If police have no obligation to protect citizenry...

then let's completely disarm them.

This is going to be a simple, straight forward, thread. I want to throw stupid logic back into the faces of those who spew it.

If you want to have armed police, then yes, there should be an obligation to protect citizens.

Especially since the left want to disarm law abiding citizens.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't understand this topic. The police do have to protect from an active threat and do. What the police do not have to do according to supreme court is provide protection for possible threat. If your neighbor is shooting at you cops are obligated to intervene. However if he says hes going to shoot you they don't have to sit there providing protection for you if he has not attacked you.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: EternalSolace

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't understand this topic. The police do have to protect from an active threat and do. What the police do not have to do according to supreme court is provide protection for possible threat. If your neighbor is shooting at you cops are obligated to intervene. However if he says hes going to shoot you they don't have to sit there providing protection for you if he has not attacked you.

I normally agree with you. This time, I cannot.

We have police officers potentially being defended under the guise of an inability of action during an active shooter incident.

If you dig deep enough, examine applicants vs mental health tests, you'll find that police officers that defer action, are hired greater than police officers that would intervene.

I understand completely. I served a few years as a deputy jailer. While not a full fledged officer, i experienced the burden of protecting children.

Would've engaged any threat postured toward them.


If a cop cannot accept that a possibility of death in defense of another is what they signed up for... then they have no business being a cop.

Then you would have no cops.

Only a fool would put on a uniform without a gun with the authority to rob you on the side of the road, beat you to a pulp for resisting and "non-compliance", then kidnap you and impound your vehicle.

Would you honestly 'comply' if they were unarmed??

Do you honestly believe all these cops getting away with shooting people isn't a part of an intimidation tactic to keep you in line??

Back in not so distant past, folks actually protected themselves and their neighbors! I know it's hard to believe, but yes..it was common to carry a 'piece' and the criminals knew it.

Today, it is inconvenient to bother with such things like personal responsibility, civic duty, and being well informed. Social media dictates the hive mind.. it's more convenient and self gratifying to be part of a herd, even when said herd is clearly stampeding over a cliff. It's actually comforting to know you're not the only one plunging to your death!

There are a myriad of reasons why we are where we are today physically, psychologically, and definitely spiritually. It's all about blame and deflection. This 'connected' era of human development is actually ripping us apart in many ways.

We are overly reliant on others to fix our problems the same way these 'devices' do.

We're spoiled, complacent, apathetic, and spineless.

Amazing how gun control proponents want everyone disarmed except for the 'authorities' who have no obligation to protect us.

This has got to be the 'golden age' of criminal activity.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: EternalSolace

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't understand this topic. The police do have to protect from an active threat and do. What the police do not have to do according to supreme court is provide protection for possible threat. If your neighbor is shooting at you cops are obligated to intervene. However if he says hes going to shoot you they don't have to sit there providing protection for you if he has not attacked you.

On further contemplation, I get your logic. Police have to wait until I walk up to the front door, load a magazine, and after repeated requests to drop my weapon, begin firing before they're obligated to intervene.

Yes... This just goes to support my OP

a reply to: EternalShadow

Great post and spot on

They do this in Europe, why not here? The only officers with guns there are the ones they call in when it's absolutely needed.

a reply to: EternalSolace

If you dig deep enough, examine applicants vs mental health tests, you'll find that police officers that defer action, are hired greater than police officers that would intervene.

Surely you can back this statement up, right? You wouldn’t make such a claim without supporting evidence?

Bottom line: law enforcement doesn’t have to protect you as an individual. If your house is broken in to, you can’t sue your police department for not preventing it.

Law enforcement still has a duty to protect the public at large. Somehow people have conflated law enforcement not having a special duty to them as an individual as meaning law enforcement has no duty to people, period.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: EternalSolace

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't understand this topic. The police do have to protect from an active threat and do. What the police do not have to do according to supreme court is provide protection for possible threat. If your neighbor is shooting at you cops are obligated to intervene. However if he says hes going to shoot you they don't have to sit there providing protection for you if he has not attacked you.

I normally agree with you. This time, I cannot.

We have police officers potentially being defended under the guise of an inability of action during an active shooter incident.

If you dig deep enough, examine applicants vs mental health tests, you'll find that police officers that defer action, are hired greater than police officers that would intervene.

I understand completely. I served a few years as a deputy jailer. While not a full fledged officer, i experienced the burden of protecting children.

