"PAS" ntotrr optonline.net wrote:

"John Doe" always.look message.header wrote
"PAS" ntotrr optonline.net wrote:
John Doe wrote:

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...2014.html?_r=1

There is a difference between what they are permitted to do
and what they actually do. The "climate" of law enforcement
has changed. Citizens are viewed as suspicious and we are
treated that way. The police are supposed to protect and
serve the public, they do neither. The courts have ruled that
they are not obligated to protect us.

Citations please...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

Because the title of the article is "Police Do Not Have a
Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone", you believe that it's
true? In the ruling, where does it say that? In the article,
according to a prior ruling "social service workers [do not have
the constitutional duty] to protect a young boy from a beating by
his father". And apparently that precedent was upheld.

My interest is the judicial, not your personal problems with the
police. You can find lots of fellow whiners on YouTube if you want
to continue whining about police mistreatment. It's got to be the
most whined about subject on the Internet.