5 ms·
Their duty is not to protect to serve though, it's to enforce. Get the bad guy as long as you don't put yourself in danger; collateral damage is fine
by 8note 6y ago
Their duty is not to protect to serve though, it's to enforce. Get the bad guy as long as you don't put yourself in danger; collateral damage is fine
- guscost 6y agoWhat I’m saying is that they almost certainly would not have been able to “get the bad guys” without being shot themselves, unless the tactic was machine-gun emplacements turning everyone into hamburger, with the side effect of starting a shooting war nationwide.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y agoI think you have a very weird and wrong idea of what "collateral damage" means. Actually, the police should avoid collateral damage at all cost, even if it means not catching the bad guys.
- modo_mario 6y agoI think he refers to the fact that there's been (supreme)court cases about this that generally rule in the polices favour saying they're under no obligation to protect, etc. And repeated examples of disregard for collateral damage and proportionality during enforcement like: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ups-driver-shot-dead-florida-frank-ordonez-regent-jewelers-a9235706.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ups-driver... Protocol changes are made like ones with regards to high speed chases but often only after a lot of hubris in which police and/or bystanders die