Article Image
News Link • General Opinion

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

• John Whitehead on Florida Mass Shooting

"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.

In recent years, Americans have been killed by police merely for standing in a "shooting stance," holding a cell phone, behaving oddly and holding a baseball bat, opening the front door, running in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch, crawling around naked, hunching over in a defensive posture, wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey, driving while deaf, being homeless, brandishing a shoehorn, holding a garden hose, and peeing outdoors.

So when police in Florida had to deal with a 19-year-old embarking on a shooting rampage inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., what did they do?

Nothing.

There were four armed police officers, including one cop who was assigned to the school as a resource officer, on campus during that shooting. All four cops stayed outside the school with their weapons drawn (three of them hid behind their police cars).

Not a single one of those cops, armed with deadly weapons and trained for exactly such a dangerous scenario, entered the school to confront the shooter.

Seventeen people, most of them teenagers, died while the cops opted not to intervene.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now before your outrage bubbles over, consider that 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.

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, police have no duty, moral or otherwise, to help those in trouble, protect individuals from danger, or risk their own lives to save "we the people."

In other words, you can be outraged that cops in Florida did nothing to stop the school shooter, but technically, it wasn't part of their job description.

This begs the question: if the police don't have a duty to protect the public, what are we paying them for? And who exactly do they serve if not you and me?

Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

http://freedomsphoenix.thinkpenguin.com/