First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don’t want to help anyone. They don’t want to protect anyone. It’s in their job description and their training not to.
Warren v. District of Columbia “is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.” And Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
First line of the article says he is supposed to protect New Yorkers. That is not true. Police have successfully lobbied for decades and have absolutely no mandate to protect anyone but themselves. They loudly and clearly stated that their job specifically exists to enforce the status quo and to bulldoze through anyone in the way. They don’t want to help anyone. They don’t want to protect anyone. It’s in their job description and their training not to.
Chat, is this true?
Warren v. District of Columbia “is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.” And Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
That doesn’t answer their question