Anyone know this(these) case(s)?
I think police are still obligated to investigate crimes, they just don't have to show up in any time frame or perform to any standard once they're there. They still may get fired by the department, but they can't be sued or tried for a crime. To refuse to investigate a crime would be extreme deriliction of duty.
I actually sort of like that decision, but dislike it for other reasons.
First, there is no legal precedent for suing someone because they were not able to save you.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, it makes people realize that they ultimately are responsible for themselves and their own defense, and that they cannot count on others for anything. It shows that government cannot protect you, no matter how many of your rights you are willing to give up in return. (Maybe this is just me hopefully dreaming, especially since about 3/4 of the American public is not functionally literate enough even to read and understand a Supreme Court case.)
Third, it makes people who want to take our guns but at the same time realize cops won't or can't always protect us look like idiots.
However, I'm sure it will eventually let some morons off the hook who were frequenting the local cheerleading practice while some poor schmuck bled and died.
And then there's the saying "with great power comes great responsibility." So I don't know why we as a society are required to give extraordinary power to people but then absolve them of responsibility.
