4 ms·
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
by infinite8s 12y ago
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
- ekianjo 12y agowhat happened to the "to protect and to serve" motto then?
- jMyles 12y agoIt's just a motto, not a legal doctrine. Presumably it does have some effect. "Don't be evil" seemed to work for a while.
- ekianjo 12y agoYeah I know what you mean, but mottos are usually helpful to set the tone.
- fleitz 12y agoIt's still there, just like North Korea is still, The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.
- jrs235 12y agoThink of it this way: To protect and serve the government and government officials. (The government is suppose to serve the people/public...)
- jychang 12y agoI've never heard of this case, can you explain what it implies?
- justnow 12y ago"In every state of the United States, and in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Canada, when you call the police, dial 911, and rely on the police to protect you, you are taking a big risk. Under the laws of most of these jurisdictions, the police do not have to respond. They do not have to protect you" Also: "Carrying out the duties of a police or fire department are frequently classified as 'governmental' or 'discretionary'. Under the statutes and case decisions in most states, citizens cannot sue the government for negligently performing (or failing to perform) a 'governmental' or 'discretionary' function." Plus: "The general rule is that governmental entities owe a duty to provide police protection to the public, but not to protect any particular individual" source: Dial 911 and Die, by Richard W. Stevens P.S. I apologize I provide a single source, but I personally haven't read too much on this topic, other than the book cited.