Current Events > If cops arent mean to protect and serve....

(+) Yeah! (+)

then should they have been expected to stand outside the school and do nothing? I've seen some people actually arguing that since cops arent mean to protect and serve, it was okay for them to let the kids die.

jstewart01 posted...

then should they have been expected to stand outside the school and do nothing? I've seen some people actually arguing that since cops arent mean to protect and serve, it was okay for them to let the kids die.

are they the same people that say we should arm teachers? So dumb. Why arm them when the cops stood around and did nothing.

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

are they the same people that say we should arm teachers? So dumb. Why arm them when the cops stood around and did nothing.

You mean also the same people who are also convinced The Teachers are trying to teach their children Critical Race Theory and are upset a teacher might make a gay student feel slightly more comfortable in themselves when theyre at school?

Those same people?

The supreme court already ruled that they aren't under any obligation to protect Americans

To Protect and Serve.

Obey and Survive.

And even that is only sometimes.

It's time to drain the swamp. Fire all police officers and GameFAQs moderators, and then only rehire the best.

Can somebody explain to me how arming teachers will stop school shootings?
Why should teachers be under any obligation to hunt down and kill shooters?
This will just end with them getting fired for not turning into Rambo and killing anybody they see. What if a teacher snaps and decides to shoot their class?
If a student decides to start a school shooting, what prevents them from sitting at the back of the classroom and shoot the teacher in the head when he/she writes something on the whiteboard and have their back against the class?
Are they going to demand that each teacher got an armed guard that always point a gun against the students, ready to fire if one of them do any sudden move?

jstewart01 posted...

i've seen some people actually arguing that since cops arent mean to protect and serve, it was okay for them to let the kids die.

idk if that's even true or not, but if it is, it's yet another example of humanity abusing technicalities to express questionable perspectives.

jstewart01 posted...

then should they have been expected to stand outside the school and do nothing? I've seen some people actually arguing that since cops arent mean to protect and serve, it was okay for them to let the kids die.

I doubt they are saying it is okay. They instead are saying they weren't legally required to go in so there is no legal action we can take against these officers. The departments themselves can't directly fire them either.

"To protect and serve" is just the LAPD motto that some other precincts adopted. It's not an oath they take. Not to defend cops, fuck them.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/6/3/AASuUxAADTEz.jpg

voldothegr8 posted...

"To protect and serve" is just the LAPD motto that some other precincts adopted. It's not an oath they take. Not to defend cops, fuck them.

Well it should be one.

If they aren't protecting people they are worse than useless.

AP3Brain posted...

I doubt they are saying it is okay. They instead are saying they weren't legally required to go in so there is no legal action we can take against these officers. The departments themselves can't directly fire them either.

I believe that's what @Patchwork was saying - police weren't legally required to go into the school but should do so out of duty

Collat posted...

Well it should be one.

If they aren't protecting people they are worse than useless.

From day one cops were meant to protect property, not people.

Ruvan22 posted...

I believe that's what @Patchwork was saying - police weren't legally required to go into the school but should do so out of duty

Basically, yes. If you cant sum up the courage to save dying children, you should have never entered into policing

AP3Brain posted...

I doubt they are saying it is okay. They instead are saying they weren't legally required to go in so there is no legal action we can take against these officers. The departments themselves can't directly fire them either.

I dont know about Uvalde, but I do know there are departments that have in their policies that you can be fired for dereliction of duty or cowardice.

so if they are under no obligation to go in, why did they have active shooter training and have tons of equipment? i say if they're not going to do that then slash their budgets. no reason to train for something they're too cowardly to actually do

They do protect and serve though.

They protect themselves and serve an establishment that doesn't give a shit about people.

We just misunderstood what protect and serve meant.

jstewart01 posted...

I've seen some people actually arguing that since cops arent mean to protect and serve, it was okay for them to let the kids die.

Is that the argument you've heard? I've seen more of "cops have no duty to protect, which is why they did nothing in Uvalde." but that's different from saying it's okay.

the public duty doctrine states that a duty owed to the public at large does not mean a duty is owed to any one member (or group) of the public. but i always thought this was more a defense to civil liability than a mission statement

CADE FOSTER posted...

The supreme court already ruled that they aren't under any obligation to protect Americans

Then what purpose do they serve other than to harass people and fill up our prisons over dumb shit?

Im not an completely abolish the police person but for fucks sake if they arent here to protect and serve us Wtf is the point?

Something needs to change and soon.

Patchwork posted...

Basically, yes. If you cant sum up the courage to save dying children, you should have never entered into policing

But there's no legal requirement to do so, correct? So legally, the Uvalde police force did nothing wrong, like a teacher that didn't really care about their students, just liked having the summer off?

Patchwork posted...

I dont know about Uvalde, but I do know there are departments that have in their policies that you can be fired for dereliction of duty or cowardice.

Hmm.. so in those departments the SC ruling isn't applicable as the department's policy can require people to protect the community by risking their lives?

Police are there to enforce the laws that is why it is called law enforcement, not civil protection.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

Police are there to enforce the laws that is why it is called law enforcement, not civil protection.

And the laws says that thou shall not kill.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

Police are there to enforce the laws that is why it is called law enforcement, not civil protection.

Maybe it's time we start promoting the latter, by resurrecting the concept of town guards.

Ruvan22 posted...

But there's no legal requirement to do so, correct? So legally, the Uvalde police force did nothing wrong, like a teacher that didn't really care about their students, just liked having the summer off?

Weve been over this, in reference the Supreme Court decision. You can do something that is both morally and professionally reprehensible and still be legally correct, and that doesnt just go for police.

Hmm.. so in those departments the SC ruling isn't applicable as the department's policy can require people to protect the community by risking their lives?

It depends on how the policies are written; some departments have clauses in there that will enable them to fire you for instances like this. Obviously, that would be up to your union to fight that, but its hard to dress this up as anything but dereliction of duty.

Patchwork posted...

Weve been over this, in reference the Supreme Court decision. You can do something that is both morally and professionally reprehensible and still be legally correct, and that doesnt just go for police.

Okay just wanted to make sure I understood the criteria you were using

It depends on how the policies are written; some departments have clauses in there that will enable them to fire you for instances like this. Obviously, that would be up to your union to fight that, but its hard to dress this up as anything but dereliction of duty.

Are there cases where police officers have been fired for dereliction of duty around not engaging a criminal etc? (Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious since you brought it up)

You ultimately cannot force a human being to do anything, but refusal to perform their job should mean immediate expulsion from their job without any benefits and with no chance of being rehired for any government job. While refusing to do their job, they should have at least been doing the bare minimum to properly secure the area and call in people with the guts to perform their duty. These officers seem to have not done that at all, and they seem to have engaged in some really sketchy shit that made things worse, so anyone involved in that and the ensuing cover-up should be in jail at the end of this.