How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?srothstein wrote: A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html
Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?