Yes it does.
That is why he was fired.
Because the community could no longer trust him to serve equally.
Cop FIRED for having racist memorabilia in his HOME!!!!
- Thread starter make speed limit 45
- Start date
That is why he was fired.
Because the community could no longer trust him to serve equally.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Dodge away no police officer has a legal obligation to protect the public was not the reason the Cop was fired. he was fired for having racist memorabilia in his home which has absolutely nothing to do with serving the public.
It isn't a Dodge. It is right on point.
The reason he was fired was because he had racist memorabilia. The reason that was a huge problem is because a certain percentage of the community cannot trust a person who has demonstrated bias against them, to serve them equally.
If the community cannot Trust a cop to serve them he cannot have a job.
That is why he was fired.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
It's a dodge away from your incorrect statement
Your statement was "Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people."
I corrected your comment the Supreme Court ruled cops are not legally obligated to protect anyone.
If it's a derailment the derailment is on you.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
You made a false statement I corrected it you started down the derailment path
To protect and serve is a motto painted on police car doors across the country.
Your point was irrelevant to mine and to the subject of the thread.
Good luck with that.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
The motto is irrelevant
The Supreme court ruling is relevant
POLICE NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROTECT ANYONE.
Your point is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the guy was fired because he had racist memorabilia, the knowledge of which makes it impossible for the community to trust him to serve equally, which means he can no longer be a police officer.
Your supreme Court case is wholly irrelevant to that and thus wholly irrelevant to the subject of discussion.
Quit with your silly word games.
Get over me. You are obsessed.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
My point is relevant to your one mistaken comment
Your comment was "Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people."
I corrected your comment the Supreme Court ruled cops are not legally obligated to protect anyone.
Holy cow guy you are playing silly semantic games because I corrected you about most shotguns not having rear sights and it made you mad and you lost your cool.
Get over it.
Get o
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
No the only thing I am doing is correcting your misinformed comment
Your comment was "Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people."
The Supreme Court:
https://www.slideshare.net/umesh1989/warren-v-district-of-columbia-444-a2d-1-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-civilians
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Supreme Court: Police not legally obligated to protect anyone
STOP WHINING
and making shit up so I don't have to correct you
"to protect and serve" is a motto.
Has nothing to do with my point.
Anything to say about the actual topic.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Liar this was your point
"Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people."
The Supreme court ruled the police are not legally obligated to protect you.
Holy cow guy, quit with the games.
This was my point.
"Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people(the motto on the door), this cop can no longer be trusted to do that, thus he was fired.
See?
The point was why he was fired. I.e. because he lost the public trust.
Your quip about the motto has no relevance to why he was fired. .... is it has no relevance to him losing the trust and being unemployable as a cop.
Now do you have anything to say about the actual subject?
EatTheRich
President
“Supposed to” is a moral opinion, not a legal claim.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
The Supreme court ruling shot your point down years ago.
it ruled that the police are not legally obligated to protect anyone.
