To Protect and to Serve II

#7,677
#7,677
So why do I need to call the cops to do, well, anything? If they don't have to protect someone, then protection is reliant upon the individual. If the individual is solely responsible for their protection, then why should I call them when there is any dispute that could escalate to physical violence and the threat of bodily harm? Out of fear of going to jail.......well self preservation takes precedence over jail to me, so, what purpose then do the police ultimately serve?

Seems to me this gives citizens a right to handle any dangerous situation on their own without any need for the police. And constitutionally, gives them that right as the only person responsible for the safety of self is the individual........
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, Rasputin_Vol, marcusluvsvols and 1 other person
#7,679
#7,679
tennvols77 said:
So why do I need to call the cops to do, well, anything? If they don't have to protect someone, then protection is reliant upon the individual. If the individual is solely responsible for their protection, then why should I call them when there is any dispute that could escalate to physical violence and the threat of bodily harm? Out of fear of going to jail.......well self preservation takes precedence over jail to me, so, what purpose then do the police ultimately serve?

Seems to me this gives citizens a right to handle any dangerous situation on their own without any need for the police. And constitutionally, gives them that right as the only person responsible for the safety of self is the individual........
Click to expand...
The state and the “security” it provides is an illusion. It’s simply a monopoly on the use of force/violence. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for their own safety/security.

Thought experiment: It would be interesting to know if cops have a duty to protect the state and it’s actors or its facilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#7,680
#7,680
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The state and the “security” it provides is an illusion. It’s simply a monopoly on the use of force/violence. The individual is ALWAYS responsible for their own safety/security.

Thought experiment: It would be interesting to know if cops have a duty to protect the state and it’s actors or its facilities.
Click to expand...

Not sure, but, they and the National Guard will be called upon to be the first leg of defense in any situation that is considered an upheaval or detrimental to the state. Then, I guess it is a personal choice by them to decide what they are willing to do or not do to stop the upheaval no matter it's righteousness.
 
#7,681
#7,681
tennvols77 said:
Not sure, but, they and the National Guard will be called upon to be the first leg of defense in any situation that is considered an upheaval or detrimental to the state. Then, I guess it is a personal choice by them to decide what they are willing to do or not do to stop the upheaval no matter it's righteousness.
Click to expand...
Question: Are any oaths taken for the groups listed above? What do those oaths entail?
 
#7,682
#7,682
Orange_Crush said:
Question: Are any oaths taken for the groups listed above? What do those oaths entail?
Click to expand...

Not sure without looking it up. but, I would assume similar to the military:

Military:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Officers:
having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter

National Guard:
Officers of the National Guard of the various States, however, take an additional oath

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ on which I am about to enter,​
Police:
On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity,my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve.
 
#7,683
#7,683
So, it is a bunch of semantics.

Similar to the Nazi's and it's military and police, and at what point does following orders go against simple humanity and decency.........the individual has to make a moral and ethical choice as to what is ultimately right (in your eyes), and they must decide to either stand up for what you believe to be wrong, or go along with it complicitly.

The Constitutional duty reigns supreme. All other's can be situational to the organization and it's place and time relative to leadership and it's current beliefs and motives. ??????
 
#7,684
#7,684
I think there's some conflation of argument going on with some of this which has been covered before. The idea of "no duty to protect" hinges upon the idea of how literally impossible it is for citizen X to actually expect, to the point of legal liability, the .gov to protect them. If such a thing were true for X then it would be true for everyone else which is, even on it's face, absurd. This is the segue to the "you are your first responder" stance for those who understand the realities of self-defense.

Upshot is that "no duty to protect" and "you are your first responder" are not in the least conflicting ideas and merely represent the realities in which we live. This in no way detracts from the idea that there are people when called to do so run into a building where shots are being fired to end a threat. Make no mistake, there are officers that have died trying to protect total strangers and many, many more that have put themselves in harms way towards that end. They will not, and indeed cannot, always be there to do so and to expect such a thing is pure fantasy.

The Peterson issue is so outstanding in that he WAS there, as in right there on the spot where and when he was needed to do precisely what he was supposedly trained to do, and did nothing. Legal wording can be tricky so I'm pretty uncertain on what the "child neglect" charges entail but "culpable negligence" and obviously the perjury seem stickier.
 
#7,685
#7,685
tennvols77 said:
So why do I need to call the cops to do, well, anything? If they don't have to protect someone, then protection is reliant upon the individual. If the individual is solely responsible for their protection, then why should I call them when there is any dispute that could escalate to physical violence and the threat of bodily harm? Out of fear of going to jail.......well self preservation takes precedence over jail to me, so, what purpose then do the police ultimately serve?

Seems to me this gives citizens a right to handle any dangerous situation on their own without any need for the police. And constitutionally, gives them that right as the only person responsible for the safety of self is the individual........
Click to expand...

hehehe
 
#7,691
#7,691
davethevol said:
The law allows for police to use cellphones while driving.
Click to expand...

