      Senior Member Cait43's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      West Allis, WI(Milwaukee)
      Posts
      3,555

      Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public......

      Old ruling but people need to realize this fact.......
      Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public | Tribunist

    2. #2
      Senior Member paratrooper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Posts
      5,308
      There never seems to be a cop around when you need one the most.

      Unless of course, you just happen to be actively employed as one........or are retired.

    3. #3
      Senior Member tony pasley's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2006
      Location
      clyde n.c.
      Posts
      3,167
      The misinformation was really promoted back in the 1960s when a simple phrase was lettered on to police cars "to protect and serve" . People began to believe that the police were to be there to prevent all crime. The job of law enforcement is to get the bad guy after the crime is committed and turn them over to be prosecuted.

    4. Remove Advertisements
      HandgunForum.net
      Advertisements
       

    5. #4
      CW
      CW is offline
      Member CW's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Location
      Keystone Commonwealth
      Posts
      928
      ...when seconds count....

      But one might concede the typical law enforcement officer likely has a built in moral duty to protect and serve.

      As a matter of fact, they are often the first first-responder and engage in lifesaving aid once the situation is deemed controllable.

      Maybe such rulings take into account that the few police we have cannot be everywhere, so are not liable for failure.


      AND if this is the opinion of the court,
      then the argument For firearm possession becomes much stronger since the court puts the onus on citizens to protect themselves.

      But there might be a technicality:

      Citizens may be allowed to protect themselves and those under their immediate charge, but they have no such responsibility for other citizens
      and run the risk of actually interfering with another's responsibility to protect themselves.

      Court logic can be baffling when you switch the letter of the law for the intent of the law and all of it absent of some fundamental morality. IMO

    Sponsored Links

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •