if i’m not mistaken (sure i’ll double check after i post this) the most recent ruling by SCOTUS (Parkland High School cop who dipped out during a mass shooting or something like that) basically just reinforced several previous decisions with regard to a cop’s duty to protect us - the way it’s put by the court almost sounds reasonable: that an officer’s duty is to society at large and not to any particular group or individual member of the public. but we know what that means and we sure know how it works in practice.

i caught some snippet of a discussion of the court ruling on the radio, and though interesting, it changed nothing to know the actual reasoning used by the court because um, how does a cop go about protecting “society at large?” if that’s their duty then it means it’s never their duty to protect anyone in need of protection in any given real life scenario.

and so it can be said that sensationalizing this issue is really more truthful and objective than just reporting the court’s own words.