3 ms·

Can you elaborate? id like To understand what you mean.

• wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Court found that if there’s a crime in progress, police aware of it don’t need to do anything about it. They aren’t crime stoppers. The court case was from when police were alerted to an ongoing break in and rape/battery against several women, the police arrived and left after the attackers told them it was ok (with the women tied up upstairs). One of the women had called the police, which then alerted the attackers that there was another woman in the house they hadn’t known about, who they then found and attacked as well. Court found the police had done nothing wrong by trusting the men and leaving without entering the home or doing anything else, after the woman’s 911 call. The ruling said that the police have no obligation to follow up on reported and active crimes, even if they’re already present at the scene - it’s simply not their purpose.
• krisoft 4y ago
  They are talking about "Warren v. District of Columbia" court case. To quote from wikipedia: "Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine." It kinda means (very loosely): If you call the police to help you, but they don't show up, tough luck. You can't sue them over that.
• loeg 4y ago
  "Protect and serve" is a slogan not backed up by anything. Police can observe, e.g., a mass shooter, and take no action. They have no responsibility to take any action.