To Protect and to Serve II

#509
#509
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I know this will shock you. The police have no obligation to protect you.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/06/2...al-duty-to-protect-someone.html?referer=&_r=0
Click to expand...

I want you to do me something. I want you to read the original case summary of Castle Rock vs Gonzales. Because you'll find the title in that article is completely off base and misleading.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...307866226&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

I consider you to be a fairly intelligent guy. And in this case, I'd suggest going to the source and getting the info from there. And you'll find the info in that article is complete and utter BS. I'd suggest reading the whole thing, but the Souter opinion lays it out pretty clearly if you want to TL/DR.

And honestly? You should be glad the court ruled the way they did.
 
#513
#513
Grand Vol said:
I want you to do me something. I want you to read the original case summary of Castle Rock vs Gonzales. Because you'll find the title in that article is completely off base and misleading.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...307866226&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

I consider you to be a fairly intelligent guy. And in this case, I'd suggest going to the source and getting the info from there. And you'll find the info in that article is complete and utter BS. I'd suggest reading the whole thing, but the Souter opinion lays it out pretty clearly if you want to TL/DR.

And honestly? You should be glad the court ruled the way they did.
Click to expand...

Care to critique this one?

Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection | Foundation for Economic Education

I understand your point, of course I don't want the police to be able to protect me 24/7. I simply put it out there that the cops are under no obligation to protect anyone, they can't, it's impossible. America has 315+ million people, some would like to have a cop for every person, I however, view that as a nightmare.

The only guaranteed measure of protection you have is the one you provide yourself. Yet, we're still forced to pay for the service. I'd love for the police to go away, or be privatized. I know that's not likely in our lifetime, it will occur in the future.

Preventive policing here in the US, is by far the greatest threat to human liberty that Americans will face. The drug war, victimless crimes, government lists, nsa spying. We're bombarded daily with laws, we have more people incarcerated than anywhere else in the world. Yet, we're told were free....
 
#515
#515
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Care to critique this one?

Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection | Foundation for Economic Education

I understand your point, of course I don't want the police to be able to protect me 24/7. I simply put it out there that the cops are under no obligation to protect anyone, they can't, it's impossible. America has 315+ million people, some would like to have a cop for every person, I however, view that as a nightmare.

The only guaranteed measure of protection you have is the one you provide yourself. Yet, we're still forced to pay for the service. I'd love for the police to go away, or be privatized. I know that's not likely in our lifetime, it will occur in the future.

Preventive policing here in the US, is by far the greatest threat to human liberty that Americans will face. The drug war, victimless crimes, government lists, nsa spying. We're bombarded daily with laws, we have more people incarcerated than anywhere else in the world. Yet, we're told were free....
Click to expand...

TL/DR :)

There's a huge difference in the way your original article reads "police don't have to protect you" and what that actual court decision stated and upheld. Which was providing police the discretion to do their jobs instead of being shoehorned into having to make arrests regardless of the circumstances.

I'm not sure what the link you provided is trying to prove. That people should protect themselves? Okay, I agree. Anti-gun control? All aboard the awesome train.

Griping about police getting protections from lawsuits for not protecting the individual? I disagree, especially when you consider how lawsuit happy our society is today. "I'm suing Anytown Police Department because I got robbed and they failed to catch the offender in the act when I dialed 911." Which is basically what those protections guarantee against. Not that they have to protect you. But rather protected themselves because the police can't be everywhere at the same time as you stated. And his examples, just like many on here, are limited in nature and certainly not the norm.

That article is a bit dated though since I'm not sure why someone would want to steal my VCR. Anyway...

I agree with the premise of the concept that people should be (and in truth are) responsible for their initial protection. But being that the gun control concept is losing ground for the most part (except in selected locations) it's hard to say he is entirely accurate sixteen years down the road from when he wrote that. And in truth many cops, dare I say a majority of them, would give the same advice to "buy a gun, buy a dog" for those under immediate threat.
 
#516
#516
Grand Vol said:
TL/DR :)

There's a huge difference in the way your original article reads "police don't have to protect you" and what that actual court decision stated and upheld. Which was providing police the discretion to do their jobs instead of being shoehorned into having to make arrests regardless of the circumstances.

I'm not sure what the link you provided is trying to prove. That people should protect themselves? Okay, I agree. Anti-gun control? All aboard the awesome train.

Griping about police getting protections from lawsuits for not protecting the individual? I disagree, especially when you consider how lawsuit happy our society is today. "I'm suing Anytown Police Department because I got robbed and they failed to catch the offender in the act when I dialed 911." Which is basically what those protections guarantee against. Not that they have to protect you. But rather protected themselves because the police can't be everywhere at the same time as you stated. And his examples, just like many on here, are limited in nature and certainly not the norm.

That article is a bit dated though since I'm not sure why someone would want to steal my VCR. Anyway...

I agree with the premise of the concept that people should be (and in truth are) responsible for their initial protection. But being that the gun control concept is losing ground for the most part (except in selected locations) it's hard to say he is entirely accurate sixteen years down the road from when he wrote that. And in truth many cops, dare I say a majority of them, would give the same advice to "buy a gun, buy a dog" for those under immediate threat.
Click to expand...

Of course you say this as a new assault weapons ban is being put forward.
 
#517
#517
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Of course you say this as a new assault weapons ban is being put forward.
Click to expand...

Same thing that gets put forward practically every year.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but our dear Senator Feinstein tends to drop an AWB Bill practically every year. And generally it never makes it out of committee. And being this is an election year and with the poll numbers against them, I don't see any major support for this current iteration either.
 
#518
#518
Grand Vol said:
Same thing that gets put forward practically every year.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but our dear Senator Feinstein tends to drop an AWB Bill practically every year. And generally it never makes it out of committee. And being this is an election year and with the poll numbers against them, I don't see any major support for this current iteration either.
Click to expand...

I've not really paid much attention to politics since 2012.
 
#523
#523
Cops, don't give me this duty bound nonsense. You all have a duty and an oath to uphold the US Constitution. You all should not be enforcing laws that violate our rights... no matter what the legislation says. If you all wont do it, then the only non-violent alternative left is jury nullification any time one of these cases is tried, which is of little use if they have already taken your blood.

Tennessee troopers set up 'no refusal' checkpoints with mandatory blood draws through Jan. 4
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top