These articles are referring to a constitutional duty. I'm referring to a real-life situation where police witness a person being victimized by another.
While there may be no duty to protect, there is a duty to prevent crime from happening. Therefore, if they see a crime in progress they have a duty inherent to the position they hold to intervene.
While the weapon may not be specifically to shoot bad guys harming private citizens, it's not like that's a situation police can see unfold and just say, "Nope, not for me" and dip out. [EDIT: Well, I mean, they
can, but I'm fairly confident that would be a dereliction of duty and, as such, an offense that would result in termination, demotion or, and it's super
ty this is a possibility, suspension. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some civil action a person abandoned by police while being victimized could take against the police department or sheriff's office, as well, provided there's anybody around to champion the issue.]
Also, I think it's kind of funny that the tools a public servant uses on the job doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the public, from a legal standpoint and according to the highest court in the nation. There have been state Supreme Court cases that contradict the federal ruling, but, you know... Supremacy Clause and all that jazz.
Thanks for those links. I had never heard of that ruling before I went to those pages.