That varies, but in Arizona, no, you don’t swear to protect people.
So, to say that police officers swear to protect people? Some do make that oath. But the general statement is false by way of counter example.
But, with the links supplied, the courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that, despite the oath that some officers take, there is no such legal duty.
So, anyone who parrots lines about the police protecting you are just perpetuating a fictional notion so engrained that people are shocked to hear otherwise.
Don’t accidentally bootlick. Don’t ever let that statement go unchallenged.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
Your quote from the article contains a faulty premise:
Police are not obligated to protect the public.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
Edit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Edit 2: it was pointed out the quote was SPECIFICALLY about what police officers “swear”.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm#:~:text=do solemnly swear (or%20affirm,and%20impartially%20discharge%20the%20duties
That varies, but in Arizona, no, you don’t swear to protect people.
So, to say that police officers swear to protect people? Some do make that oath. But the general statement is false by way of counter example.
But, with the links supplied, the courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that, despite the oath that some officers take, there is no such legal duty.
So, anyone who parrots lines about the police protecting you are just perpetuating a fictional notion so engrained that people are shocked to hear otherwise.
Don’t accidentally bootlick. Don’t ever let that statement go unchallenged.
Mises? Yeah, not giving those libertarian fucks a single click.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Ok here is a paywalled NYT article then.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
Ok, fair, I apologize.