You know, there is not one line in any constitution on any federal, state or local level that says a police force or peace officer is required... It's only implied via the judicial system as an arm of "enforcement" to deliver warrants from the bench which grossly oversteps the judicial branches authority. In fact one of the very first law enforcement agencies in the United States came from the Treasury Dept. the role of the U.S Mint, Secret Service and U.S Marshal services was to protect Federal currency and U.S banks from counterfeiting, robbery, and forgery there was no clause for any law enforcement agencie to protect the people, even so the Supreme Court has said:
"The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation"
This is a Supreme Court decision that makes it very clear that any police force is there to protect the interests of the state, not the welfare of the people. It's for this very reason that city planners and city councils allow tax money to be allocated to sustain a police force, there main reason for existence isn't to protect you from harm it's to secure capital for the city via tickets, court fines, corporate jails and federal abatement, to protect city property, and to extend a force of power as a preventive measure in case of civil unrest.
None of the above things include saving you from a rapist, or solving a robbery... Police forces consider this secondary because it makes good PR, I mean would you support via taxes someone that didn't give a shit if you were beaten in a street? No. Because if police forces solely acted on the welfare of the state major riots would occur, this is why they "offer assistance" in order to keep a level of complacency.
Sorry bros, but we live in America a country well-known for the might makes right philosophy.
|