No, that's not what they meant. The ruling itself is extremely explicit. And furthermore, that's how other courts have applied the ruling in the decades since.
It's simply factually incorrect to claim that the police have a legal duty to protect citizens simply because of a PR campaign that they launched, when there are volumes of case law that establish otherwise.
No, that's not what they meant. The ruling itself is extremely explicit. And furthermore, that's how other courts have applied the ruling in the decades since.
It's simply factually incorrect to claim that the police have a legal duty to protect citizens simply because of a PR campaign that they launched, when there are volumes of case law that establish otherwise.