Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox: Quote Originally Posted by StumpTownStu: Is it not their job to risk their lives to save children? No that¡¯s not their job. They have no constitutional duty to protect children or to protect you. That¡¯s why the right to bear arms is so important. It's not a cops job to protect children. Got it. You can educate yourself here if you¡¯d like https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again ¡°Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm ¡ª even when they know the harm will occur,¡± said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ¡°Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.¡±The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ¡°in custody,¡± he pointed out.¡±
Always funny when you don't read the rest of the articles you post detox meds, just to push your silly narratives.
From the article you posted.
"Nevertheless, we are told there is an agreement here ¡ª a "social contract" ¡ª between government agencies and the taxpayers and citizens.
And, by the very nature of being a contract, we are meant to believe this is a two-way street. The taxpayers are required to submit to a government monopoly on force, and to pay these agencies taxes.
In return, these government agents will provide services. In the case of police agencies, these services are summed up by the phrase "to protect and serve" ¡ª a motto that has in recent decades been adopted by numerous police agencies.
But what happens when those police agencies don't protect and serve? That is, what happens when one party in this alleged social contract doesn't keep up its end of the bargain.
The answer is: very little."
Sad, so much support from you Republicans for police when police officers are killing unarmed black people for basic traffic violations, but dead silence when the police don't do anything to stop a mass shooting or protect vulnerable children in school during an active shooting.
Then the argument is well technically it's not the police' job to protect and serve citizens. Only when those scary unarmed blacks aren't doing what they are told by police for routine stops. Then police must shoot them to protect the rest of the public because these menaces are such threats to collective safety.