3 ms·

The supreme court has decided that the police have no obligation to interrupt a crime or protect you from violence, only to investigate afterwards. Even if they

by Grakel 5y ago

The supreme court has decided that the police have no obligation to interrupt a crime or protect you from violence, only to investigate afterwards. Even if they decide to, they're minutes or sometimes hours away.

oliwarner 5y ago
> The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims, and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10%. We keep moving in the wrong direction.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court. Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    You ignored what I said. Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      What you said was "We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment" It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.

by Grakel 5y ago

oliwarner 5y ago

> The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims, and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10%. We keep moving in the wrong direction.

torstenvl 5y ago
Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court. Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  You ignored what I said. Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    What you said was "We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment" It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.