1096
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
1096 points (95.3% liked)
News
21718 readers
3737 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is way worse than murder. 'Normal' murderers dont swear to protect citizens before killing them.
Fun fact, they actually have no duty whatsoever to protect people :D
"In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty. "
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
There's also of course the case with the Uvalde school shooting where not only did cops wait outside for hours as students were being picked off, but prevented parents from going in to try to get their kids out.
ACAB
I’ve seen this before and I think it is worth adding some context too.
Let’s start with, yea, it leads to absurd result like the clown show in uvalde where I wouldn’t trust that police force to rescue cats from trees.
But… the other way you can’t have a right to a scarce resource (police protection). Police calls while not exactly random can’t be accurately predicted. It doesn’t make sense for a police force to be liable for failing to protect when they might literally not have the ability to protect. Or, through chance, there are no police officers that can get to the location in time.
Instead, the point is to rely on the police wanting to actually do their job and have a legal doctrine accordingly. But in our culture it seems that perhaps that is not necessarily a warranted assumption anymore.
"It doesn’t make sense for a police force to be liable for failing to protect when they might literally not have the ability to protect."
In what way does this excuse them not defending people when they have the chance?