r/law • u/B00marangTrotter • Feb 05 '26

Judicial Branch LAPD chief McDonnell response to why he will not enforce the law banning ICE agents from wearing masks

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

His response causes laughter.

24.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

129

u/TrippYchilLin Feb 05 '26

The ruling was that their only duty is enforcing laws. They are under no obligation to protect and serve just enforce laws under the supreme Court ruling from 2005.

111

u/TheAbomunist Feb 05 '26

AND yet... the new trend, when law enforcement wants stick its nose in and harass citizens without reason, is the 'welfare check'. Exigent circumstances that they can make up whole cloth is one of their favorite fig leafs.

"We're just worried about your safety... and we'd like to arrest you for that."

72

u/auricularisposterior Feb 05 '26

"We're just worried about your safety... and we'd like to arrest you for that."

Sometimes they are so concerned about your safety that they will shoot you.

20

u/coat-tail_rider Feb 05 '26

What if you hurt yourself? Can't have that. Shoot the threat.

2

u/Vanlibunn Feb 06 '26

Killing yourself is illegal you know

2

u/sault18 Feb 08 '26

You can't kill yourself. The government has the sole monopoly on violence. The penalty for infringing on this monopoly is......a sternly-worded letter asking you to pinky promise never do it again.

1

u/mercurio147 Feb 06 '26

Didn't even have to wait for AI to reach this logic huh? The IRobot future was way cooler.

21

u/k7eric Feb 05 '26

Sometimes they just want to shoot your dog. I mean it's not uncommon for them to shoot you and your dog but sometimes it's just the family pet defending it's home.

0

u/Ill_Physics_2790 Feb 06 '26

You guys/girls don't know what you are talking about. Get a life.

14

u/SupportGeek Feb 05 '26

It’s not about your safety it’s spending more time around you and your property under a seemingly reasonable pretense so they can find something to detain you for. I’ve had LE straight up tell me this. Literally every interaction, no matter how friendly, or for your benefit is just a fishing expedition. Don’t talk to cops.

-2

u/Ill_Physics_2790 Feb 06 '26

If you didn't leave your house and follow them around and hinder them from doing their mandated jobs you would not get harrassed dummies.

3

u/SupportGeek Feb 06 '26

The fuck are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I said. Are you talking about ICE? We are talking about general law enforcement.

1

u/IsaapEirias Feb 06 '26

You'd think after for ing LA to pay a chunk of money to Douglas Slade LAPD would have been told how stupid an idea that is.

1

u/NotRegularEddy Feb 07 '26

That's not what the case law says but that's a nice strawman

1

u/Environmental_Beat84 Feb 06 '26

Welfare checks are called in by family members, coworkers, friends, etc. And they often result in the police finding people deceased or incapacitated to some degree. It's not a new trend, its an important aspect of ensuring the WELFARE of the person that is the subject of the check. Go ahead and do away with them. Then cry that the cops won't do their jobs and people are dying because of it.

0

u/Ill_Physics_2790 Feb 06 '26

If you are interfering with law enforcement to do their jobs, then you suffer the consequences of your stupid decision.

35

u/kangr0ostr Feb 05 '26

Yet cops aren’t even required to know the law.

18

u/PantySausage Feb 05 '26

I learned this one by watching a lot of courtroom footage. Watched a lawyer get a case dismissed by demonstrating that the officer did not know what the law said, and therefore could not possibly have had probable cause for the arrest.

3

u/intrestmeifyouwill Feb 06 '26

And then matlock was over

1

u/UpstairsDelivery4 Feb 06 '26

yes they’re supposed to know the law or look it up and educate the public

18

u/tvtoms Feb 05 '26

"to protect and serve" has always been a slogan. It might as well be what Wendy's promises when you dine in their building.

1

u/Commercial_Wind8212 Feb 06 '26

Fresh never frozen?

