3 ms·

“promptly and firmly by a justice system” The Justice system is almost never prompt. Despite the fact that some laws have been broken, the police likely won’t

“promptly and firmly by a justice system” The Justice system is almost never prompt. Despite the fact that some laws have been broken, the police likely won’t take a situation seriously until _after_ there’s a dead body. They aren’t in the business of preventing people from getting killed. They’re in the business of putting the killers in jail. So, yes, maybe a more ideal solution would be a dramatic reform to policing, but, if that’s not going to happen any time soon, what solutions are available?

Ygg2 4y ago
> They aren’t in the business of preventing people from getting killed. They’re in the business of putting the killers in jail. If this is true, explain police protection. Or restraining order.
- threeseed 4y ago
  You should look into the enforcement of restraining orders. Because it is unacceptably lax to say the least. And way too many people have died because of it.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    I said it is their job. I didn't say they do a good or a bad job.
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      The Supreme Court has ruled very explicitly that the policy *do not* have a duty to protect a citizen. It is, very explicitly according to the SCOTUS, not actually their job.
- the_why_of_y 4y ago
  In the US, a restraining order issued by a court is merely a suggestion; police can simply ignore it without consequence, even if there is a law on the books that requires police to enforce it. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278