How does this work? If cops have an obligation to uphold the law and assaulting someone is a crime…Do they not have a responsibility to stop that? Seems like judges are playing games with these rulings to me.
Basically no. They have an obligation to arrest the perpetrator. They can’t be made to risk their safety in defending you tho. So no, they don’t have to protect you in that situation and they can still do their “job” by arresting the perpetrator after.
That’s what I mean by playing games, though. You have to do some mental gymnastics to land at a place where attempting to thwart a crime being committed doesn’t fall within one’s obligation to uphold the law.
Your error is in thinking they “thwart” the crime. They don’t. They punish after the fact. That’s still upholding the law(punishment for breaking it) without protecting a person. There is no law that says they have to put their lives in danger, so they’re not breaking any laws when they don’t intervene.
It’s not mental gymnastics. It’s that laws are specific so as not to be too broad and overreaching and in this case, there is a massive Blindspot that has not only been allowed to exist, but has been further codified in legal precedent.
“Protect and serve” is a PR statement. It is not a codified law anywhere.
How does this work? If cops have an obligation to uphold the law and assaulting someone is a crime…Do they not have a responsibility to stop that? Seems like judges are playing games with these rulings to me.
Basically no. They have an obligation to arrest the perpetrator. They can’t be made to risk their safety in defending you tho. So no, they don’t have to protect you in that situation and they can still do their “job” by arresting the perpetrator after.
That’s what I mean by playing games, though. You have to do some mental gymnastics to land at a place where attempting to thwart a crime being committed doesn’t fall within one’s obligation to uphold the law.
Your error is in thinking they “thwart” the crime. They don’t. They punish after the fact. That’s still upholding the law(punishment for breaking it) without protecting a person. There is no law that says they have to put their lives in danger, so they’re not breaking any laws when they don’t intervene.
It’s not mental gymnastics. It’s that laws are specific so as not to be too broad and overreaching and in this case, there is a massive Blindspot that has not only been allowed to exist, but has been further codified in legal precedent.
“Protect and serve” is a PR statement. It is not a codified law anywhere.