4 ms·

It’s bonkers police are under no obligation to protect citizens[0] and also immune to any personal consequences of their actions (qualified immunity) It’s like

• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >It’s bonkers police are under no obligation to protect citizens[0 This always seemed intuitive and obvious to me. The constitution is almost entirely negative "freedom from" rights. Gaurenteed positive rights are impractical and generally unworkable. This is why government obligation to act is a matter of policy, not rights.
  • Doxin 4y ago
    > Gaurenteed positive rights are impractical and generally unworkable. Which is generally why such things are formulated as a duty instead. But you don't even need to do that in the case of the police. The police is special because they get granted the monopoly on violence. It seems obvious to me that granting such a powerful and dangerous tool should come with limits. E.g. the police is allowed to use violence only in the pursuit of protecting citizens. So no, not a positive right, just a "freedom from" getting shot by the police for no reason.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]