In your opinion, who do the police work for?

Ya know what? I used to respect what you had to post. You seem to have slipped into the mode of not being able to convince a person of your POV, so you make the argument personal.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am a public employee. Maybe you haven't thought through completely something that I've said and jumped to a conclusion.

Conclusion jumping is an example of the sloppy thinking that causes problems on a message board.

Care to kick your rationality up a notch and participate in the discussion in an adult manner?

sudden valley gunner said:

Maybe he's fighting so hard against this idea being a public employee himself.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Please don't tell me that I am wrong. I am a math and physics teacher. I know what the formal mathematical definition of "center of mass" is.

Click to expand...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?80487-Defensive-Shooting-Question

Maybe this is where you got the idea that he is a public employee? Post #11 to be exact. Either he is lieing or he is a public employee or he works for a private school. Which is it, eye? It appears that he is quickly losing credibility here.

I am sorry to have to inform you folks of this, but police are under no obligation to work for us, and certainly are not accountable to us!

This is a proven fact as stated in several court cases!

Wgaf?

I pay my taxes, but I, as an individual, do not get to decide where that money goes or how it is used. I vote, but I, as an individual, do not get to order my representatives to vote only the way I want them to.

We, the People of the United States, 'own' the government, and the police work for 'us'. They do not work for any individual, just as they do not have a duty to protect any individual. They serve and protect society as a whole.


But at this point, I'd like a Who Gives A **** option to be added to the poll.

eye95 said:

Ya know what? I used to respect what you had to post. You seem to have slipped into the mode of not being able to convince a person of your POV, so you make the argument personal.

Don't try and pull the straw outta of my eye while the rafter is in your own. Really read what you just wrote go back and look at your responses to my posts, and apply your advice to yourself. And no personal attack meant. Sorry if you took it that way.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am a public employee. Maybe you haven't thought through completely something that I've said and jumped to a conclusion.

See Rodbenders Post.

Conclusion jumping is an example of the sloppy thinking that causes problems on a message board.

I didn't jump to any conclusions notice how I said Maybe at the beginning of that post.

Care to kick your rationality up a notch and participate in the discussion in an adult manner?

Amusing how you lecture on being an adult and rational and not having personal attacks and then write this sentence. Really? Your words betray yourself.

I have been rational, again because you think my viewpoint is idiotic, doesn't make it wrong. Your rational has been because it offends Public Servants. My rational is than don't take that job if you can't respect the people you work for.

I used to respect your posts too, until you seemed to want to be the free speech monitor. And go into teacher mode and treat us like we are your errant students because we don't fall in line with statist thinking. My advice to you is tone down the arrogance, and debate like equals. You might not have noticed but your tone really has been like this.

Click to expand...

Responded in Blue.

George Mann said:

I am sorry to have to inform you folks of this, but police are under no obligation to work for us, and certainly are not accountable to us!

This is a proven fact as stated in several court cases!

Click to expand...

Under no obligationt to protect and serve. ( A ridiculous ruling like many from the men in black)

They still perform work for us.

Oh and I care. Public servants need to treat the public whom they work for with respect.

mcdonalk said:

I pay my taxes, but I, as an individual, do not get to decide where that money goes or how it is used. I vote, but I, as an individual, do not get to order my representatives to vote only the way I want them to.

We, the People of the United States, 'own' the government, and the police work for 'us'. They do not work for any individual, just as they do not have a duty to protect any individual. They serve and protect society as a whole.


But at this point, I'd like a Who Gives A **** option to be added to the poll.

Click to expand...

I care. I pass no judgement upon you for what you consider important. I do this out of respect. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the same in return.

You made the argument personal.

I am not a public employee. I don't know what rodbender's post says, and don't want to know.

Some acceptance on your part that you got overly personal would've gone a long way to restoring my respect for your words and ideas.

Instead,

moving on.

eye95 said:

You made the argument personal.

I am not a public employee. I don't know what rodbender's post says, and don't want to know.

Some acceptance on your part that you got overly personal would've gone a long way to restoring my respect for your words and ideas.

Instead,

moving on.

Click to expand...

He posted the post were you stated you were a teacher.

Again no personal attack meant, but look at how you word your posts and apply your advice to yourself.

Here is a little bit advice I thought was good advice and I listened to it.

eye95 wrote:

Anyway, some unsolicited advice: When someone says something that you think is harsh, reread it, make sure you understand it, and answer as though is was 2 notches less harsh than you thought it was. If they keep at it, or get downright personally insulting, just move on.

Click to expand...

jtrider said:

I care. I pass no judgement upon you for what you consider important. I do this out of respect. I do not think it unreasonable to expect the same in return.

Click to expand...

