Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are the police officer. Your only job is to protect the public and that includes yourself (and your partner) and to stop the attacker. Running away and letting someone else stop the attacker is not doing your job.
You are suppose to be trained and armed. If you are not not doing your most basic job, then what’s the point of you being a police officer, just to fill an equity quota?
Is that what the city is paying her for now?
Of course, Mr. brainwashed liberal won’t understand this.
I’m pretty sure you’d p… your pants out there. In fact, I have very little doubt you would chicken out at the least little altercation. You’re the type, lol.
You are the police officer. Your only job is to protect the public and that includes yourself (and your partner) and to stop the attacker. Running away and letting someone else stop the attacker is not doing your job.
You are suppose to be trained and armed. If you are not not doing your most basic job, then what’s the point of you being a police officer, just to fill an equity quota?
Is that what the city is paying her for now?
Of course, Mr. brainwashed liberal won’t understand this.
I agree. This isn't a good look on that police officer. I could see if she was knocked out or otherwise was hit so hard that she didn't know here from there, but that doesn't seem to be the case from the video. Glad she seems to be OK, but she should probably find a different line of work. And that's OK. Not every job is for everyone.
You are the police officer. Your only job is to protect the public and that includes yourself (and your partner) and to stop the attacker. Running away and letting someone else stop the attacker is not doing your job.
You are suppose to be trained and armed. If you are not not doing your most basic job, then what’s the point of you being a police officer, just to fill an equity quota?
Is that what the city is paying her for now?
Of course, Mr. brainwashed liberal won’t understand this.
actually this is incorrect .
the courts have stated over and over the police have no duty to protect the public .
they are considered to be an investigative unit ….
they only protect society at large and do not have to protect anyone individually
I’m pretty sure you’d p… your pants out there. In fact, I have very little doubt you would chicken out at the least little altercation. You’re the type, lol.
You know about me how? Something must’ve hit a nerve. You sound so bitter. Why are Canadians so nosy about American affairs? You don’t see me go to Montreal threads to talk smack do you?
If you visit the U.S. and get beat by someone, hopefully that female cop won’t be able to help you either so that should make you happy.
the courts have stated over and over the police have no duty to protect the public .
they are considered to be an investigative unit ….
they only protect society at large and do not have to protect anyone individually
I understand you are responding to the phrase "Your only job is to protect the public ..." but there is a point to be made that perhaps that female officer should find another line of work. Her behavior was unprofessional and she is not to be trusted insinuating herself into a dangerous situation when a civilian may be involved.
If the public is not society at large then what is society at large?
“Questions of Police Duty
The motto, "To Protect and Serve," first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer's legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?
The answer is no.
In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
