Should the Police remove the phrase "to serve and protect"?

[Blasted Craigs]

Considering the police are not required by supreme court rulings to not protect the citizens of America, it seems to me the role of police has changed since '89 from a civil service job to one of enforcement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

On the link, to summarize, in 89 the Supreme court ruled unanimously that the police do not have to protect individuals, just society as a whole. Ergo, they are to maintain order, not protect the citizens.

There was an earlier case in '59 that basically said one could not sue the police for failing to protect you if you ask for protection, but that did not mean at that time the police could ignore the safety of an individual if it was inconvenient. The 89 ruling said just that, however. And the coffin was closed on the matter in the 05 case.

'59 Casehttp://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/11/riss-v-city-of-new-york-case-brief.html

'05 Casehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

There have been many cases where individuals have tried to hold police accountable for failing to protect citizens, but the Supreme court, no matter how it is argued (the Gonzales case in 05 tried to make a 14th amendment issue out of it) the SC still always sides with police.

My question is this, since the Supreme Court has ruled the police have no constitutional responsibility to protect anyone, should they not just remove the "serve and protect" from their oath of enlistment?

My Opinion on the matter
To me, this is hypocritical to the extreme. They swear to protect and serve us, but then on the job the department has no desire to do so. So I say down with the pretenses, and remove it. It's insulting to the citizens of this country IMHO. They IMHO are regulated by the powers that be to be enforcers of social order, not protectors of the citizenry.
EDIT-----This applies to American police forces only, as this argument is based off of American Supreme court rulings.

-Not related to poll-The sarcastic side of me wants to say that they still sometimes protect and serve, if one is wealthy enough to warrant police protection.

[The Sotoan Union]

So they should change a harmless motto because you don't like it.

Sure.

[Gaiserin]

It wouldn't change anything so why bother.

[Ifreann]

"To Serve and Protect" is the motto of the Australian Northern Territory Police. I'm no lawyer(pause for gasps), but I'm pretty confident that US Supreme Court rulings don't matter all that much to the Australian police forces.

[Blasted Craigs]

Nope. I think they should remove it because it is a lie. And for the police officers (the ones that actually want to follow their oath) that have to not respond to an incident because the department "cannot spare the manpower" have to violate an oath they took, or risk losing their job.

For example, the '05 case. An arrest warrant out on the perp, and Mr.s Gonzales called saying her kids were grabbed out of the yard by the criminal and he called her and said he was at the park. Now, she also had a restraining order on him, and the police had an outstanding arrest warrant on him.

What happened? The police did nothing. Hours later the man showed up, shooting at the station and was killed. The bodies of the kids dead in his truck.


But if Mr.s Gonzales had of gone to the park, shot him to try to save her kids, she would have gone to jail for murder.
The police response was basically "fuck off, we are busy".

So how is that a case of to serve and protect?
And this crap happens all the time.

[The TransPecos]

In the broader sense of the words, law enforcement agencies certainly do serve and protect. Compare the USA to it's southern neighbor and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

[Blasted Craigs]

"To Serve and Protect" is the motto of the Australian Northern Territory Police. I'm no lawyer(pause for gasps), but I'm pretty confident that US Supreme Court rulings don't matter all that much to the Australian police forces.

My bad. I was referring to American police forces only. Will update original post.

[Sdaeriji]

There's no uniform oath of office for police officers, nor is the motto of every police department "to protect and serve."

[The Rich Port]

To earn a Paycheck and try not to Kill or be Killed.

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

No. It's an ideal for which they ought to strive.

[Ifreann]

Nope. I think they should remove it because it is a lie. And for the police officers (the ones that actually want to follow their oath) that have to not respond to an incident because the department "cannot spare the manpower" have to violate an oath they took, or risk losing their job.

What oath are you talking about?

[Ifreann]

"To Serve and Protect" is the motto of the Australian Northern Territory Police. I'm no lawyer(pause for gasps), but I'm pretty confident that US Supreme Court rulings don't matter all that much to the Australian police forces.

My bad. I was referring to American police forces only. Will update original post.

Well "To Protect And To Serve" is the motto of the LAPD, and other forces probably have similar mottoes. But a motto is just that and nothing more. Paining it on the sides of their cars doesn't mean anything to the finer points of their legal duties and responsibilities.

[Connori Pilgrims]

This is the motto of the police in the country I'm from:

To protect and serve... OURSELVES!!!

HUE HUE HUE HUE

[Blasted Craigs]

My bad. I was referring to American police forces only. Will update original post.

Well "To Protect And To Serve" is the motto of the LAPD, and other forces probably have similar mottoes. But a motto is just that and nothing more. Paining it on the sides of their cars doesn't mean anything to the finer points of their legal duties and responsibilities.

