5 ms·

The ruling "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no s

• angersock 12y ago
  So, they don't actually have the duty in any meaningful implementation sense, is what you're saying.
  • danans 12y ago
    That's carrying it a bit far, and I don't think that's what the GP was saying at all. I think they meant that police officers have a duty to enforce the law in each situation they are presented with. And law enforcement situations are composed of individuals, some of whom may or may not be breaking the law - we give the officer the right to make a snap judgement on this in emergencies. For example, if an officer arrives at a situation where one individual is robbing another, then their duty to the public (and to the victim) is to try to prevent the robber from victimizing the other individual, or apprehend the robber if he has already committed the crime. In attempting to do so, they uphold their law enforcement duty to the public. Just as much, it is important for the officer to follow the law in the process of enforcing it, which is at the crux of the debates around the death of unarmed individuals by police.