Years ago, SCOTUS ruled that police forces were responsible for the safety of the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE versus individuals - this is why they can’t act until a restraining order is violated - but any act to restrain their legal and lawful activities is a violation of their primary role and responsibility as peace officers. Want to chew on this one, for a while?
2 Likes
Tell law makers and sleezy politicians to take the cuffs off the boys in blue.
7 Likes
If Baskin-Robins banned you from eating ice cream, it would seem silly if they assigned you an officer stopping you going get Frozen Yogurt.
1 Like
Great example , @G.Washington !
It defeats the purpose of peace officers if a person who truly is not in danger (merely just annoyed or angry and probably in motion seeking revenge). I mean think about 9-1-1 calls people make!
Like, It’s ridiculous!
——> HOWEVER, Police officers (departments and cities not one officer), have been responsible for what’s called “failure to intervene.”
Many states, and even my own, place this crime under the terminology of “negligence.”
Now, I’m not talking about defending a person from a protection order (hate to say it, but again state is liable if he/she can’t purchase firearm to protect themselves). Meaning, I would rain lawsuits on any state in which a loved one died because of a “cool-down period” which was law! Did the abuser “cool-down?” Some states I believe it’s 7-14 days!
But back to my point, Law-enforcement swore to uphold the Constitution, they can’t play patty-cake while your rights are being depleted.
1 Like