• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Police charge five "legal" open carry citizens in Wisconsin

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I am absolutely sure that if a 911 MWAG call was ignored, and a mass shooting resulted, there would be multiple court cases and all precedents would be examined closely to find ways to allow the cases to proceed.

A mass shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call would be a game-changer.

No LEA would risk ignoring one. I was told by the deputy chief of the MPD that that is their exact reasoning: They would not want to deal with the legal AND public opinion ramifications of a shooting following an ignored 911 MWAG call.

Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.
As the saying goes, "Dismissed for failing to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted."

At some point, somebody will claim that the police HAVE to protect you because it says "To Serve and Protect" on the doors of the police cars... by which reasoning, if they instead said, "Have a Nice Day!", you could sue them if you DIDN'T.

Life can be harsh, and the truth about what REAL protection the police have a duty to render to you is especially harsh. It's why places like Chicago and New York City are so consummately evil. What OUGHT to be on the doors of the police cars is "We Don't Have to Protect You and We Won't Let You Protect Yourself."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The law as it is, and the law as you'd like it are two entirely different things.

These decisions absolving the police of almost all duty to protect individuals all arose out of horrific crimes, including multiple rapes and murders. Don't expect a "mass shooting" to make one iota of difference. How much money did the families of the Columbine victims get from the city and the individual officers? Remember, the Columbine cops sat on their behinds KNOWING there were two active shooters in play. You expect sanctions against these cops when there's not even a CRIME reported? Not going to happen.

The law, particularly civil law, is not static. Neither is it precisely what it is often portrayed to be by us IANALs. Trust me, a mass killing following an IGNORED 911 MWAG call would result in civil suits that would work their way through the courts. Precedents would be examined closely. Some will be found not to apply. Some will be changed. Some will be followed.

"Sat on their butts" is a nice vague statement that could be argued either way. Factual, specific statements cannot. I won't attempt to argue that vague statement. If you care to make your point more specifically, including what the Columbine police did AND did not do, that might be a more fruitful discussion.

I can tell you this: They did not IGNORE a MWAG call.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Well I disagree. Cases have always favored the premise that LEO's have NO obligation to protect individual people. Suits filed..I'm sure there would be...them proceeding, unlikely.

To my knowledge, there has not been a single case of an IGNORED MWAG call followed by a mass shooting. (Mainly because LEAs do not--and should not--ignore MWAG calls.) If there were such an instance, cases of individual officers not responding in a timely manner will be considered for precedent, but they would not be controlling as the case would be plowing very new ground.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
The law, particularly civil law, is not static. Neither is it precisely what it is often portrayed to be by us IANALs. Trust me, a mass killing following an IGNORED 911 MWAG call would result in civil suits that would work their way through the courts. Precedents would be examined closely. Some will be found not to apply. Some will be changed. Some will be followed.

"Sat on their butts" is a nice vague statement that could be argued either way. Factual, specific statements cannot. I won't attempt to argue that vague statement. If you care to make your point more specifically, including what the Columbine police did AND did not do, that might be a more fruitful discussion.

I can tell you this: They did not IGNORE a MWAG call.
I suggest you ask a lawyer. You won't like his answer.

Apparently rapes, murders, child murders, etc. weren't a big enough deal to make the police accountable... apparently Columbine wasn't either.

The Columbine police didn't ignore the active shooters. They just CHOSE to do NOTHING until after the shooting was over. They and their department were COMPLETELY unaccountable.

You're wrong on this. Stare decisis is a real term, and there's NO movement to make police accountable for failing to protect individuals. It would UTTERLY bankrupt every police department and municipality in the nation.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I suggest you ask a lawyer. You won't like his answer.

The Columbine police didn't ignore the active shooters. They just CHOSE to do NOTHING until after the shooting was over. They and their department were COMPLETELY unaccountable.

Therefore, you are not citing a case of an IGNORED 911 MWAG call, so it is pointless as a refutation of what I am saying would likely happen in the event of one.

That wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't notice the stark difference (that could only reasonably be settled in a court of law) between not responding soon enough and IGNORING a 911 MWAG call followed by a mass shooting.

Trust me, there would be lawyers salivating for the opportunity to litigate this one, and regardless of the outcome, it would be appealed and drag on for years, as the law is closely reexamined. I wouldn't want to be a taxpayer in the municipality that is the defendant. It will, win or lose, cost an absolute fortune.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Therefore, you are not citing a case of an IGNORED 911 MWAG call, so it is pointless as a refutation of what I am saying would likely happen in the event of one.

That wouldn't be much of a lawyer if he didn't notice the stark difference (that could only reasonably be settled in a court of law) between not responding soon enough and IGNORING a 911 MWAG call followed by a mass shooting.

Trust me, there would be lawyers salivating for the opportunity to litigate this one, and regardless of the outcome, it would be appealed and drag on for years, as the law is closely reexamined. I wouldn't want to be a taxpayer in the municipality that is the defendant. It will, win or lose, cost an absolute fortune.
There's NO difference, although I suppose you could argue that Columbine was WORSE, since they KNEW what was going on and did nothing. Still no accountability.

You can argue that the police with LESS culpability would have MORE accountability. You just can't do it and prevail.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There's NO difference, although I suppose you could argue that Columbine was WORSE, since they KNEW what was going on and did nothing. Still no accountability.

You can argue that the police with LESS culpability would have MORE accountability. You just can't do it and prevail.

That you do not agree there is a difference does not mean there is not one. On Columbine, again, it is not an example of what I was saying, therefore it is inapt.

Moving on.
 
Last edited:

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
They cannot be sure that no laws are being broken. Dispatching a single officer for a look-see, while not bothering the carriers at all is a prudent and minimalistic action.

Please watch the personal comments. I won't get into a junior-high flaming contest.

'Tell ya what... when you become a cop... you can comment on tactics. procedure and RAS. 'Til then ... your opinion is zip.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
'Tell ya what... when you become a cop... you can comment on tactics. procedure and RAS. 'Til then ... your opinion is zip. How 'bout you just STFU? [personal attack removed]

Well, that was rude.

Oh, and I was a cop in the AF. Tell me now how that is not good enough.

Oh, and I wouldn't dare tell another poster to STFU because he did not have a particular bit of experience that I had. Most of the people on this site would not be allowed to comment on the police by your silly standard.

One other thing: How many people on this site can claim having single-handedly changed a city police department's policy by opposing unlawful police action? I can.

Moving on.
 
Last edited:

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
That you do not agree there is a difference does not mean there is not one. On Columbine, again, it is not an example of what I was saying, therefore it is inapt.

Moving on.
If ANYTHING, Columbine was WORSE. Still not a HINT of individual responsibility.

You're arguing legal flat earth.
 
Top