162
Didn't the corrupt as fuck supreme court say that cops are under no obligation to protect anyone?
Unpopular opinion: I think it's somewhat reasonable to say that the cops shouldn't be punished legally if their protection or level of service to any particular person wasn't sufficient. I get why there's so much anger at this ruling, but I don't think it's a statement about what the police are "supposed to do" so much as a statement about what they can be held liable for within the justice system.
Uvalde is a whole different situation. They actively prevented people from going in to rescue their own kids, including handcuffing, tackling, pepper-spraying, and tasering them, while doing nothing at all effective about the shooter for an absolutely inexcusable length of time. They said hey, if you're in there say something, and one of the kids said something, and the guy heard her and shot her, and they didn't intervene at any point to prevent that outcome. They're directly responsible for the deaths of quite a few people. At that point, I think the legal system is well within its rights to say they've crossed the line from being simple bad cops into being liable for the criminal-justice consequences of their actions. Honestly? I hope a bunch of them go to prison for a long time; it'd be a better outcome for everyone involved.
Like that lady who they handcuffed and then when they let her go, she went around the back to go in and get her kids out, and then they harassed her afterwards because she was giving interviews that made them look bad. Charge them with harassment. It's not some feedback about their job performance; it's a class B misdemeanor. "Oh no... but, I, um, I thought that was part of my police duties. I can't, um, be held liable if I'm just doing, um, my job I guess, to go after this lady and punish her for what she did..."
It is absolutely unreasonable for them to have no consequences for failure to protect. They chose that profession. And they have been allowed to put themselves above the law for far too long.
Cops who want to shirk any duty to protect should not be cops. There are plenty of job openings in the world for garbage men, street cleaners, ditch diggers, crop pickers, and burger flippers if they'd like to remain employed and maybe make a positive contribution to society for a change.
For your unpopular opinion...
Read up on Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. It's the case that said there is no duty to protect. It's also an example of why there should be a positive duty to protect in some cases.
On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, Simon took possession of the three girls in violation of the order. Jessica called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, and 10:10 pm on June 22, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23. Prior to the second call, Simon had called Jessica and stated that he had the daughters with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. However, since Jessica had allowed Simon, from time to time, to take the children at various hours, the police took no action. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, Simon appeared at the Castle Rock police station and was killed in a shoot-out with the officers. A search of his vehicle revealed the dead bodies of the three daughters, who were determined to have been killed prior to arrival at the police station.
This makes a lot of sense and got me through my first, often wrong impression.. which in my fantasyland was "Oh for sure they'll make cops actually Protect and Serve now!"
I hereby nominate you to the Supreme Court
🙂
Yes, but the school district police chief actively kept other officers from intervening.
I'll assume they're looking into that one person's actions.
Yes, exactly. The chief kept other officers from intervening, and various officers kept parents from intervening. They assaulted and detained people attempting to rescue others, contributing to the perpetrator's unlawful acts, and increasing the harm to his victims.
On the civil side, the chief and many of these officers will likely lose their qualified immunity.
I bet that these officers could be charged under the laws prohibiting interference with emergency responders.
This could actually create some interesting legal precedent. The court has ruled police don't have a general duty to protect, but they also have ruled schools take the role of parents and have a duty to protect and act in the best interests of children. With a school employed police force, these two decisions are in conflict. Cases like this are practically Supreme Court bait.
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
162 points (100.0% liked)
News
23259 readers
2684 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS