Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Police

That’s not totally accurate. Policy is often a result of something going bad, usually in civil court. My agency policy is I SHALL refer any felony for prosecution if probable cause exists. It’s not to ensure I enforce an unjust law, it’s risk mitigation so we don’t get sued by a crime victim who alleges they were victimized due to our inaction. That, coupled with body cams, means no one gets a break unless I want to accept the liability for their actions from that point.

We’re told time and again: “We’d rather get sued by someone you arrest than the victim of someone you didn’t arrest”.

How could that possibly happen?

No agency is responsible for the production of safety or security for any individual unless they are in custody. (Excerpted from the link attached.) See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual" without “due process of the law.”

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Simon Gonzales for kidnapped his three daughters (ages 7, 8, and 10) while they were playing outside, in violation of a court-issued protective order. He killed the children and SCOTUS went on to reaffirm the DeShaney ruling that "there is no affirmative right to aid by the government or the police found in the U.S. Constitution, and thus no legal recourse could be brought thereunder." The “no duty to protect” rule remains unwavering and the law today.


No duty to protect

If you have a moral compass you know that legal is not necessarily equal to moral. Which do you put first? And how does your paycheck play into that decision. Important questions for LEO especially in these times.

You can't take one small partition of the whole for a comparison. Also, BLM was often violent while blocking traffic. False comparison.

You can if you are an idiot.

Took this from Memes last night.
Cropped it, put it on Fakebook.

Screenshot as it went there, with my remarks.

Combined, it fits this conversation well.

It’s not the duty to protect, but the use of discretion outside of policy. Like letting someone go who had been drinking and they hit someone.

Trudeau, Biden or any other elected official aren't going to show up at your door enforcing their edict, "emergency" or any other horseshit excuse to violate your rights. They pay others to do that for them.

YMMV

IA bit of perspective as to what it is like on the other side of the "we hate the police" debate was needed. I am sure that view is even more infuriating to the haters.

WE!, PAY!

Folks here are yip-yapping about republics and constitutions, electing the right people, and LEOs following oaths. It is all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

1. We no longer have a republic.
Haven't had one since 1865. Get over it. We now have a plutocratic oligarchy. (Use a dictionary if you have to.) This is where liberal democracy and market worship leads.

2. The Constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper.
It is a fig leaf given to the trained monkey performers (politicians, judges, etc.) as the trained monkeys dance to the tune of the ruling class, Constitution or otherwise. If hte COTUS says "X," it is but the matter of a few talmudically reasoned paragraphs to twist that into "Not-X."

3. Those elected are mere actors who have little power. "Right people" or otherwise.
The ruling & managerial classes flip the levers of power in this country. Trump found that out. Sure, you can VOTE for something, but you're never gonna GET something if ht ruling class thinks otherwise. The political process selects for dancing monkeys.

4. POLICE exist to do the will of the ruling class.
Always have. They do not exist to protect, serve, or otherwise help regular, decent folks. They have spent decades preventing good white folks from protecting their selves, families, neighborhoods, and polities from swarthy and smollhat invaders. And where police can not be found, private sector thugs will fill in. Just like with the internet: supposedly gov't can't censor, but the tech corporations do the bidding of the gov't and lolbertarians fall over themselves to claim tech corp censorship is not censorship.

We aren't going to vote our way out of this. Fourth gen war is being waged on us. Best return the favor.
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Warfare-Handbook-William-Lind/dp/9527065755

Your ass backwards on your theory. And the 80 - 20 rule was being taught, in the 18th century! Anything else you want to bloviate about today!