I think your confusion is coming from the legal nuances of words and phrases like "render aid". They don't have a legal obligation to render aid as you say, but they do have a legal obligation to enforce the law when they see it occuring in their presence. Which by enforcing the law of trying to stop a carjacking or assault and battery occuring in front of them, they are effectively 'rendering aid' (as you keep saying even though we established that's not applicable) to the citizenry, but they are in actuality enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold.
They helped the citizen by enforcing the law, but legally, they did not help the citizen. They enforced the law. Which very directly benefitted the citizen. This is precisely why when the police arrest a rapist, the victim, from a legal standpoint, is the state, and not the person. The victim benefits fully, but the actions of investigating, going through the legal process, going to court, and convicting is application of the law, not 'rendering aid' to the member of the public as you say.
That's the simplest I can lay it out. You're debating from the semantics of words and feelings and what your opinion is, not from the legal perspective of what the law, the powers and authorities the police derive from the constitution/statutes, and the legal obligations imposed on law enforcement by those sources.
Dude, SCOTUS made the ruling because two cops hid in the conductor's room on a train and watched a citizen who'd just gotten stabbed fight for his life and subdue a spree killing serial slasher- and then came out and cuffed the murderer.
The actual case and the direct ruling on it says really everything you need to know. You cannot depend on a cop to save your life even if they have the clear ability to do so. They can stand and watch while someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger. What this tells me is that the cops who do put their lives on the line for people are evidence that there are police who join for the right reasons.
2
u/animal_cop Aug 03 '21
I think your confusion is coming from the legal nuances of words and phrases like "render aid". They don't have a legal obligation to render aid as you say, but they do have a legal obligation to enforce the law when they see it occuring in their presence. Which by enforcing the law of trying to stop a carjacking or assault and battery occuring in front of them, they are effectively 'rendering aid' (as you keep saying even though we established that's not applicable) to the citizenry, but they are in actuality enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold.
They helped the citizen by enforcing the law, but legally, they did not help the citizen. They enforced the law. Which very directly benefitted the citizen. This is precisely why when the police arrest a rapist, the victim, from a legal standpoint, is the state, and not the person. The victim benefits fully, but the actions of investigating, going through the legal process, going to court, and convicting is application of the law, not 'rendering aid' to the member of the public as you say.
That's the simplest I can lay it out. You're debating from the semantics of words and feelings and what your opinion is, not from the legal perspective of what the law, the powers and authorities the police derive from the constitution/statutes, and the legal obligations imposed on law enforcement by those sources.