To the marines, though, “cover me” meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.
That was 1992, not now. But it shows what a poor fit our military is for policing. What a mess.
There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
I beg to differ that one protects the people. The Supreme Court has ruled that police don’t have an obligation to protect you and also they only have to have a “good faith” knowledge of a law they are attempting to enforce.
That was 1992, not now. But it shows what a poor fit our military is for policing. What a mess.
I beg to differ that one protects the people. The Supreme Court has ruled that police don’t have an obligation to protect you and also they only have to have a “good faith” knowledge of a law they are attempting to enforce.
Ah, yes. William Adama. Good quote. Unfortunately the police do not have a duty to protect the people.
This comment looked like it double posted, so I tried to delete one and it deleted both, but I feel like it’s important:
The police have no constitutional duty to serve or protect you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html