REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
Message Subject
|
SHOOTING VIDEO - Austin Tx cop charged with MURDER in shooting of unarmed meth suspect is released on 100k bond
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
Post Content
|
[ link to www.nytimes.com (secure)] Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By Linda Greenhouse June 28, 2005 WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. The true an only job of the police are to protect the haves from the have nots, and to generate revenue They DO NOT protect you from crime
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|