Home
Local conservative radio program, The Morning Drive, on KCRS Odessa/Midland had a caller this AM defending cop inaction in the current revolt by saying LEO is not charged with protecting the populace.

I dont care to finance ticket writers.
What do you guys think, please?
I say the police in my area are doing a great job handling the protesters.
Great news there, Col.
"Protect (the politicians) and Serve(ourselves)". If truth in advertising laws were in effect for the slogan on those tiki torches they call police cars, they would have to be re-lettered!
Jerry
Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln
"Protect (the politicians) and Serve(ourselves)". If truth in advertising laws were in effect for the slogan on those tiki torches the call police cars, they would have to be re-lettered!
Jerry

This^^^
Its an LEOs job to protect the weak,but if you willfully enter a violent situation then you are on your own.
I'm the only one responsible for protecting myself and family.
Stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
The Police are Not required to protect you.

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone,even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney, from physical violence or harm from another person did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales upheld that decision.
The actions of the police in your area are a reflection of the politicians your friends and neighbors and yourself put into power.

If that bothers you, act accordingly.
Originally Posted by rte
The Police are Not required to protect you.

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone,even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney, from physical violence or harm from another person did not breach any substantive constitutional duty.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales upheld that decision.


I thought I had remembered something about that. Thanks.
The only time an individual cop will be held accountable for criminal activity or dereliction of duty will be when it suits the purposes of his/her politician puppeteers to do so. As long as they toe the line and act as a buffer between the corrupt office holders and the public, they can get away with a lot of trampling on individual rights and personal malfeasance. The higher up the chain of police command they go, the closer their lips conform to the ass crack of the next guy on the totem pole. Police chiefs, "public safety commissioners" and other top brass might as well have their lips stuck to the politicos' asses with super glue!
Jerry
A better slogan might be "To deter and protect".
To “deter and investigate” would be better.
Or, to maybe protect?
Originally Posted by RemModel8
I'm the only one responsible for protecting myself and family.


Yep


Originally Posted by deflave
The actions of the police in your area are a reflection of the politicians your friends and neighbors and yourself put into power.

If that bothers you, act accordingly.


Exactly... and hint... a police force powerful enough to protect you is powerful enough to crush you as well.



No if we’re talking about rounding people up for violations that’s law enforcement which is their job.

I prefer dangerous freedom to safe totalitarianism.
Originally Posted by deflave
The actions of the police in your area are a reflection of the politicians your friends and neighbors and yourself put into power.

If that bothers you, act accordingly.



Here we have 1 Officer on life support after being shot by a protester, an armed attacker was killed by the police at the Federal building. The shooter of the LE is in custody and 338 protesters have been arrested and jailed. No catch and release here. Gas and pepperballs have been utilized since the onset of demo on Friday.

As an interesting aside our Duck o' death pontificated over the weekend that his "sources" in LV had informed him that there was no action in my town and that being prepared was silly. He becomes exponentially more ridiculous w/ every post.

Support your local police and vote for strength. The leader of our LE is an elected Sheriff.


mike r
Originally Posted by deflave
I say the police in my area are doing a great job handling the protesters.


kind of shocked Miami isn't burning. That really speaks for local LEO agencies.
sounds the duck has some great intel on the LV situation . Maybe your Sheriff can contact him to help out with your situation. Almost as useful as his covid intel

On a positive note 700H will be whacking off on his laptop screen in his dress and panties now that he saw cops were shot by the protestors.




Originally Posted by lvmiker
Originally Posted by deflave
The actions of the police in your area are a reflection of the politicians your friends and neighbors and yourself put into power.

If that bothers you, act accordingly.



Here we have 1 Officer on life support after being shot by a protester, an armed attacker was killed by the police at the Federal building. The shooter of the LE is in custody and 338 protesters have been arrested and jailed. No catch and release here. Gas and pepperballs have been utilized since the onset of demo on Friday.

As an interesting aside our Duck o' death pontificated over the weekend that his "sources" in LV had informed him that there was no action in my town and that being prepared was silly. He becomes exponentially more ridiculous w/ every post.

Support your local police and vote for strength. The leader of our LE is an elected Sheriff.


mike r
They're not obligated to protect you but they are supposed to enforce our laws. I don't think police cars have "Protect and Serve" on them anymore.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Local conservative radio program, The Morning Drive, on KCRS Odessa/Midland had a caller this AM defending cop inaction in the current revolt by saying LEO is not charged with protecting the populace.

I dont care to finance ticket writers.
What do you guys think, please?

That particular fact was the result of a lawsuit filed by a female complainant. She was being stalked by a very persistent and dangerous stalker. She contacted local law enforcement and asked for help. I can't remember the city, or all the facts, but the gist of it was, in the end, even though local LE was watching her more closely than other people, the stalker slipped y and severely injured her. She filed suit and the case went all the way to the USSC. The USSC ruled that while the police are charged with enforcing laws and maintaining the peace, they do not have a duty to protect individual citizens in their jurisdiction.,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts


Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Sources:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies 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 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand 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 NY 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).

(8) "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. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Local conservative radio program, The Morning Drive, on KCRS Odessa/Midland had a caller this AM defending cop inaction in the current revolt by saying LEO is not charged with protecting the populace.

I dont care to finance ticket writers.
What do you guys think, please?

While it’s true that LEOs have no legal obligation to protect civilians, to me at least, there’s a helluva big difference between being called to a crime scene and just standing there watching idly while a crime is being committed.
Legal obligation, no, but moral obligation? Oh hell yes.
7mm
Originally Posted by ribka
sounds the duck has some great intel on the LV situation . Maybe your Sheriff can contact him to help out with your situation. Almost as useful as his covid intel

On a positive note 700H will be whacking off on his laptop screen in his dress and panties now that he saw cops were shot by the protestors.




Originally Posted by lvmiker
Originally Posted by deflave
The actions of the police in your area are a reflection of the politicians your friends and neighbors and yourself put into power.

If that bothers you, act accordingly.



Here we have 1 Officer on life support after being shot by a protester, an armed attacker was killed by the police at the Federal building. The shooter of the LE is in custody and 338 protesters have been arrested and jailed. No catch and release here. Gas and pepperballs have been utilized since the onset of demo on Friday.

As an interesting aside our Duck o' death pontificated over the weekend that his "sources" in LV had informed him that there was no action in my town and that being prepared was silly. He becomes exponentially more ridiculous w/ every post.

Support your local police and vote for strength. The leader of our LE is an elected Sheriff.


mike r


5 Leo's shot last night. What, a few perps shot. That is not a winning strategy. Perps need to be made to fear the law.
Originally Posted by muffin




Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."





What exactly does that mean, "protect society as a whole"? Legally speaking.
So it has been established that LEO are not obligated to "protect".

What about Governors and Mayors? Are they obligated to "protect" their citizens by all means necessary, like calling in the NG, etc?

Has there been any SC cases where they too have been absolved of their responsibility?

Can these Blue State Governors be sued for intentionally allowing the destruction of personal property and loss of life?
© 24hourcampfire