Would've engaged any threat postured toward them.

If a cop cannot accept that a possibility of death in defense of another is what they signed up for... then they have no business being a cop.

Judgement call. Do the most good for the most people. If we are outnumbered or outgunned... we have to stay alive long enough to get more help and firepower there. If the officer dove into it gun blazing and died... That a-hole shooter wouldve continued and killed even more.

Still.. the cop was a coward and froze all the while reinforcements we're arriving. I know I would've encountered the threat fast and hard. That's just me and my nature.. and I very well could've gotten killed in the process. That wouldn't have been my 1st thought...

Again.. I'm pretty sure I would've dove in personally without hesitation. But that's me.. I think that cop forgot why he was there, carrying a firearm, and freaked out. He should never have been hired or placed in that position anyway.

"Coward" and to to just get a paycheck comes to mind.. sadly....

If your referring to the four Leo's that didn't go in and others that would behave like them, the lets just fire them and hold others accountable, when appropriate, that seem to have a problem hiring these paycheck leaches.

Now I understand the shoot first snow flake syndrome we keep reading about.

Disgusting.

a reply to: EternalSolace

What is this based on? Is this because of the four sheriffs that waited outside? Because, as far as I've read, their hesitance was condemned by their superiors and said their jobs were to enter and engage.

How is that saying they are not obligated? It seems like they just weren't doing their jobs but that doesn't change the scope of what their jobs were supposed to be.

Did something else happen that I missed?

a reply to: dragonridr

You are flat out wrong. www.nytimes.com...

If police have no obligation to protect citizenry...

...Then why should citizens bow to the law?


Who is served by the law?

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: dragonridr

You are flat out wrong. www.nytimes.com...

This article is exactly what I’m referring to.

If police do not have a responsibility to protect citizenry, then disarm them. Else, the left should abandon their task of disarming citizens.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: EternalSolace

If you dig deep enough, examine applicants vs mental health tests, you'll find that police officers that defer action, are hired greater than police officers that would intervene.

Surely you can back this statement up, right? You wouldn’t make such a claim without supporting evidence?

Bottom line: law enforcement doesn’t have to protect you as an individual. If your house is broken in to, you can’t sue your police department for not preventing it.

Law enforcement still has a duty to protect the public at large. Somehow people have conflated law enforcement not having a special duty to them as an individual as meaning law enforcement has no duty to people, period.

Except that those who advocate gun control measures want to disarm the individual. Maybe LE doesn’t have to prevent my house from being broken into. However, if they do not have the responsibility, then the capability of me to defend it shouldn’t be taken away either.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: dragonridr

You are flat out wrong. www.nytimes.com...

This article is exactly what I’m referring to.

If police do not have a responsibility to protect citizenry, then disarm them. Else, the left should abandon their task of disarming citizens.

The police have a duty to protect their employers, people are confused when they think because police are paid with tax money they work for the people.

The police work for government and protect the judiciary, also now in this day and they also protect corporations whom obviously lobby government for extra protections.

I believe police once did have a duty to protect citizens, it seems that is no longer the case, now I cannot prove any of this it's just the impression I get.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: dragonridr

You are flat out wrong. www.nytimes.com...

This article is exactly what I’m referring to.

If police do not have a responsibility to protect citizenry, then disarm them. Else, the left should abandon their task of disarming citizens.

I believe police once did have a duty to protect citizens, it seems that is no longer the case, now I cannot prove any of this it's just the impression I get.

That assumption would go hand in hand with the motto to protect and serve. However I call into question their real duty. Just as shamrock pointed out, they don’t have a duty to protect my property from being robbed. Do they have a duty to protect my life from being taken during said robbery? Is there a duty to protect if I call and express fear for my safety? Where is the line drawn.

I’ve read several statements in the threads the past few days saying that LE does not have an obligaton to protect citizens. Sure, I can accept that. But the same people spewing that garbage are the same people spewing the nonsense that citizens should be disarmed. Therin lies my argument.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Who exactly is arguing for people to be disarmed, I see plenty of arguments on this site that seem to go from one extreme to the next.

If someone says ar15's should be banned somehow that becomes people being disarmed?

Like here in oz, we have had pistols and semi automatics banned but we still have rifles and shotguns, yet people say we've been unarmed, I don't get it, I'm not an advocate for disarming the public I'm an advocate for removing weapons that are simply overkill. But probably best left for a different thread sorry for the off topic.