You think an Italian cop from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn has more sympathy for a black kid in Bed-Stuy than an Italian cop living on Long Island?
You think an Irish cop from Riverdale has more sympathy for black ids in the South Bronx than an Irish cop living in New Jersey?
So if that’s true, would you advise them to stop shirking their duties? Or would you want people to stop complaining about perceived police abuse?
Sure, but I don’t know about the “if true” part because I don’t know what it entails as I am unfamiliar with the duty you suggest exists in the military. That being said, I think your proposal is absurdly unworkable and would not agree with imposing a duty upon police in the manner you suggest. The consequences of so doing would be catastrophic.
Now then - Cite that the military is required to put themselves in danger to protect someone?
A bit of both. (Change “stop complaining about” to “focus less on”.)
Police are a necessary evil. The nature of the work inevitably results in a disproportionate number of petty-power loving punks being attracted to police forces. But if you don’t have a police force, or if you don’t give them the power (which they can then abuse) you get anarchy which is even worse.
The world is not perfect and is not ever going to be perfect. You need to trade off one evil versus another and try to strike a balance which minimizes the overall harm. Try to push too hard in any one direction in the aim of completely eliminating one potential harm then the other grows and you lose out.
Ok, you alluded to the answer but didn’t provide it. Why would it be catastrophic if we basically told the police “Hey, if there’s someone in trouble, you HAVE to try to help them within reason. You can’t chicken out and back off, you have to try something”. What’s so bad about that?
If your response is that people won’t be police anymore, I would remind you that people go into the military all the time and the number of military personnel is comparable to the number of cops, so there will not be a drop off. Sure, we might have to adjust compensation, but I think that’s something we can easily absorb
Honestly, I don’t know if there is, I just assumed based on some of their rules. You can’t simply quit the military, there’s a sense that if you volunteered, you have to serve your time whether or not you’re scared or in danger. That’s a rule we can put on the police, adjusting for a civilian force vs. a military one. Another rule in the military is that you have to follow your commanding officer even if you think he’s not exactly competent or you disagree, you can’t just quit or throw a tantrum, they can throw you in the brig for that. I’m sure there’s details I’m missing, like the exact definition of what unlawful orders you’re allow to refuse, but I think if your sergeant in the police tells you to go defend some innocents from a gun-wielding madman, you have to do it. I also like how the military more closely adheres to the chain of command. They don’t really speak out against their civilian commanders, but are allowed to do it in private, but they typically aren’t flaunting their uniforms actively in political issues. I was annoyed when those cops in NY turned their backs on Blasio because they felt he threw them under the bus. Annoyed that they were wrong (though I can understand allowing them the freedom to do so may be a good thing). Still, people with guns and the ability to arrest you shouldn’t so openly take sides. If you’re a cashier at JC Penney, go ahead and protest in uniform. But not if you can shoot someone in the face and get only a disciplinary action, I don’t need those people trying to convince others that all those in that uniform believe one way
Should what matter? The distinction? Yeah, I think it should.
I think the cop should walk there. It’s legal for even a stupid, bad, racist cop to defend himself. If the only (credible, I’m assuming; i.e. I’m not fighting the hypothetical by assuming there’s a conspiracy that there’s no evidence of) evidence tends toward self-defense, my personal read on that hypothetical situation would probably be that the cop did actually subjectively want to be in a situation where he wanted to kill somebody just like the person he killed - he actually did have a motive - but he didn’t break the law.
Well one thing that might require a bit of fine-tuning is if you want to preserve the ability to order the cops to “stand down” in the face of riots.
So what would that entail? From what i saw in those cases, basically if a Police dept was forced to do that- if a crime was committed, you could sue the PD for failing to protect you- no?
Or if not, what are you talking about?
Your question was whether or not I agree with the statement. That answer was provided.
The reason it would be catastrophic is because there are way more crimes being committed than there are police able to deal with them. Opposition to the idea that police have no particularized duty to protect any particular person means that any time there is a crime that is not thwarted then police can be held civilly liable. That’s a bad outcome.
I contend your initial statement was not correct. If you have a cite, then by all means present it. All of your inferences have nothing at all to having a duty to protect people. Military have a duty to obey lawful orders, full stop.
The other idea you posit about being in uniform, or elevated responsibility because police have the power of arrest and being armed has nothing at all to do with your assertion about the military.
