To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#10,577
#10,577
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not one to put much stock in what a group of 9 Megalomaniacs have to say about anything. It can be summed up as one big conflict of interest.

Who is supposedly charged with interpretation of the constitution? The megalomaniacs I spoke of, correct? Now, who pays these folks? Would that be the treasury department? A branch of the government.... Nah, no conflict there. Same can be said for cops, lawyers, judges or anyone else involved in government.
Click to expand...

you know they get paid no matter what. if they vote yes or no. and in most cases those 9 megalomaniacs don't agree. so some of them are getting paid to not go along with the party line.
 
#10,578
#10,578
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Then there is sovereign immunity.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PRINCIPLE

Every jurisdiction in the country recognizes that it is impossible for the police and other public authorities to provide adequate protection to any individual. Therefore, they developed a legal principle that government is not liable for failure to provide adequate protection. They can only attempt to provide some level of protection to the community as a whole. Most states (approximately 37) have sovereign immunity statutes stating that government is not responsible for failure to provide police protection to any individual. The remaining jurisdictions have precedent cases which permanently established the same legal principles. These statutes and precedents are consistently cited by the courts to dismiss suits by individuals for government failure to provide adequate protection.

From this link.
Public Safety Project - Laws on Police Protection / Sovereign Immunity

So, isn't that really just a catch all for the fraud that is government? How long would i be in the protection business if I failed to protect my clients? We are clients, right? We pay (by force) for the services right? Sounds more like victims to me.

I'll just leave this here.
http://youtu.be/kqoBZLSm1WA
Click to expand...

so in this case you are upset that the government recognizes it can't be large enough to offer 100% protection all the time??? so you either want the full nanny state or nothing at all?

most of the non-government protection companies are insurance scams, that don't actually protect you but instead inform you and the police when something has happened. even personal body guards aren't anywhere close to 100% effective. all they can do is react, most of the time, after the damage is done. so its not protection but limiting damage done after the fact. even with the protection you are getting you have to be under 24hr surveillance. you don't like it when the government does it with your tax dollars, but apparently you have no issue with paying for the same thing from a private business looking out for its bottom dollar.
 
#10,579
#10,579
LouderVol said:
you know they get paid no matter what. if they vote yes or no. and in most cases those 9 megalomaniacs don't agree. so some of them are getting paid to not go along with the party line.
Click to expand...

I was simply highlighting the conflict of interest that is inherent in the system.
 
#10,580
#10,580
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not the same situation as that meme was illustrating. That meme was expecting a cop to make a split decision between a bb gun vs a real gun. Totally different than driving up behind a guy that is walking away and driving into him and through the neighboring wall.
Click to expand...

Walking away?

The guy was continuing moving through a residential area with a loaded weapon. The officer made a split decision on how to stop the threat. You chastised the entire handling of the situation. That was my comparison. See the parallel?
 
#10,581
#10,581
LouderVol said:
so in this case you are upset that the government recognizes it can't be large enough to offer 100% protection all the time??? so you either want the full nanny state or nothing at all?

most of the non-government protection companies are insurance scams, that don't actually protect you but instead inform you and the police when something has happened. even personal body guards aren't anywhere close to 100% effective. all they can do is react, most of the time, after the damage is done. so its not protection but limiting damage done after the fact. even with the protection you are getting you have to be under 24hr surveillance. you don't like it when the government does it with your tax dollars, but apparently you have no issue with paying for the same thing from a private business looking out for its bottom dollar.
Click to expand...
Of course, I have no problem paying for something i voluntarily want, nor do I have a problem firing someone when they don't do the job I pay them for. The government and their enforcers are not subject to market forces. So we can't opt out of their "protection" even though everyone is forced to pay for their so called services. A private business, on the other hand, will cater to their customers.
Truth be told, most cops show up after the crime is committed.

http://youtu.be/kqoBZLSm1WA
 
Last edited:
#10,582
#10,582
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Of course, I have no problem paying for something i voluntarily want, nor do I have a problem firing someone when they don't do the job I pay them for. The government and their enforcers are not subject to market forces. So we can't opt out of their "protection" even though everyone is forced to pay for their so called services. A private business, on the other hand, will cater to their customers.
Truth be told, most cops show up after the crime is committed.

http://youtu.be/kqoBZLSm1WA
Click to expand...

Private companies would show up after the crime is committed also....What incentive is there for the private company to pursue the person that murders you?
 
#10,584
#10,584
Grand Vol said:
And yet didn't want to discuss the item you felt was worth discussing last night.

Any commentary on the SCOTUS case and the NYT article?
Click to expand...

What's there to discuss? It's pretty clear, police are under no constitutional duty to protect anyone. Even if there is a court order in place. The title of the article is spot on. Yet, for some reason people are forced to pay for this protection. That's the overall point i am making. Why should we have to pay for a system that has no obligation to do what it is we pay them to do?
It's almost as egregious as the fact that cops can legally lie to you.

