Re: To protect and serve ... or not
Feather
lived a few years have always known this." She sips a bit from her
Killians, and continues.
"A police force is there to serve and protect; but they do not
protect the individual, and cannot be forced to do so. They are there
to preserve "order/law." *chuckle* as one mayor stated:
"The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there
to
preserve disorder" -- Mayor Richard Daley of Czechago, September 23,
1968
You will notice that under the force of law and order is the
preservation of disoder that, of course requires the enforcement of
"order"."
She nods her head, *grins*, and speaks once more, "Interesting little
trap, isn't it?"
Feather
-<<<<<+
Mike Meyer
> Your attention is drawn to the recent SCOTUS decision re: Castlerock v.
> Gonzales at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aqwwg
>
> which should take you to:
>
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtu
> s.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
>
> Note the .pdf format.
>
> Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the police
> have no mandate to protect anyone, not even when a restraining order
> explicitly says they do and the person protected by the restraining
> order is in immediate danger and has requested that they enforce it and
> the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.
>
> So, if you think the police will be there to protect you when the used
> food hits the air impeller, you might want to think again.
This isn't really new. There have been a number of cases where it's
been decided that the Police are *not* obligated in any way to protect
citizens, dating back to at least the 70s. The addition of the
restraining order clause may be new, but doesn't change the
fundamental nature of the beast.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
LePheaux
"Jerry Hollombe" <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96AA9E7BF222Ej...@207.217.125.201...
> Your attention is drawn to the recent SCOTUS decision re: Castlerock v.
> Gonzales at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aqwwg
>
> which should take you to:
>
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtu
> s.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
>
> Note the .pdf format.
>
> Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the police
> have no mandate to protect anyone, not even when a restraining order
> explicitly says they do and the person protected by the restraining
> order is in immediate danger and has requested that they enforce it and
> the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.
>
> So, if you think the police will be there to protect you when the used
> food hits the air impeller, you might want to think again.
>
<<>>
what's new.
Rowan Hawthorn
> Your attention is drawn to the recent SCOTUS decision re: Castlerock v.
> Gonzales at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aqwwg
>
> which should take you to:
>
> http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtu
> s.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf
>
> Note the .pdf format.
>
> Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the police
> have no mandate to protect anyone, not even when a restraining order
> explicitly says they do and the person protected by the restraining
> order is in immediate danger and has requested that they enforce it and
> the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.
>
> So, if you think the police will be there to protect you when the used
> food hits the air impeller, you might want to think again.
>
"Best I can recall, I had stopped believing anything like that by the
time I was fourteen and had been able to observe some Real Life.
BTW, that's actually not the first time that decision has been made in
court; I remember hearing several years ago of a lawsuit brought against
a police department that refused to respond to an emergency call until
long after the emergency was over. The ruling was the same as the
above. Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:qZiJe.1151483$581.8...@fe05.news.easynews.com:
>
>
>>... I remember hearing several years ago of a lawsuit brought against
>>long after the emergency was over. The ruling was the same as the
>>above. Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
>
> popular belief, protecting and serving individuals isn't it.
"Then they should stop the posturing and posing as such. There's an
awful lot of that hype comes out of police PR camps - right up until
such time as a suit is filed like the ones referenced in this thread.
Then it's back-pedal time."
> Their job is
> investigating and arresting criminals after the fact and, in a few areas
> that have enough police to do it, provide some general deterrent to crime
> by their presence.
>
> In short, the problem isn't that the police aren't doing their job. The
> problem is too many people don't understand what that job is.
>
"I understand that part of the job has always been *keeping the peace*.
Which, by any *reasonable* standards, wouldn't include being
bodyguards for any specific individual, but certainly *should* include
answering a call for help from someone in imminent danger. Departments
across the country certainly spend enough time trying to convince
citizens to call for the police rather than trying to defend themselves
or their property. Why bother? Since they're not going to respond to
your call, handle it yourself. If enough people did that, we'd probably
see a bigger drop in the crime rate, anyway..."