In short, LEO's are exempted from all of the "Rules of the Road", with the sole and notable exception being "Due Regard". There are additional restrictions or limitations, on a state-by-state basis, but that's the nickel version.

Now, having said that, here's where I stand on it: As an example, how fast do you / should you drive on the Interstate when in a marked unit, not responding to a call. Do you (a) drive the speed limit; create a 1/2 mile long logjam behind you, and see who's got the cojones to pass you?; (b) drive 10-15 over while every driver you pass says "Look at that arrogant jackwad driving at the same speed he writes tickets for?"; or (c) try to find the happy middle ground where you're not creating a logjam, but not flying by people like Krispy Kreme is about to close? For me, it's (c). I usually run in the 75-80 range on the "I". That seems to work. Anywhere in the 5-7 over range on most roads will usually work. My "line" is usually 15 over (except for School Zones and residential areas), so I'm not doing anything I would stop you for.

Cell phones and MDT's. Most MDT's now have a (GPS) speed-related lockout which disables most functions, usually in the 15 mph area. As for cell phones, hands-free OK, anything else not. I used to tell my guys "Never write a ticket for anything you do on a regular basis." For those who wanted to debate the "LEO exemption", my response was "Well, it ain't illegal to step on a rattlesnake, either...but I don't recall ever seeing you do it." Me being an old fart, I usually pull over anyways for most phone calls, since I'm already multi-tasking by listening to four separate channels on my VHF radio; watching what's going on around me; driving; and now trying to carry on a conversation on the phone. Just too much for my old brain. Pull over, pull off, or let the call wait until you can. I've worked a number of crashes where a cell phone was a contributing factor, sometimes even on a hands-free device.

I try to not do anything, even if the law allows it, that wouldn't sit well with "Joe Average" if they saw me doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed, marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#7,692
#7,692
GreyWolf1129 said:
In short, LEO's are exempted from all of the "Rules of the Road", with the sole and notable exception being "Due Regard". There are additional restrictions or limitations, on a state-by-state basis, but that's the nickel version.

Now, having said that, here's where I stand on it: As an example, how fast do you / should you drive on the Interstate when in a marked unit, not responding to a call. Do you (a) drive the speed limit; create a 1/2 mile long logjam behind you, and see who's got the cojones to pass you?; (b) drive 10-15 over while every driver you pass says "Look at that arrogant jackwad driving at the same speed he writes tickets for?"; or (c) try to find the happy middle ground where you're not creating a logjam, but not flying by people like Krispy Kreme is about to close? For me, it's (c). I usually run in the 75-80 range on the "I". That seems to work. Anywhere in the 5-7 over range on most roads will usually work. My "line" is usually 15 over (except for School Zones and residential areas), so I'm not doing anything I would stop you for.

Cell phones and MDT's. Most MDT's now have a (GPS) speed-related lockout which disables most functions, usually in the 15 mph area. As for cell phones, hands-free OK, anything else not. I used to tell my guys "Never write a ticket for anything you do on a regular basis." For those who wanted to debate the "LEO exemption", my response was "Well, it ain't illegal to step on a rattlesnake, either...but I don't recall ever seeing you do it." Me being an old fart, I usually pull over anyways for most phone calls, since I'm already multi-tasking by listening to four separate channels on my VHF radio; watching what's going on around me; driving; and now trying to carry on a conversation on the phone. Just too much for my old brain. Pull over, pull off, or let the call wait until you can. I've worked a number of crashes where a cell phone was a contributing factor, sometimes even on a hands-free device.

I try to not do anything, even if the law allows it, that wouldn't sit well with "Joe Average" if they saw me doing it.
Click to expand...
It drives me nuts when cops tailgate in the left lane when you can’t get over. We get it, the rules don’t apply to you, but if you’ll back off I’ll get over so you can fly past. If you rode a cop’s ass like that they’d pull you over in a heartbeat.
 
#7,693
#7,693
DancingOutlaw said:
It drives me nuts when cops tailgate in the left lane when you can’t get over. We get it, the rules don’t apply to you, but if you’ll back off I’ll get over so you can fly past. If you rode a cop’s ass like that they’d pull you over in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Shoot man, I get behind them and follow them as long as I can. Not tailgating them though. 2 or 3 car lengths away. Just doing the same speed. Never had any trouble with them at all doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,694
#7,694
DancingOutlaw said:
It drives me nuts when cops tailgate in the left lane when you can’t get over. We get it, the rules don’t apply to you, but if you’ll back off I’ll get over so you can fly past. If you rode a cop’s ass like that they’d pull you over in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't like it, and I don't do it. If I'm in that big of a hurry, it's a code run, and you'll see and hear me coming.

I see it from time to time when we're traveling. Pi**es me off just as much as it does you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top