Sorry my response took so long, I'm on night shift.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,585
#10,585
Rasputin_Vol said:
No one on here has ever second guessed a cop in a situation where a guy pulled a bb gun vs real gun on them. In a case like that, I would obviously side with the cop to defend himself. But when a cop pulls a guy over on a minor traffic stop and decides to escalate the situation or decides to take a simple street arrest to a street fight, then that is where the cop hatred begins to ooze out.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "no one"

volmaverick said:
On October 22, a 13-year old boy was shot and killed by Santa Rosa, California Sheriff's deputies after they saw him walking down the street with what they thought to be an "assault rifle."

According to the Associated Press, the deputies ordered the boy to drop the weapon and eventually "fired several rounds." The boy fell to the ground and was handcuffed, after which the deputies "began administering first aid."

The 13-year old was pronounced dead at the scene. It turns out his "assault weapon" was only a replica. He also had a "plastic handgun in his waistband."

CA Deputies Shoot, Kill 13-Year-Old Carrying Fake 'Assault Weapon'
Click to expand...

Of course, it was Vol Mav...
 
#10,586
#10,586
Obsessed said:
I'm not fat enough. :)

Being a cop doesn't fit my personality. I would never arrest any one or write any tickets.
Click to expand...

I'd make a horrible cop or a good cop depending on ones opinion. I'd rarely arrest anyone but would write the hell out tickets for not signaling or driving in the left hand lane.
 
#10,587
#10,587
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You were saying? Its never been safer to be a cop.
Click to expand...
My job is number 3 on that chart. imho, being a cop and chasing an inner city thug around on a dark night is far more dangerous than flying an approach to zero visibility with one engine on fire. I'll take MY chances any day and twice on Sunday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,588
#10,588
jp1 said:
Walking away?

The guy was continuing moving through a residential area with a loaded weapon. The officer made a split decision on how to stop the threat. You chastised the entire handling of the situation. That was my comparison. See the parallel?
Click to expand...

No, there is no parallel between the meme where it is assumed that a cop can distinguish between a bb gun and a real gun vs that cop driving over a suspect and into a wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,589
#10,589
Rasputin_Vol said:
No, there is no parallel between the meme where it is assumed that a cop can distinguish between a bb gun and a real gun vs that cop driving over a suspect and into a wall.
Click to expand...

Fine, If you want to ignore the obvious then continue with your bashing.
 
#10,593
#10,593
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Of course, I have no problem paying for something i voluntarily want, nor do I have a problem firing someone when they don't do the job I pay them for. The government and their enforcers are not subject to market forces. So we can't opt out of their "protection" even though everyone is forced to pay for their so called services. A private business, on the other hand, will cater to their customers.
Truth be told, most cops show up after the crime is committed.

http://youtu.be/kqoBZLSm1WA
Click to expand...

the government isn't, and imo, shouldn't ever be equated to a market system. You don't get to pick and choose. if we did that, it would make the system so fricking complicated it would make what we have look like a stick figure drawing compared to a Van Gogh.

and talking about opting out, do you read all of your apple agreements? or are you like most people who just click yes? in order to listen to music on my Ipod I have to agree to let them monitor what I listen to, I have to agree to let them use whatever information I use/provide upto them selling the information to third parties. (apple isn't the only one so not hating on them) government works the same way. You like the FDA, CDC and a few others, well guess what you have to do all the rest as well. so if you consider it like a free market system it works in similar ways. I don't like the US laws i leave and have to pay a tax. I leave my verizon contract early I pay a fee. etc etc.
 
#10,594
#10,594
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
What's there to discuss? It's pretty clear, police are under no constitutional duty to protect anyone. Even if there is a court order in place. The title of the article is spot on. Yet, for some reason people are forced to pay for this protection. That's the overall point i am making. Why should we have to pay for a system that has no obligation to do what it is we pay them to do?
It's almost as egregious as the fact that cops can legally lie to you.

Sorry my response took so long, I'm on night shift.
Click to expand...

There is nothing further from the truth in your post. And you only see what you want to see because it's slanted against cops.

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to have police making arrests because they are mandated to from some arbitrary law from some politician that has a personal peeve? Or would you prefer they continue to have some discretion in what they cite and/or warn for? Because again, that's what this case was all about. Maintaining the ability to have discretion instead of making arrests mandatory.

Here's the slippery slope...

Drug possession is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.

Domestic disturbance is now a mandatory arrest because someone wrote it into law.

If the case hadn't been won in favor of the Castle Rock PD, this is exactly the kind of thing that could (and probably would) happen. But you continue being brainwashed by the New York Times. They are a reputable news agency that's unbiased in reporting.
 
#10,596
#10,596
Grand Vol said:
You can still complain about the drug laws and how absurd they are all you want, but it doesn't change the fact the politicians are the ones that will have to make those laws change. And until said time, LE will continue to enforce the law as it stands. And in turn earn the disdain of the public for enforcing said laws. Now I agree with many on here that sometimes LE goes way overboard on enforcing the law and I do think it should be dialed back. But until the focus of the people is on the root problem, the politicians, there is nothing that will change.
Click to expand...
I found this interesting that we seem to have LE zealously enforcing ridiculous drug laws, but don't enforce laws regarding immigration.
 
#10,597
#10,597
jp1 said:
Fine, If you want to ignore the obvious then continue with your bashing.
Click to expand...

How are the two of these in any way similar?

c3651857613625714ae2bb7e1c15d49e.jpg


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-sG5bbuV0[/youtube]
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top