I realize that you care, because if you didn't you wouldn't have taken the time to make a poll. I also realize that this is an important and contentious issue to at least 2 people on this board, and I thank you for making a thread where they can continue their 'discussion' without drawing any other threads off topic.

I was even respectful enough to post my personal thoughts on the matter (that would be the part you didn't highlight in red) before telling you how I feel about the subject. The fact that I really don't care who they 'work for' in no way lessens my personal belief or that of any other person.

And I still think that WGAF is a valid answer that should be added to the poll. That is not being disrespectful, although I think see how you could have taken it personally.

I voted that the Police do not work for us, and are not accountable to us.

Why? Because that's how it is. The Paramiliatary Police Force has become a rogue entity.

They SHOULD work for us, and they SHOULD answer to us.

But they don't.

We are their slaves, and they are merely the pawns of a greater evil. No Freedom or Constitutionality will exist in this nation while they persist. It's a simple disparity of force, which the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent.

RIP USA, I knew you only in books.

George Mann said:

I am sorry to have to inform you folks of this, but police are under no obligation to work for us, and certainly are not accountable to us!

This is a proven fact as stated in several court cases!

Click to expand...

mcdonalk said:

I pay my taxes, but I, as an individual, do not get to decide where that money goes or how it is used. I vote, but I, as an individual, do not get to order my representatives to vote only the way I want them to.

We, the People of the United States, 'own' the government, and the police work for 'us'. They do not work for any individual, just as they do not have a duty to protect any individual. They serve and protect society as a whole.


But at this point, I'd like a Who Gives A **** option to be added to the poll.

Click to expand...

I have seen it stated several times, that a LEO is under no legal obligation to protect an individual. Can someone cite this case? I am not doubting per say I would just like to see the case law.

SavageOne said:

I have seen it stated several times, that a LEO is under no legal obligation to protect an individual. Can someone cite this case? I am not doubting per say I would just like to see the case law.

Click to expand...

489 U.S. 189 (1989)
DESHANEY, A MINOR, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET AL.
v.
WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ET AL.

No. 87-154.
Supreme Court of United States.

There are more.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5543768239799414902&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

(the)fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

And this eye-opener from the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The [Due Process of the 14th Amendment] Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means." DeShaney v. Winnebago County , 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

(the)fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

Click to expand...

Actually, this sentence fragment does not make a statement as to the truth of the "fundamental principle." The sentence could start, "We deny the truth to the often mis-stated fundamental principle..."

I have seen the court decisions saying that the police have no legal duty to protect us. I am not disputing the truth of that statement, just pointing out the flaw in one of the cites.

Thanks

eye95 said:

Actually, this sentence fragment does not make a statement as to the truth of the "fundamental principle." The sentence could start, "We deny the truth to the often mis-stated fundamental principle..."

I have seen the court decisions saying that the police have no legal duty to protect us. I am not disputing the truth of that statement, just pointing out the flaw in one of the cites.

Click to expand...

OOPS!!!, Can't say it.

Ignore feature - Use it.

I couldn't understand why RODBENDER was getting censored...

Then I started 'viewing' eye95's posts. (I have him ignored.)

Eye95 is educated, possesses a great vocabulary, and writes well. Don't let it fool you! His posts are without substance. By responding, you falsely give him credibility.

simmonsjoe said:

I couldn't understand why RODBENDER was getting censored...

Then I started 'viewing' eye95's posts.View attachment 3967 (I have him ignored.)

Eye95 is educated, possesses a great vocabulary, and writes well. Don't let it fool you! His posts are without substance. By responding, you falsely give him credibility.

Click to expand...

Interesting observation. It seems if someone confronts the lack of substance, it is deemed a personal attack. It appears that the ignore feature is the most effective means of dealing with his sideways jabs. Regardless of a poster's education and background, nobody appreciates arrogance modified to disguise a personal attack.

simmonsjoe said:

I couldn't understand why RODBENDER was getting censored...

Then I started 'viewing' eye95's posts.View attachment 3967 (I have him ignored.)

Eye95 is educated, possesses a great vocabulary, and writes well. Don't let it fool you! His posts are without substance. By responding, you falsely give him credibility.

Click to expand...

I don't put anyone on the ignore list. I truly enjoy the amusement at times. Some posters are that and only that.

Disclaimer: I am not responsible if anyone takes this as a personal attack for I have mentioned no names.

simmonsjoe said:

Eye95 is educated, possesses a great vocabulary, and writes well. Don't let it fool you! His posts are without substance. By responding, you falsely give him credibility.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'll stand up for him. I might disagree with him from time to time, and when that happens I'll offer my own $0.02. But hey - isn't that what message boarding is all about?