After the Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson was acquitted, and then the inexplicable inaction of the Uvalde officers, I can’t help but wonder.
In: Other
The obligation is not legal, but it is part of their job description. Just like you can not be put on legal trial for refusing to do your work the police can not be put on trial for refusing to protect someone. The police can however lose their job or be reprimanded for not protecting someone as they are not doing their job, just not by the courts.
As far as they job description it is more complex then just saying they should protect people. The police have quite extensive instructions on how they should perform their job. And it includes instructions for how to prioritise conflicting interests. The police are not only expected to protect the innocent but also have to protect themselves, their fellow coworkers, and the general public. They even have an obligation to protect the criminals and property. They need to collect as much information as they can, continuously access the situation, and then find out how they can protect as much as possible. That does sometimes mean that they have to decide not to protect someone. I am not saying that the police officers always make the right choices, but they are legally allowed to make those choices. If they make the wrong choices however it is not up to the courts to decide but rather their supervisor who is to evaluate their performance.
Latest Answers