3 ms·
>The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen. The big difference is that the average citizen has the ability/expect
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
>The real issue here is whether or not this same logic will apply to the average citizen.
The big difference is that the average citizen has the ability/expectation to flee dangerous situations. For example, if I saw a crazy guy with a knife, I call the police but otherwise make sure I stay far away. In situations where the average citizen doesn’t have that expectation (for example in their own home) US law also generally gives them the benefit of the doubt regarding deadly force against a home invader. Now as a society , if we had police who avoided dangerous situations at all cost, it would not be very helpful. We as a society need people who are willing to intervene in dangerous situations, and so as a society we have in the past given them the benefit of the doubt regarding how they deal with what they perceive as immediate dangers to their lives.
- MrMember 8y agoThe police in the US have no legal duty to protect people, and several Supreme Court cases have affirmed this.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoThere may not be a legal duty, but there is definitely societal expectation. For example take Scot Peterson the Parkland officer who has been blasted, called a coward, and forced to retire for not confronting the Parkland shooter. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-peterson-s-message-families-i-m-sorry-n879716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-p... If a police officer or department develops a reputation of running from danger, there are going to be at least societal consequences for them.
- HarryHirsch 8y agoWere there any real consequences? Did someone go to jail or lose their government pension? People frowning at the police and police inaction means nothing, they just get fewer calls and less reports of crime, that improves the statistics.