uspol, acab
I was reminded today of the 2005 US Supreme Court verdict (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748) that holds that police in the United States have no constitutional duty to protect the citizens in their jurisdiction.
(No one will be surprised to hear that the opinion was written by Scalia.)
🇳🇱
re: uspol, acab
@noelle I am not sure that is the proper interpritation.. just because he doesnt have a consitutional obligation to protect can not be used to infer he had no obligation to protect under the eyes of the law. The law can be hard to follow and the wording often seems to say one thing when it is really saying another, I think that is the case here.
An officer who doesnt protect someone isnt violating the constitution, as Scalia points out, that doesnt mean he is innocent (as the constitution is not the end of the law). There are legal tests for Negligence, and an officer who does not protect would assuredly violate the legal test for negligence and be held accountable on those grounds. In fact for the 3rd degree manslaughter part of the Chauvin case this is exactly the test they applied to show his guilt.
Point being, Scalias write up is entierly correct, but it doesnt have the consequence that police dont have to protect.
re: uspol, acab
@freemo That's a fair enough reading.
re: uspol, acab
@freemo Oh, I think the ruling has a sound Constitutional basis. I'm just frustrated that an agent of the state, who has as you note taken an oath to do a thing, can justify not doing it on the grounds that "the Constitution doesn't say I have to".