this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
183 points (99.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3003 readers
1220 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sleep_deprived 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Ah, yes. William Adama. Good quote. Unfortunately the police do not have a duty to protect the people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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