LePheaux
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:qZiJe.1151483$581.8...@fe05.news.easynews.com:
>
>> a police department that refused to respond to an emergency call until
>> long after the emergency was over. The ruling was the same as the
>> above. Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>> responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>> why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
> investigating and arresting criminals after the fact and, in a few areas
> that have enough police to do it, provide some general deterrent to crime
> by their presence.
>
> In short, the problem isn't that the police aren't doing their job. The
> problem is too many people don't understand what that job is.
>
<<>>
and panama city beach.
Of course I coasted down to the bottom right in front of the Bay County cop
shop.
he refused to give me a jump to get out from in front of there driveway.
I said it to him then, and still to all they should remove that bullshit
quote to protect and to serve from the cars. he gave me a nasty look and
acted like he was going to pull his baton.
I grinned and dared him. looking over at my friend and the group of cops
standing out front of the shop.
Wesley Struebing
In my more cynical moments, that thought has crossed what goes for my
mind.
Of course, bitching about the (lack of) support we get from out police
often gets one (including me) off juries...Or maybe it was that I
pissed off both attorneys - complaining about the cops to the
prosecutor and telling the defense attorney that the one experience I
had with a wife-beater was that he got what he deserved.
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Matthew Russotto
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, that's actually not the first time that decision has been made in
>court; I remember hearing several years ago of a lawsuit brought against
>a police department that refused to respond to an emergency call until
>long after the emergency was over. The ruling was the same as the
>above. Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
Who will make sure the taxes get collected?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
Jerry Hollombe <jholl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In short, the problem isn't that the police aren't doing their job. The
>problem is too many people don't understand what that job is.
Which is deliberate on the part of cops and their supporters, because
if people understood what their job was, they'd lose their damned
halos.
Feather
Feather says again to herself the Words of Wes
"Of course, bitching about the (lack of) support we get from out
police
often gets one (including me) off juries.."
She states with fervor, " I think of it as a "draw off" technique.
Those bitching aren't the ones commiting "crimes" that must be defended
from.
and as regarde juries? My one big bitch is that the jury is the last
refuge or the will of the people. If the jury disaggrees with a law,
they can vote not to convict. Niether judge(s) or attorney(s) will or
are allowed to remind the jury of this knowledge. They can vote and be
polled, (and a smart lawyer will do that very item.) They can vote not
to convict. "
She dismisses the soapbox/podium and returns to her table.
Terry
-<<<<<+
~Proud Member of Pet Peeves, Unlimited~
~ Mew? *Purr*~
Rowan Hawthorn
> In article <qZiJe.1151483$581.8...@fe05.news.easynews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>BTW, that's actually not the first time that decision has been made in
>>court; I remember hearing several years ago of a lawsuit brought against
>>a police department that refused to respond to an emergency call until
>>long after the emergency was over. The ruling was the same as the
>>above. Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
>
> Who will make sure the taxes get collected?
"Ssssh! Dammit, don't remind'em. Some of these counties around here,
the tax base is so small, the only reason they *do* collect'em is to pay
the people who collect'em..."
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire SLayer"
Kris Overstreet
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
(1) The movement of all individuals must be tightly monitored and
controlled. Individuals must not travel out of secured areas, nor may
they leave areas monitored by police officers. Movements must be
tightly scheduled, with changes in schedule subject to approval by
police authorities. Otherwise the individual being guarded cannot be
adequately protected from harm by officers.
(2) All weapons, and anything which might be made into a weapon, must
either be confiscated or tightly controlled. This includes not merely
guns and knives, but also clubs (any large stick or plank), nails,
fertilizer, plumbing, tools, automobiles, fuel, wire, glass, or
anything which could either pose a danger to another as is or which
can be converted into a weapon with a little work. The possibility
that a weapon may be used on an innocent person can be eliminated only
by total and intolerant prevention.
(3) All habitable areas- indoor or outdoor- must have multiple
cameras, monitors and sensors, including the interiors of private
homes. Any number of people have been murdered in their bathrooms, and
your nude vid captures on the Internet are a small price to pay for
security and rapid response.
(4) All communications must be subject to continuous monitoring.
Threats and conspiracies against your security must be ferreted out.
When you demand a right to privacy, you're standing between your
society's guardians and their sworn duty.
(5) Officers must have the unfettered right and power to employ deadly
force on suspicion alone. In the case of armed assault, the victim has
at most seconds for someone to react before fatal injuries are dealt
by the assailant. This may lead to errors and regrettable deaths, but
police officers cannot stop an attack in progress unless they are
certain that the law will back up the actions they take due to
split-second assessments of the situation.
(6) The death penalty must be radically expanded and accelerated. Live
prisoners held in prison not only tend to become recidivist (at an 80%
rate) and more skilled in crime, but they always have the potential to
escape and harm others. The only way to keep law-abiding citizens
secure is to permanently remove lawbreakers from circulation, in such
a fashion as to ensure that they never, ever pose any threat to anyone
again.
(7) Finally, the police forces must be vastly expanded. In order to
ensure that an officer is within range to assist you about 50% of the
time, one out of every eight American adults must be law enforcement
officers. Otherwise, despite all the other precautions, an attacker
might be able to carry off his intent before an officer can intervene.
This list isn't complete, but it's what I can think of at the moment.
And consider, if you will, how much of the above list, odious as it
all is, is ALREADY BEING PUT INTO EFFECT...
Redneck
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
>
> OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
> ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
"Before we even get started, you know damn well that's not what I mean
*or* intend, so (despite the fact that I agree with your closing remark)
let's not even bother with the rest of your post until we correct the
starting (ass)umption, 'kay?"
Matthew
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
>
> OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
> ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
>
<snip>
IIRC, there was a consensus upthread that that would be more than a
little ridiculous. The point here is that they're not even required to
respond to a call for help. You're red herring-ing here.
--
"Forget the Force. Trust in the spread of the gauge."
"If knowledge creates problems, ignorance will not solve them"
-Isaac Asimov.
I try not to repeat my mistakes. That way, I can invent exciting new
ones to make.
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock."
-Will Rogers
"Cry 'CHEEBLE' and let slip the hamsters of war."
"Those who learn from history are condemned to watch others repeat it."
- Henry Kissinger
Mike Meyer
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
> OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
> ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
Actually, your lists sounds like what the *police* would require if
they were tasked to to do the job, designed to make the job as easy as
possible for them to do.
You know, I started to reply to each individual point, but gave
up. You've purposely misinterpreted the suggestion so you can list as
many objectionable requirements as possible. The list you generated
gives them the power, not just the ability - in spite of your
disclaimer otherwise - to prevent all harm to individuals, not just
protect them.
Even the latter is more than the people in the court cases were asking
for. All they want is that the police act to protect people who ask
for their protection.
Kris Overstreet
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kris Overstreet wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
>> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>> OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
>> ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
>
>"Before we even get started, you know damn well that's not what I mean
>*or* intend,
Actually, I didn't know any such thing. I was taking you at your word
above, i. e. that you felt the police's primary raison d'etre was to
defend individual citizens. If that wasn't your intent, I have not a
clue what intent you had when you said the above.
(And, incidentally, my response wasn't sarcastic or hyperbolic. If
you're going to have anything close to a 100% successful protection
rate, pretty much all of that has to be enforced. Protecting each
individual is damn near impossible... which is why, originally, police
officers were never intended for that purpose.)
Redneck
Kris Overstreet
>Kris Overstreet <red...@wlpcomics.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
>> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>> OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
>> ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
>
>Actually, your lists sounds like what the *police* would require if
>they were tasked to to do the job, designed to make the job as easy as
>possible for them to do.
Actually, leaving any of those steps out would lead to a substantial
protection gap- that is, it would leave pretty large sets of
situations where police could not come to the aid of a potential
victim in time to prevent harm. It is that difficult, if not outright
impossible, to guarantee safety.
>You know, I started to reply to each individual point, but gave
>up. You've purposely misinterpreted the suggestion
Caveat: I did not puposely misinterpret the statement. I believed that
Rowan felt that police should be obligated to defend all citizens from
harm.
> so you can list as
>many objectionable requirements as possible. The list you generated
>gives them the power, not just the ability - in spite of your
>disclaimer otherwise - to prevent all harm to individuals, not just
>protect them.
"Protect" = "prevent harm," at least as I read it.
>Even the latter is more than the people in the court cases were asking
>for. All they want is that the police act to protect people who ask
>for their protection.
What can the police do against someone who, technically, has committed
no crime? Do you -want- a system where the police can take action
against someone who has committed no crime?
The flat fact of the matter is this: the individual can rely upon no
defender save his/herself.
Just pray the laws where you live don't restrict you from being able
to defend yourself... or worse yet, punish you for doing so.
Redneck
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:52:41 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kris Overstreet wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:44:22 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
>>><rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Which leaves me wondering, then: if they have no legal
>>>>responsibility to actually *do* the goddamn job they're *paid* to do,
>>>>why don't we just fire'em all and save the taxpayers some money?"
>
>
>>>OK, then. Let's consider the prerequisites to giving the police the
>>>ability, never mind the power, to protect each and every individual.
>>
>>"Before we even get started, you know damn well that's not what I mean
>>*or* intend,
>
>
> Actually, I didn't know any such thing. I was taking you at your word
> above, i. e. that you felt the police's primary raison d'etre was to
> defend individual citizens. If that wasn't your intent, I have not a
> clue what intent you had when you said the above.
"Then you should have read the previous part of the thread, which
specifically referred to a situation where a person is in immediate
danger, asking that a restraining order be enforced. Why would someone
*need* to request that the order be enforced unless it's being violated?
I'll quote the beginning of the thread:"
<quote>Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the
police have no mandate to protect anyone, *****not even when a
restraining order explicitly says they do and the person protected by
the restraining order is in immediate danger and has requested that they
enforce it and the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.*****
</quote>
"Now; since my post that you replied to was in *direct response* to this
one, I'm curious as to why it was unclear."
>
> (And, incidentally, my response wasn't sarcastic or hyperbolic. If
> you're going to have anything close to a 100% successful protection
> rate, pretty much all of that has to be enforced. Protecting each
> individual is damn near impossible... which is why, originally, police
> officers were never intended for that purpose.)
"And I agree with every negative point you raised. *My* point is that
police *were* intended to 'keep the peace,' and protect society in
general, which demonstrably *does* include protecting citizens in
immediate danger - I mean, who the hell else does society *consist* of
if not the citizens?
Is it your contention that a police officer's duty is to actively *wait*
until a crime has been committed, **even when they know it's in
progress, either by first-hand knowledge or by having it reported, and
could possibly prevent it**? No duty to stop any crime in progress,
even when notified of such? In that event, we should:
1) never again call the police to stop an armed liquor store robbery in
progress, because that's not their function, they need to wait until the
robbery is over and give the perps plenty of time to get away before
they show up,
2) no longer allow alarm systems that ring in to the police department,
because it's not their job to make any attempt to apprehend the
criminals **whom they know are on-site**,
3) never call the police if we hear someone being beaten, raped, or
murdered, because it's not their job to do anything about that, even if
they *could*, and
4) give them all their damned walking papers, because you've just
eliminated the only part of their job description that makes them worth
the cost.
Understand, I fully realize that it's impossible for anyone *other than
yourself* to give you around-the-clock protection; that's why I carry a
pistol. I also don't *want* police sitting on my doorstep, bugging my
phones, looking at me with UV binoculars, or any of the other things on
your list. What I *do* want is police presence *in an emergency*, for
*anyone* who calls for help, rich or poor, **within the limits of what's
reasonably possible**. Cops can't be everywhere, and it's a good thing,
or we'd need protection from *them*. But if their only duty is to sit
on their dead asses and do whatever they choose twenty-four hours a day
with no regard for the public they're supposed to protect, then they can
do it on their own dime."
Rowan Hawthorn
"If you're in violation of a restraining order, you *have* committed a
crime. There was a case several years ago with the same court decision,
the victims had actually called the police to a break-in in progress or
some such. I don't remember enough of the specifics now to look it up
(it was in a newspaper I believe in the mid-80s,) but the police either
never came, or were so long arriving, that it was too late when they did.
