To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,801
#2,801
tim said:
No, Im pointing out the ridiculousness of the study that you, a notorious anti police individual, posted. Posted on the heels of me asking you who kept up with statistics regarding sw's issued in the US. Also, pointing out that you posted this probably knowing how ridiculous it is, but since it jived with your stance you threw it out there.
Click to expand...

The data is good. I wouldn't expect you to understand. You just take the interpretation that creates the most butthurt in your mind and then lash out with straw man arguments. Keep it up. You're doing good and fooling the other fallacious thinkers in this thread.

:clapping:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,805
#2,805
"A Government and it's Agents
are under no general duty
to provide....police protection,
to any individual citizen"

Warren v. District of Columbia
(444 A,2d1(D.C. Ct. of Ap.,1981)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,806
#2,806
Let me share a quote from a case that I have previously used many times, regarding the situation in which someone argues that the police did something negligently, which then created a situation in which they had to use deadly force to defend themselves. That is, they might approach the wrong residence with a warrant, go in, and find a person startled sitting there who reaches for a gun. They defend themselves by shooting and the criticism is, well, if you hadn't made the mistake to begin with, this would not have happened.

"Our historical emphasis on the shortness of the legally relevant time period is not accidental. The time-frame is a crucial aspect of excessive force cases. Other than random attacks, all such cases begin with the decision of a police officer to do something, to help, to arrest, to inquire. If the officer had decided to do nothing, then no force would have been used. In this sense, the police officer always causes the trouble. But it is trouble which the police officer is sworn to cause, which society pays him to cause and which, if kept within constitutional limits, society praises the officer for causing."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,809
#2,809
I'm watching that new documentary on Netflix about James Bulger. It seems pretty obvious that he paid everyone in Boston off Pablo Escobar style. Crazy that can happen in modern day America.
 
#2,811
#2,811
lawgator1 said:
Let me share a quote from a case that I have previously used many times, regarding the situation in which someone argues that the police did something negligently, which then created a situation in which they had to use deadly force to defend themselves. That is, they might approach the wrong residence with a warrant, go in, and find a person startled sitting there who reaches for a gun. They defend themselves by shooting and the criticism is, well, if you hadn't made the mistake to begin with, this would not have happened.

"Our historical emphasis on the shortness of the legally relevant time period is not accidental. The time-frame is a crucial aspect of excessive force cases. Other than random attacks, all such cases begin with the decision of a police officer to do something, to help, to arrest, to inquire. If the officer had decided to do nothing, then no force would have been used. In this sense, the police officer always causes the trouble. But it is trouble which the police officer is sworn to cause, which society pays him to cause and which, if kept within constitutional limits, society praises the officer for causing."
Click to expand...

The problem I see is there's apparently precious little liability at all to be had here. It's a hell of a thing to ponder when "Oops." seems to be a sufficient answer to anything that can't be absolutely proven intentionally criminal by government agents...including actions that result in the death of civilians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,814
#2,814
n_huffhines said:
I'm watching that new documentary on Netflix about James Bulger. It seems pretty obvious that he paid everyone in Boston off Pablo Escobar style. Crazy that can happen in modern day America.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that kind of thing couldn't possibly happen with subscription type police forces.
 
#2,815
#2,815
n_huffhines said:
I'm watching that new documentary on Netflix about James Bulger. It seems pretty obvious that he paid everyone in Boston off Pablo Escobar style. Crazy that can happen in modern day America.
Click to expand...

Whitey is a smart man. He owned Connelly before he realized he'd been bought
 
#2,821
#2,821
508mikey said:
Cop Apologizes to Police Shooting Victim Rumain Brisbon's Daughter - NBC News now cops think pill bottles look like guns
Click to expand...

There are videos of police telling people to put their cell phone cameras away because they don't know what it is and they are in fear for their safety. This is always followed by the response, "it's a cell phone. Of course you know what it is." Point being there are many police out there with an itchy trigger finger just wanting to shoot someone.
 
#2,822
#2,822
There is a cool 30 for 30 documentary on Netflix called Hillsborough. It's about a soccer stadium collapse in England 20 years ago. How it relates to this thread:

- when the portion of the stadium collapsed, the control room, in an effort to cover their butts sends out a first report that Liverpool fans had been riotous and were causing whatever the issue was.
- because of that lie, the police on hand (hundreds of them) instead of turning into rescue crews, served as guards preventing the other fans from coming over (and fighting the rioters I guess).
- at some point it had to be clear that people were in need of help, but few officers offered help (just following orders) and kept the other fans from coming over and helping.
- basically, almost all first aid that was administered was by fans

At this point, I don't necessarily fault the cops for following orders. They're not bad guys, but I'd hope they'd be able to think their way through this (some did, most did not).

The stadium collapse was an engineering and logistical issue. Plain and simple. 96 people died. This is what was reported.

- drunken Liverpool fans who were unruly were the cause of the issue. The cover up kept people uninformed for decades, and Liverpool fans had a terrible reputation (unjustly) because of this.
- police who tried to help people suffering were pissed on and spit on and cursed at and assaulted by fans
- police witnessed fans rummaging through the pockets of the dead

There were 50,000 people there and no fans reported anything of the sort. There were also video cameras all over the stadium, and none of this behavior was caught on camera. It wasn't the rank and file, it was the bosses. They falsified police reports. They edited testimony and locked it away, etc. Crazy.
 
#2,825
#2,825
Saw the drug task force, I assume that's who they were, with a minivan pulled over and a (assume) mom and two little kids standing in the cold while they were searching.

On I-40 east of Memphis they are doing this crap daily.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top