Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process."

It was shaky legal ground to begin with, with clear precedent against the argument.

While a restraining order may not compel police to act in a certain fashion on demand, that has nothing to do with the general reason police exist to begin with, and the way they interact with the public. In a true government "of the people" the police exist to protect those people.



You're still missing it. The police's job is to enforce the laws passed by Congress or local governments. Those laws in theory are to protect the public or their interests. In reality, there are often bribes (eg big pharma or oil), politics (gay marriage), or just evil (slavery). Enforcing these laws harms the many for the selfish gain/purposes of a few. They'll enforce them anyway.

Later on, someone tries go push against that leaning on the theory that they're responsible for our safety. Supreme Court gets extra clear that they're not. That's while they continue to let laws from bribes stand. Little room for debate now. Also, anyone pushed into confessions using cops and prosecutor's legal right to lie about the evidence already knows system isnt about protecting people. That shit wouldnt exist if it was.

So no, they're neither intended to nor required to "serve and protect." They're instead enforcers of arbitrary laws that can protect or harm individual citizens. From there, individual departments or prosecutors might have policies (as some do) to treat community with respect while focusing activities on reducing actual harms. However, that's entirely voluntary.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: