Current Events > Judge ruled officers had no duty to protect students in parkland shooting.

(+) Yeah! (+)

They have to respond to murders/assaults and arrest people, but yeah otherwise they just make arrests and clean up messes. They certainly don't need the large arsenal of WMDs that they tend to get.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes.

Seems like wasteful spending.

They don't. And I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. They respond to crimes, they don't intervene.

Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of alternatives.

We most certainly do - it's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Probably the dumbest thing I've seen you say

How is that dumb? If the cops won't protect you, it's officially beholden on you to protect yourself.

As in, literally the point of the Second Amendment.
---

Literally taking the law into your own hands is illegal, not to mention defeats the purpose of government. Go make your own country, leave America and take your shooting spree mentality with you if that's how you're going to view the world.
---

You should be able to protect yourself against cops.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Literally taking the law into your own hands is illegal, not to mention defeats the purpose of government. Go make your own country, leave America and take your shooting spree mentality with you if that's how you're going to view the world.

Saying cops don't have a duty to protect the innocent or uphold the law defeats the purpose of government.

America's government was designed to stay out of the way of the individual. I'm sorry you don't know enough about history to understand that.
---

Well since you can't even argue against my points or address how you're wrong and prefer to act immature about it I guess we're done here.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Well since you can't even argue against my points or address how you're wrong and prefer to act immature about it I guess we're done here.

You haven't made one.
---

eston posted...

The idea that a lone police officer should have rushed into the building when he did not know where the shooter was or even how many shooters there were is completely ludicrous and flat out unreasonable.

LMAO if this was the actual case.
---

What is their duty then?
---

I was reminded of this sketch earlier today, feels fitting to add to this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI64HjwhRAo" data-time="
---

WesternMedia posted...

What is their duty then?

no one can answer this shit
---

So a crossing guard has more obligation to protect you than a police officer? Interesting.

Its horrifying to me, to imagine what it would be like to be a student in the US knowing that you have an increasingly high risk of being shot to death while in school and not only are armed law enforcement not required to protect you, but youre even prohibited from protecting yourself because you cant carry a weapon or try to escape the school if its in lockdown. If I were living in that reality, I think I wouldve dropped out and taken courses online for my GED. Its shocking that the current state of affairs is acceptable to majority of the American public.

renasunflash posted...

So a crossing guard has more obligation to protect you than a police officer? Interesting.

Its horrifying to me, to imagine what it would be like to be a student in the US knowing that you have an increasingly high risk of being shot to death while in school and not only are armed law enforcement not required to protect you, but youre even prohibited from protecting yourself because you cant carry a weapon or try to escape the school if its in lockdown. If I were living in that reality, I think I wouldve dropped out and taken courses online for my GED. Its shocking that the current state of affairs is acceptable to majority of the American public.

it gets more disgusting when you consider the fact we literally pay there salaries and they dont have to do shit
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The police don't have to protect you as an individual, they do have to protect the public at large. Ergo going after the criminals.

You as an individual are on your own.

Get ready to defend yourself.

You are, and most likely will be, the first responder to any situation.

The police are there to clean up, or hunt down criminals, or catch them if feasible.

The police are not required to sacrifice their lives for you specifically.

They will endanger it by hunting down criminals, but you better find a way to survive.
---

Arguably they don't have to protect the public at large either due to how subjective the requirements for that are. They just have to try criminals that seem like a threat to society.
---

Veggeta X posted...

eston posted...

The idea that a lone police officer should have rushed into the building when he did not know where the shooter was or even how many shooters there were is completely ludicrous and flat out unreasonable.

LMAO if this was the actual case.

'Waiting for backup' is fine. Actively telling said backup not to enter the building as children are being shot is quite another.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The police don't have to protect you as an individual, they do have to protect the public at large. Ergo going after the criminals.

You as an individual are on your own.

Get ready to defend yourself.

You are, and most likely will be, the first responder to any situation.

The police are there to clean up, or hunt down criminals, or catch them if feasible.

The police are not required to sacrifice their lives for you specifically.

They will endanger it by hunting down criminals, but you better find a way to survive.

All true, which is why the most common argument against guns, that you don't 'need' them because the police will protect you, is bullshit in every possible way.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Arguably they don't have to protect the public at large either due to how subjective the requirements for that are. They just have to try criminals that seem like a threat to society.

If we're being technical, that's for the courts. The police need to apprehend suspects and enforce the law.
---

If cops don't have a constitution right to protect people then they shouldn't have the constitutional right to kill unarmed people just because the little sissies feel threatened either.
---

For whom the gun tolls
For whom the prey weeps
Bow before a war
Call it religion

Some wounds never heal
Some tears never will
Dry for the unkind
Cry for mankind

Even the dead cry
Their only comfort
Kill your friend, I don't care
Orchid kids, blinded stare

Need to understand
No need to forgive
No truth no sense left to be followed

Facing this unbearable fear
like meeting an old friend

"Time to die, poor mates,
You made me what I am!"

In this world of a million religions
everyone prays the same way

"Your praying is in vain
It'll all be over soon"

Father help me, save me a place by your side!

"There is no God Our creed is but for ourselves"
"Not a hero unless you die Our species eat the wounded ones"

Drunk with the blood of your victims
I do feel your pity-wanting pain,
Lust for fame, a deadly game

"Run away with your impeccable kin!"

"Good wombs hath borne bad sons"

Cursing, God, why?
Falling for every lie
Survivors' guilt
In us forevermore

Fifteen candles
Redeemers of this world
Dwell in hypocrisy:
"How were we supposed to know?"

Four pink ones
Nine blue ones
Two black ones
---