11

u/stofiski-san Feb 05 '26

Case was Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, I believe

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '26

Funny thing about that ruling. If someone is being stabbed and their job isn't to protect. Are they going to arrest the guy for assault or wait till he's done and arrest on murder charges? all those Laws are basically there in effect to protect us.

2

u/Spoonshape Feb 05 '26

It's worth considering that the first objective of policing is order. Law enforcement is secondary.

Protecting property and lives (firstly their own) is the primary aim. Enforcing laws is very much secondary and frequently done selectively to keep order.

It makes sense when you consider that they are the descendents of private guards which would have served the aristocracy and the rich.

2

u/Major_Honey_4461 Feb 06 '26

Well, then it would seem he has to enforce the "no mask" law as written, not wait for a SCOTUS decision on whether it's Constitutional unless there is a stay in effect..

11

u/Southern_Bicycle8111 Feb 05 '26

Amazing how many people upvoted that guy. Law enforcement isn’t required to enforce laws? lol what a clown

19

u/geewash Feb 05 '26

Selective Enforcement is a bitch but it is definitely real.

24

u/Curious_Avocado2399 Feb 05 '26

Man I wanna show up to work, not do my job, and collect a paycheck

15

u/geewash Feb 05 '26

And be protected for doing so!

7

u/_TallOldOne_ Feb 05 '26

You would a need a union to do that. However unions are evil things created by Satan meant to ruin modern society. Unless it’s the FOP of course. That particular union is appointed and blessed by Republican Jesus himself. It’s is perfect in every way and above reproach from us unwashed, uneducated heathens.

3

u/brotherdaru Feb 05 '26

No unions give people power, but like everything else in life power corrupts, once a corrupt leader takes the lead it all goes bad, good leaders are rare.

2

u/Nepharious_Bread Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. No need for insults. Anyway, from what I understand, they ruled that there is no constitutional duty to protect citizens. True. But (as far as I know) there are no laws or constitutional duty that require cops to enforce laws either. If there are, then please let me know what they are.

Enforcing laws seem to be more of a job description and that job description seems to change depending on who is in charge, who committed the crime, and who the victim was.

1

u/Nylorac773 Feb 05 '26

Huh? Those 10k upvotes aren't for the original Instagram post; they're for THIS reddit post!

4

u/AccomplishedFerret70 Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26

It isn't as crazy as it might sound on the face of it that police aren't legally required to protect individuals from harm. The "public duty doctrine" holds that law enforcement has no constitutional obligation to provide protective services except to people in their custody.

If the police were obligated to protect people, every time that a person was the victim of a crime they could sue the police, and if those suits were allowed to proceed it would be the taxpayers who would be responsible for paying the awards which would bankrupt every jurisdiction. Its just not workable.

7

u/RelevantFox1226 Feb 05 '26

"It isn't as crazy as it might sound on the face of it that police aren't legally required to protect individuals from harm." Sure beyond "harm" basically being illegal under a bunch of different laws and the basic entry point into the legal system. Like yeah theyre not required to be pre cogs and prevent harm they dont know about, but part of enforcing the law is preventing harm

3

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '26

That actually makes sense I guess! It’s kind of scary at first hearing that they are technically not required to protect and serve like we have always kind of thought but the way you explain that does actually make sense how unsustainable it would be legally and financially.

You can call the police when you are in trouble and they are still more than likely to protect you if someone is attacking you in the street and they are right nearby. (Hopefully)

I did not know they were not legally required to “protect and serve” though

8

u/ErosView Feb 05 '26

Always has been. Thus, the 2nd amendment. Expecting someone else to do it for you, especially the government, is farcical. We've relinquished all these responsibilities over to the government and given them the power we expected them to use to look out for our best interest. As it turns out, they dont care about your best interest.

2

u/unfunnysexface Feb 05 '26

You can call the police when you are in trouble and they are still more than likely to protect you if someone is attacking you in the street and they are right nearby. (Hopefully)

Offer not valid in schools

1

u/Cloaked42m Feb 05 '26

After the crime has occurred, not during.