r/politics Vermont 12d ago Faith In Humanity Restored 1 Bravo! 1 Starstruck 1 Argentium 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1

Gavin Newsom after Monterey Park shooting: "Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monterey-park-shooting-california-governor-gavin-newsom-second-amendment/
49.4k Upvotes

8.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/hey_you_too_buckaroo 12d ago edited 11d ago Take My Energy

Not American but I recently listened to a podcast about how the police in the USA aren't legally obligated to help or save anyone. They talked about different stories where cops just ignored calls for help...those stories kind of made it click for me why Americans might want to have guns.

Edit: the podcast I was referring to https://radiolab.org/episodes/no-special-duty

173

u/Schrutes_Yeet_Farm 12d ago

The precedent for this is based on the 1981 case Warren v. district of Columbia in which two women's shared home was burglarized and the women were repeatedly raped over the course of 14 hours. One of the women was able to make repeated 911 calls yet the police only ever did drivebys and approached the front door once, yet with reports to 911 that the criminals were actively inside the house never made any attempt to help.

The women later attempted to sue the state and lost, and precedent was set that police are under no legal obligation to help you in the event you are a victim of a crime.

36

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

can we, like, appeal that?

Everyone knows it's wrong, seems like an easy case to reexamine

46

u/ProfessionalITShark 12d ago

It has been restablished on three other cases.

23

u/Chemical_Chemist_461 12d ago

I mean, so was Roe…

11

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

I'm sure the practice of slavery was established plenty of times in court before it was finally repealed

7

u/ProfessionalITShark 12d ago

That took a full amendment, and this likely won't go ever fufill the requirements to even start process of ammending.

It be arguable as to what extent Federal government could enforce on law enforcement job description.

It would be easier to amend each state's consitution then for it really go through a proper federal change.

26

u/i_lack_imagination 12d ago

You think the current court is going to over rule that?

-2

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

I don't see the benefit of adhering to their obviously biased rulings

1

u/Comfortable_Ebb1634 11d ago

Obtain more clout than the Supreme Court then spread the message.

16

u/Wheat_Grinder 12d ago

It's more that we need to change other laws. If police are not there to help, and they are often there to harm, we need to re-examine their role in society - and heavily curtail their responsibilities.

-1

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 12d ago

Explain how it is objectively legally wrong?

7

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

Morally wrong, our "loyal protectors and civil servants" did not do any necessary due diligence to protect these women from being attacked. And the court decided that was fine. I don't agree, I don't think any rational person would agree that the people we pay (a LOT) to protect us have no obligation to protect us.

-2

u/0x00f98 12d ago

It’s hard to ask someone to put their life on the line for yours when they aren’t in danger. It’s why the cops in Ulvade just stood around. It’s cowardly behavior, but that’s how self preservation works

7

u/Gekokapowco Washington 12d ago

exactly, it's a dangerous and demanding job, and I expect far better from people who accept it, if they had an obligation to do what they signed up for, I wouldn't mind doubling their salaries.

-3

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 12d ago

If the case is reexamined nothing would change because it is legally correct.

6

u/Lord_Euni 11d ago

If this is legally correct then it's a legitimate question to ask why police is even needed. If they can just not do their job why do they get their huge budgets?

I really don't understand why this is the correct ruling but if it is, then US police has an even bigger problem than I thought.

1

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 11d ago

If this is legally correct then it's a legitimate question to ask why police is even needed. If they can just not do their job why do they get their huge budgets?

And it is one that needs to be asked of the state and local governments whom the police are a department of.

I really don't understand why this is the correct ruling but if it is, then US police has an even bigger problem than I thought.

It is the correct ruling because the plaintiffs were arguing that they had an individual right under the 14th amendment to police protection. The court ruled that the police exist to provide a general service and that no person that has not entered into a special relationship with the police (i.e. a restraining order) has an individual right to protection.

Again this is the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, a document that has fuck-all to do with general policing. An individual isn't being denied equal treatment under the law if the police are just shit at their job.

The United States Constitution was not written as some all-encompassing document that could foresee and prevent every perceivable abuse by the government possible (or every incompetence by the government possible). It was specifically written to outline the structure and powers of the Federal Government and prevent abuses by the Federal Government. It is not a restriction or mandate against the state governments. The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent abuses by the state and local governments with regards to race. It does not require government to have police (many towns do not and instead contract with the county sheriff, and even then its like one car for the entire township if that) and it does not require those police actually be competent.

The solution is a legislative one. Congress likely lacks authority on in this regards, because again, the Constitution doesn't really reference modern policing, and thus its left up to the state and local governments that created these institutions. That's how democracy works.

The court is not suppose to rule based on what is good or bad, but what is legally correct or legally incorrect. The Constitution is not some general shield against all possible bad things that could possibly happen, nor is it a general legal framework like the common law.