Then let’s fine tune it. But let’s not say we can’t even consider changing it to begin with, which is what people seem to be saying by claiming soldiers and cops are different.
Well, like I said, in a previous thread someone mentioned that they are not obligated to. I’ve been working off that assumption. If the courts have found things have changed recently and I don’t know about it, then obviously I wouldn’t have a problem with that rule since its the one I prefer.
Maybe someone who knows for sure and can cite something concrete can let us know if the police in the US are obligated to put themselves in danger to protect a random civilian? I thought they didn’t, but others say different
Ok, I am confused- what are you getting at, what is your purpose with this, what does this have to do with police shootings? 
as I posted (but you ignored) So what would that entail? From what i saw in those cases, basically if a Police dept was forced to do that- if a crime was committed, you could sue the PD for failing to protect you- no?
Or if not, what are you talking about?
Correct. I meant “can’t successfully sue”. :o
A soldier can be ordered to take a hill, even if they are facing enemy soldiers who are using deadly force to defend the hill.
Currently, the job of cop is a job. Everyone is expected to go home at the end of their shift. If a cop puts his/her life on the line for you, they’re doing it because they chose to, or were caught up in the situation.
You’re talking about changing the U.S. Constitution.
From post #77 -
*DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154)
Opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
…Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other. The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes.
Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.*
In short, the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution does not allow for government employees to be forced to risk their life to save yours.
Close but not quite, Nothing to do with 'risking life". “Held: Respondents’ failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father’s violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 194-203.”
It’s all about if the Police fails to protect, then they can or can’t be sued. And allowing the Police to be sued every time a crime was committed would be nutso.
So if police refuse to risk their lives, they can’t be sued for it.
True?
For historical reference -
(post shortened and underline added)
YogSosoth wants to change current laws in order to force cops to protect citizens. I assume “protect” includes forcing cops to “risk their lives”.
I love it when you talk technical. 
I agree, it would be nutso.
However, the law could, theoretically, be changed to force cops to risk their lives for YogSosoth. I believe that such a nutso change would require a change to the U.S. Constitution.
What I’m getting at is people should not simply throw up their hands helplessly and say soldiers do soldier jobs and cops do cop jobs. We can amend the law to make cops do some soldier jobs, specifically making them protect people in danger by putting themselves in harms way.
I mentioned a couple of things that I’d like to see happen, one of which is to have cops be legally liable for the “protect” part in “Protect and serve…” Of course, they would be additionally compensated for that. In that vein, I’d also like to see cops have something similar to AWOL if they refuse to help, or run away. Soldiers know they may be sent somewhere dangerous and have to risk their lives, and they do it because if they don’t, charges can be brought against them. I want something similar for cops. If they don’t at least make an effort to protect people, then they should be charged. Everyone would know this going in so there’d be no excuse that they didn’t know beforehand.
Well obviously that would be going too far, but there’s no reason we can’t meet somewhere in the middle. Reasonable effort should be exerted to protect people that doesn’t merit a lawsuit each time it fails. I’m not going to pretend I know exactly where that line is in every jurisdiction, but I am in favor of having a line. Agreeing with that doesn’t mean you have to agree with me where the line should be drawn.
If it takes changing the Constitution, then that’s what we should aim to do.
What’s this “we” stuff, Ke-mo sah-bee?
Oh, wow, you doubled down!
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Officer Tightpants shot Mr. Turnipseed in cold blood for no other reason than that he didn’t want to put (the emotionally disturbed) Mr. Turnipseed in his car, as was his job and his duty. Officer Tightpants’s shift was almost over, he considered Mr. Turnipseed too smelly to want to deal with, and instead of taking him into custody and getting Mr. Turnipseed the help he needed, he shot him so the EMT’s would have to take him. This is how cheap life is in Officer Tightpants’s mind. This is a murder committed by a depraved and callous mind, and a betrayal of the trust the state placed in him.”
(The names are obviously made up, but strongly inspired by a case in St. Louis.)
Absence of a motive is something one associates with spree killers. Generally speaking, a justifiable homicide requires justification. Your argument is mostly backwards.
Too many jurors would find that unlikely enough to cast reasonable doubt, and would likely accept the cops story he feared for his life.
In what way?
Since you go on to say -
I would agree with you and the cop should walk.
Regards,
Shodan