See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Ok here is a paywalled NYT article then.
See, the issue here is not the fact that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect people, it’s the fact that the site you decided to get that information from is from a group of people who oppose things like the Civil Rights Act, which gives less protection to people.
Also, are those two links really the best you can do? Because this took me seconds:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
I just pulled, on mobile, the first non paywalled one newer than 2008.
You COULD just take my word for it, I don’t actually care.
And, if you’re going to get snippy, what is worse?
Reposting factually incorrect information as if it were true
correcting the misinformation, but originally citing a site that you have an ideological issue with? And when someone got snippy, googled a new source for them?
Like, come on man, this is on you. You’re a fucking institution on Lemmy and I didn’t even make it personal when you parroted misinformation. I’m sorry if I’ve wounded your ego.
This is a WILDLY inappropriate reaction to my comments.
I didn’t parrot misinformation because I never said cops had a constitutional duty to protect you and neither did the quote. The quote said they swore to protect and serve the public. Now if you wished to correct that, you did not do so.
Ok, fair, I apologize.