> 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 ab

> 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.