Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: From the Horses mouth...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Lightbulb From the Horses mouth...

    "To Protect and Serve".... I don't think so like the title says from the horses mouth...

    Police Nationwide Say "You're On Your Own" @Project_Veritas - YouTube

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    We always have been.

    The only difference now is that they're being upfront about it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Talesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pinellas County
    Posts
    41
    To start off ... SCOTUS, in no less than 2 cases, said police agencies are not obligated to protect the citizens, residents, taxpayers or sojourners in any state or political subdivision thereof. Their sole duty was to protect the government.

    As to "protect and serve." Remember the TV show Adam 12? The vehicles featured therein had that logo affixed. I have no idea if the LA cops of that era actually had the same logo on their squads. Police agencies across the country, after spying the logo featured on TV, placed same on their vehicles. It, and those of like-kind, is meaningless.

    I guess, given the rulings (as to police duties) of the federal courts up to and including SCOTUS there may well be a case for false advertising. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for the design, cutting and application to the vehicle for blatant lies. Personal opinion.

  4. #4
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Talesman View Post
    To start off ... SCOTUS, in no less than 2 cases, said police agencies are not obligated to protect the citizens, residents, taxpayers or sojourners in any state or political subdivision thereof. Their sole duty was to protect the government.

    As to "protect and serve." Remember the TV show Adam 12? The vehicles featured therein had that logo affixed. I have no idea if the LA cops of that era actually had the same logo on their squads. Police agencies across the country, after spying the logo featured on TV, placed same on their vehicles. It, and those of like-kind, is meaningless.

    I guess, given the rulings (as to police duties) of the federal courts up to and including SCOTUS there may well be a case for false advertising. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for the design, cutting and application to the vehicle for blatant lies. Personal opinion.
    For those who may not have known this could you please cite/link to the cases? Thanks in advance. This is a great thread and we should share it with our "less informed" family & friends. It is a eye opener. We tell our children to run & dial 911. We forget to tell them it could be an hour or longer before help arrives... Great thing that schools are safe do to being "safe gun free zones."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  5. #5
    Regular Member punisherprice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Talesman View Post
    To start off ... SCOTUS, in no less than 2 cases, said police agencies are not obligated to protect the citizens, residents, taxpayers or sojourners in any state or political subdivision thereof. Their sole duty was to protect the government.

    As to "protect and serve." Remember the TV show Adam 12? The vehicles featured therein had that logo affixed. I have no idea if the LA cops of that era actually had the same logo on their squads. Police agencies across the country, after spying the logo featured on TV, placed same on their vehicles. It, and those of like-kind, is meaningless.

    I guess, given the rulings (as to police duties) of the federal courts up to and including SCOTUS there may well be a case for false advertising. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for the design, cutting and application to the vehicle for blatant lies. Personal opinion.
    So we pay taxes for someone NOT to do their job? Its a lot like hiring a plumber and he shows up, takes the money, and scrams without doing anything....and if LEO's are supposed to protect the Govt....we're screwed....
    "Si vis pacem parabellum" - If you want peace, Prepare for war.

  6. #6
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    From the Horses mouth...

    these days its more like

    to protect (revenue from tickets) and serve (tickets to make revenue)

    they are a business and need to make money. they focus more on revenue enforcement rather than patrolling and having a presence to deter criminals. criminals know most cops are sitting somewhere shooting a laser at cars makin $$$
    Last edited by PFC HALE; 03-08-2013 at 04:27 AM.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by punisherprice View Post
    So we pay taxes for someone NOT to do their job? Its a lot like hiring a plumber and he shows up, takes the money, and scrams without doing anything....and if LEO's are supposed to protect the Govt....we're screwed....
    They are paid to do their job. The SC is just saying that that job does not include a duty to ensure any individual's personal safety. Their job is to contribute to the safety of all by lawfully finding criminals and bringing them into the justice system. However, should the police fail to stop a criminal before he hurts you, they have not failed in their duty, as they have no specific duty to you.

    IMO, that is how it should be. The takeaway is not that the police are not doing something that they should be. It is that you cannot count on them for your personal protection, causing a certain anti-gun argument to fail: You cannot go unarmed simply because the police are there to protect you. They aren't, so you should be armed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    From the Horses mouth...

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    They are paid to do their job. The SC is just saying that that job does not include a duty to ensure any individual's personal safety. Their job is to contribute to the safety of all by lawfully finding criminals and bringing them into the justice system. However, should the police fail to stop a criminal before he hurts you, they have not failed in their duty, as they have no specific duty to you.

    IMO, that is how it should be. The takeaway is not that the police are not doing something that they should be. It is that you cannot count on them for your personal protection, causing a certain anti-gun argument to fail: You cannot go unarmed simply because the police are there to protect you. They aren't, so you should be armed.
    as i will agree with you, i will present this.

    if they are not there to personally protect us, we are forced to protect ourselves. this opens us up to different legal issues if we were to defend ourselves. we would be held to different legalities and such than the police do if the same action were taken against an assailant.

    for example...

    armed robber breaking into a house he points his gun at you, but you get a shot off first and he is injured. you will most likely have to go to court to defend yourself, your weapon will most likely be confiscated and you will have to fork out money for defense.

    same scenerio but a responding cop arrives and the armed robber breaking into a house instead turns around, gun in hand pointing at the cop and the cop shoots and injures the robber. all the cop most likely will have to deal with is paperwork and possibly a short investigation if his actions are justified.

    how can there be two sides of consequences for the same action of self defense?

    there are so many laws telling us what we cant do for defense then there are what we can do for defense.
    Last edited by PFC HALE; 03-08-2013 at 06:47 AM.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    From the Horses mouth...

    You will most likely NOT have to go to court. There is usually an investigation, but (in most States) shooting a thug in your home will provide ample justification. The police and prosecutor will decide not to pursue charges.

    There was a recent incident in Fairborn, where I now live. The resident is facing zero charges for killing one perp and wounding another. The four survivors are facing felony murder charges in the death of their co-thug. There is a thread on this event in the Self Defense forum.

    Know your own State's laws and watch out for the media zimmermanning you!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    eye95 is 101% correct. Know your state laws on the justification for the use of force in a self-defense situation. I know several cops, here in Missouri, and not a single one would charge you with a crime if you extinguished a thug in your living room. Even in that anti-liberty conclave known as St. Louis City.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member Talesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pinellas County
    Posts
    41
    For the gentle member who requested cites.

    Here is what I saved over time. I make no aver that the list is complete by any means.

    Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
    686 F.2d 616 (1882)
    Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
    Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
    Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
    Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
    P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
    Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
    Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102
    Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
    Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
    Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
    Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
    Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
    Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
    Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
    Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
    Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
    Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
    Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
    Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
    Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0


    "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)


    The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals case Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

    Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her.
    When she called police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was
    there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1975).


    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."


    Happy reading.
    Last edited by Talesman; 03-08-2013 at 02:57 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Thumbs up

    Thank you Talesman for the info.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •