Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Armed and Dangerous: If Police Don’t Have to Protect the Public, What Good Are They?

Image result for Armed and Dangerous: If Police Don’t Have to Protect the Public, What Good Are They?
........the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed (most recently in 2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect members of the public from harm.
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”—Author William S. Burroughs
In the American police state, police have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

In fact, police don’t usually need much incentive to shoot and kill members of the public.

Police have shot and killed Americans of all ages—many of them unarmed—for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

More @ LRC

2 comments:

  1. in garner vs Tennessee(not sure of year) the scotus help that police firearms were for self defence only.
    so if the SWAT units are carrying ar-15s for self defence, than under the equal protection clause, civilians may also carry ar-15s for self defence. but if civilians are required to give up their guns, than the police must give theirs up too.
    bring that up at your city council meeting and see how far it flies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bring that up at your city council meeting and see how far it flies.

      Love it! :) Thanks.

      Delete