4 ms·

> asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect

> asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil".

JadeNB 4y ago
> > asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. > SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil". Right, I meant "supposed" in the notional sense, like the average citizen supposes that they are going to be protected by the police, though I agree it was very confusing wording. I was referring exactly to decisions like the one you cite as evidence of cops receiving a double standard of treatment.
butlerm 4y ago
> SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municipality that imposes no duties on their employees, perhaps you should vote for someone who will.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law... No, SCOTUS explicitly ruled otherwise. Colorado law said the cops had a duty to act in a certain scenario; SCOTUS said Colorado can't override police discretion. 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... "Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, 'a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.'"
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. No, you are misinformed. That is, in fact, what SCOTUS ruled, not that "the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or the other." > The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municipality that imposes no duties on their employees, perhaps you should vote for someone who will. This is incorrect, and in fact directly backwards. SCOTUS used the premise that police don't have a Constitutional duty to protect citizens as the basis of their decision to overturn such a state law. It's also a moot point, because state courts - including in California, which is what's relevant here - have treated the Castle ruling as binding precedent that police do not have a duty to protect citizens.

JadeNB 4y ago

> > asking them to perform duties on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to protect. > SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. "Protect and serve" is just a marketing slogan, just like "Don't be evil". Right, I meant "supposed" in the notional sense, like the average citizen supposes that they are going to be protected by the police, though I agree it was very confusing wording. I was referring exactly to decisions like the one you cite as evidence of cops receiving a double standard of treatment.

butlerm 4y ago

> SCOTUS has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens. That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municipality that imposes no duties on their employees, perhaps you should vote for someone who will.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law... No, SCOTUS explicitly ruled otherwise. Colorado law said the cops had a duty to act in a certain scenario; SCOTUS said Colorado can't override police discretion. 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... "Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, 'a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.'"
chimeracoder 4y ago
> That is not remotely true. What SCOTUS has ruled is that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens, i.e. the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. No, you are misinformed. That is, in fact, what SCOTUS ruled, not that "the Constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or the other." > The actual duty of police to protect citizens arises from state law, departmental policies, and/or employment contracts. If you are so unfortunate as to live in a municipality that imposes no duties on their employees, perhaps you should vote for someone who will. This is incorrect, and in fact directly backwards. SCOTUS used the premise that police don't have a Constitutional duty to protect citizens as the basis of their decision to overturn such a state law. It's also a moot point, because state courts - including in California, which is what's relevant here - have treated the Castle ruling as binding precedent that police do not have a duty to protect citizens.