Agnostic.com

4 2

So much for "SERVE AND PROTECT" I guess. Apparently, in reality, it's just a meaningless slogan.

The New York Times: Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre, Judge Rules.
[nytimes.com]

Condor5 8 Dec 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It never ceases to amaze me how many of my fellow Americans are not aware of the fact that those in law enforcement have no legal obligation to protect citizens, their duty is to uphold laws in place and apprehend those who break said laws. It is for this same reason that such a thing as private security exists along with bodyguards, for those out there who need protection. There have been several employees who had worked for Planned Parenthood who had filed complaints with their local police over threats issued by pro life fanatics (I disdain pro lifers) only for the most part to be told the police are limited in what they could do for them. I hate to say this, but a good majority of Democrats and other left-leaning folks appear to be rather naive when it comes to the duties of those in LE, at least based on my observations over the years. Of course, that's not something our children are being taught in schools though, and unfortunately some folks end up learning about such the hard way.

Why is it, then, that so many police agencies, the L.A.P.D among them, have the words "To serve and protect" on their patrol vehicles? I can grasp, and won't argue that protection, per se, is not their charter, but then what does "upholding the law" mean if it doesn't include attempting to prevent an active shooter from killing people? The law says murder is illegal, does it not?

@Condor5 That was my point, not enough people in our country question things, and that would apply to both political sides there. Just because someone makes a statement (in this case the popular slogan police use), does not automatically make it a true or genuine statement. The slogan "to serve and protect" is most likely strictly to gain support from the public and give the illusion that the police jobs are necessary for society to function properly and or safely. I find the word "serve" to be at least somewhat proper for the police (some of them anyway)... they serve all right, serve punishment to those who break the laws and in some cases ruin the lives of citizens who are wrongly accused of a criminal offense. How about the word "protect"? They protect all right... protect their own interests/job even if it means ruining the lives of others who may be innocent (think of all the recent police involved shootings in which unarmed citizens were executed). You follow me there Mr Condor? It depends on the context, the meanings of words may vary from individual to individual, but as I mentioned before based on my observations through the years I've noticed most people do not question these things enough and take what others say at face value. How about that officer who stood by when the Parkland shooting was being carried out? There is a word for a guy like that who obviously did not do his job like he was supposed to, society rightfully calls someone like that a coward. It concerns me when I see fellow citizens become too reliant on the police, as all human beings are prone to error and could fail in their job duties, and afterall there are people getting fired from their jobs every day across the country. Hope that answered your question, the meanings of words may differ from person to person, and I explained what I think that popular police slogan actually means.

0

I think you might be misconstruing the point of the ruling. I believe this only has to do with the general liability of police officers for failing to prevent any deaths. Did that one officer act cowardly? Yes, and it doesn't bother me to see him sued, but I'm sure he was the exception. Perhaps the judge did a poor job of reasoning and his explanation that "officers had no duty to protect students" does not really apply to this case.

godef Level 7 Dec 19, 2018

Seems like a pretty clear message to me.

@Condor5 In other words, call a spade a spade. The whole police force there did not fail to protect, it was an individual.The judge's reasoning made it sound all none of the officers stepped up. Now, shame on that one officer, but I would tend to side with the notion that he can be held liable. He probably should not be a cop.

@godef you're 100% right that he should not be a cop.

1

Disgraceful!

2

Then what was their purpose; to check students for a hall pass when they went to the restroom?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:247358
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.