Quote:
|
The term "Civilian" used by a LEO is an insult to civilians, because it serves to elevate the self-view of the police to a status above that of a "civilian". Who is supposed to be serving who, and who should be more humble?
|
I am glad it was recieved in the spirit that I meant. I can, and do understand the insult as mentioned. As to the "who is serving who" part, it is up to the courts to decide, as there has been a limit placed on the protect aspect, but not the serve.
Just speaking for myself. While I am glad to respond, and help/serve in any way I am able to with in the law/policy, there are certain parts I am unable to help with. Such dispatched calls have been, but arent limited to, plumbing issues (repairing water heater), parenting issues (child wont stay in the house), electrical issues (they didnt pay the bill), and on and on. More to your point though as for the service part. I feel there is a line between being there to help (service), and being there to enforce (protect). Many times with the help/service issue, it is beyond what we can do as an officer. Even if we know how, we are limited in tools, time, and legal responsibility, even though many of us, do indeed try our best to resolve any issue we come accross. The enforce/protect issue, while having been before the supreme court in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is still contested in many ways due to the conflict between serve AND protect. As to the enforce/protect issue, at times our hands are tied as well due to laws enacted, or court decisions. There can be no 100% on both, only do the best that is possible. Many enforcement actions only "serve" to protect the public at large, but is a punishment on the "individual", which is another part of the issue. I do forsee, a limit placed on the "serve" part of law enforcement at some point in the future by the courts.
Respectfully,
Fishing_Cabin
P.S. As to who should be more humble, my opinion is we should be equal.