To Protect and to Serve II

#7,658
#7,658
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,659
#7,659
hjeagle1vol said:
Apparently not...
Click to expand...
Apparently so... these charges will either get dismissed or if he is convicted, it will get overturned. No way will the Thin Blue Line and their apologists allow for this to go down.

If cops don't go to jail for killing civilians, what makes you think that one will go to jail over this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#7,660
#7,660
Rasputin_Vol said:
Apparently so... these charges will either get dismissed or if he is convicted, it will get overturned. No way will the Thin Blue Line and their apologists allow for this to go down.

If cops don't go to jail for killing civilians, what makes you think that one will go to jail over this?
Click to expand...

We agree...my straight forward and sometimes sarcastic approach can get lost in translation sometimes. I'm interested in what was in the bag...You? Scott Israel and DWS are the main criminals in that district. They're on borrowed time. We're saving them and the AWAN brothers for last.
 
#7,661
#7,661
hjeagle1vol said:
Apparently not...
Deputy Who Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter is 'Arrested for Inaction'

Good now let's find out what was in the bag?

[VIDEO=]
Click to expand...



The civil case was dismissed for lack of an actionable duty.

The criminal charge emanates from a different source of duty. But I will say it seems unlikely to succeed. The contours of such a duty, to yield criminal liability, are not defined. Tough to prosecute.

Seems political. Looking for a bit of a scapegoat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#7,663
#7,663
lawgator1 said:
The civil case was dismissed for lack of an actionable duty.

The criminal charge emanates from a different source of duty. But I will say it seems unlikely to succeed. The contours of such a duty, to yield criminal liability, are not defined. Tough to prosecute.

Seems political. Looking for a bit of a scapegoat.
Click to expand...

Just opening the door to Broward County corruption imo. Wonder what he'll have to say under oath about Scott Israel and DWS?
 
#7,664
#7,664
hjeagle1vol said:
Just opening the door to Broward County corruption imo. Wonder what he'll have to say under oath about Scott Israel and DWS?
Click to expand...


Its largely about appearing to blame someone. While you can justify firing the guy for failing to do his job, that's just not criminal and it's not causally his fault. Prosecuting someone for failing to prevent crime seems like a fool's errand to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#7,665
#7,665
lawgator1 said:
Its largely about appearing to blame someone. While you can justify firing the guy for failing to do his job, that's just not criminal and it's not causally his fault. Prosecuting someone for failing to prevent crime seems like a fool's errand to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed, let's go to the top and find the true criminals. I think you're wrong about who is scapegoating who. Israel put out the stand down order.
 
#7,666
#7,666
lawgator1 said:
Its largely about appearing to blame someone. While you can justify firing the guy for failing to do his job, that's just not criminal and it's not causally his fault. Prosecuting someone for failing to prevent crime seems like a fool's errand to me.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
#7,668
#7,668
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
#7,670
#7,670
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
#7,671
#7,671
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.
 
#7,672
#7,672
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?
 
#7,673
#7,673
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.
 
#7,674
#7,674
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. ??????
 
#7,675
#7,675
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.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top