I guess my problem is with the motto then. It is a bald faced lie to their constituents. If people know they are on their own in civil matters, then they may take matters in their own hands more often. Which unless you are wealthy in America, is starting to become the only way to get any justice in this fucked up system of governance. One must deal with the consequences, but like in the Gonzales case, at least your kids would be alive.

To reiterate, this false assumption the public has that they will be protected because of this very public motto they may be hurt waiting on police protection that will not arrive until after the violence is over. Like contacting the police if your kid is kidnapped. If you do not have a lot of money, it seems relying on the police will get your kid killed. Not due to time constraints or a lack of personnel, but because the police do not have to respond if they do not want to.

[Ifreann]

Well "To Protect And To Serve" is the motto of the LAPD, and other forces probably have similar mottoes. But a motto is just that and nothing more. Paining it on the sides of their cars doesn't mean anything to the finer points of their legal duties and responsibilities.

I guess my problem is with the motto then. It is a bald faced lie to their constituents.

Police officers don't really have constituents. Moreover, not being able to sue the LAPD for not responding to a 911 call doesn't make their motto a lie.

If people know they are on their own in civil matters, then they may take matters in their own hands more often.

People aren't on their own in civil matters. Lawyers and courts exist.

Which unless you are wealthy in America, is starting to become the only way to get any justice in this fucked up system of governance. One must deal with the consequences, but like in the Gonzales case, at least your kids would be alive.

Kidnapping is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Ditto murder.

To reiterate, this false assumption the public has that they will be protected because of this very public motto they may be hurt waiting on police protection that will not arrive until after the violence is over. Like contacting the police if your kid is kidnapped. If you do not have a lot of money, it seems relying on the police will get your kid killed. Not due to time constraints or a lack of personnel, but because the police do not have to respond if they do not want to.

Somehow I suspect you are not accurately describing the events you are referring to.

[Lalaki]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

[Blasted Craigs]

I guess my problem is with the motto then. It is a bald faced lie to their constituents.

Police officers don't really have constituents. Moreover, not being able to sue the LAPD for not responding to a 911 call doesn't make their motto a lie.

If people know they are on their own in civil matters, then they may take matters in their own hands more often.

People aren't on their own in civil matters. Lawyers and courts exist.

Which unless you are wealthy in America, is starting to become the only way to get any justice in this fucked up system of governance. One must deal with the consequences, but like in the Gonzales case, at least your kids would be alive.

Kidnapping is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Ditto murder.

To reiterate, this false assumption the public has that they will be protected because of this very public motto they may be hurt waiting on police protection that will not arrive until after the violence is over. Like contacting the police if your kid is kidnapped. If you do not have a lot of money, it seems relying on the police will get your kid killed. Not due to time constraints or a lack of personnel, but because the police do not have to respond if they do not want to.

Somehow I suspect you are not accurately describing the events you are referring to.

refer to the '05 Gonzales case per the NY times piece. That is exactly what happened. Her kids were kidnapped, she knew where they were, the man had an arrest warrant, and relying on the police got her kids killed.

[Blasted Craigs]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

They do serve and protect. The rich.

[Murkwood]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

They do serve and protect. The rich.

So much edge.

[The Rich Port]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

To be fair, we hold the police to an extremely high standard already.

Although, yeah, the fact they uphold the law means they can become an instrument of tyranny.

At the same time, protecting the public from crime can mean locking everyone up in a cell to stop them from interacting incorrectly.

They walk a fine line already.

And reforming the police service from the ground up would take decades and millions of dollars.

[Murkwood]

The Police do serve and protect society, so there is nothing wrong with this.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

So they should change a harmless motto because you don't like it.

Sure.

Yeah, this. It's a few words that law.enforcement has had on their cars for a long time. No point in changing it.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

They do serve and protect. The rich.

Ah. Someone who just likes to be "edgy". How lovely.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I'm not sure what violation you think they're committing, false advertising perhaps? The police aren't a business, their motto and mission statement is under no legal obligation to reflect what work they do, although the professional, common sense idea would be to choose something that does.

Let it go, let it go

[Ifreann]

The police should serve and protect. If they aren't doing so, they should implement massive reforms to the structure.

They do serve and protect. But being humans and having limited resources there are limits to what they can do.

---

Police officers don't really have constituents. Moreover, not being able to sue the LAPD for not responding to a 911 call doesn't make their motto a lie.

People aren't on their own in civil matters. Lawyers and courts exist.

Kidnapping is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Ditto murder.


Somehow I suspect you are not accurately describing the events you are referring to.

refer to the '05 Gonzales case per the NY times piece. That is exactly what happened. Her kids were kidnapped, she knew where they were, the man had an arrest warrant, and relying on the police got her kids killed.

And do you think the police ran a credit check before deciding whether to deploy any officers or not? Do you think anything different would have happened if the LAPD did not have "To Protect And To Serve" on their cars?