I personally know of an elderly couple who called the cops because a
gang of thugs was throwing rocks at their house. Police arrived the
*next afternoon*, and based on these court cases, could have been
sitting around scratching their asses all night and been immune to a
lawsuit; since, y'know, it wasn't their *job* to respond to a call...
You can *always* come up with a hypothetical scenario where someone
'Hasn't broken any law yet,' but none of the perps in these cases fit
that description."
Kris Overstreet
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Actually, I didn't know any such thing. I was taking you at your word
>> above, i. e. that you felt the police's primary raison d'etre was to
>> defend individual citizens. If that wasn't your intent, I have not a
>> clue what intent you had when you said the above.
>
>"Then you should have read the previous part of the thread, which
>specifically referred to a situation where a person is in immediate
>danger, asking that a restraining order be enforced. Why would someone
>*need* to request that the order be enforced unless it's being violated?
> I'll quote the beginning of the thread:"
>
><quote>Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the
>police have no mandate to protect anyone, *****not even when a
>restraining order explicitly says they do and the person protected by
>the restraining order is in immediate danger and has requested that they
>enforce it and the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.*****
></quote>
>
>"Now; since my post that you replied to was in *direct response* to this
>one, I'm curious as to why it was unclear."
Because you didn't specify in your response that we should fire all
the cops for not protecting -people protected by a restraining order.-
To my eyes, it was a blanket response to the overall thesis- that the
police have no mandate to protect anyone.
>> (And, incidentally, my response wasn't sarcastic or hyperbolic. If
>> you're going to have anything close to a 100% successful protection
>> rate, pretty much all of that has to be enforced. Protecting each
>> individual is damn near impossible... which is why, originally, police
>> officers were never intended for that purpose.)
>
>"And I agree with every negative point you raised. *My* point is that
>police *were* intended to 'keep the peace,' and protect society in
>general, which demonstrably *does* include protecting citizens in
>immediate danger - I mean, who the hell else does society *consist* of
>if not the citizens?
Keeping the peace doesn't mean keeping any particular individual safe.
At its most brutal, it only means busting the heads of anyone and
everyone involved in a breach of the peace.
This is a turnabout for me, because I abhor any use of the term
"society" as an abstraction away from the individuals who compose it.
In this case, though, police serve society in the abstract- by taking
out of circulation those who threaten it or break its rules. This is a
lot simpler job than -preventing- breaches of the peace, which is what
protection of individuals entails.
Incidentally, this is why the War on Terrorism is so idiotic. You
-cannot- prevent a terrorist attack, not unless you're either very
lucky or very unscrupulous in your methods. Instead of focusing our
attention on taking known terrorists out of circulation, we're
squandering money and manpower- and destroying basic freedoms- in an
attempt to pre-empt terrorists and to arrest individuals before they
commit the acts that -define- them as terrorists.
>Is it your contention that a police officer's duty is to actively *wait*
>until a crime has been committed, **even when they know it's in
>progress, either by first-hand knowledge or by having it reported, and
>could possibly prevent it**?
A crime in progress is a crime which has been committed.
However, it's extremely difficult for a policeman to act if a crime
has -not yet- been committed, and I really don't think we want to live
in a society where the police have that power.
Of course, it might already be too late for that...
> What I *do* want is police presence *in an emergency*, for
>*anyone* who calls for help, rich or poor, **within the limits of what's
>reasonably possible**.
The only way the police can enforce a restraining order, absent a
violation of that order, is to lock up either the restrained (which is
presumption of guilt) or place the protected person in "protective
custody," Otherwise, they have to wait at least until a violation of
the restraining order can be proven.
Redneck
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:07:32 GMT, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Actually, I didn't know any such thing. I was taking you at your word
>>>above, i. e. that you felt the police's primary raison d'etre was to
>>>defend individual citizens. If that wasn't your intent, I have not a
>>>clue what intent you had when you said the above.
>>
>>"Then you should have read the previous part of the thread, which
>>specifically referred to a situation where a person is in immediate
>>danger, asking that a restraining order be enforced. Why would someone
>>*need* to request that the order be enforced unless it's being violated?
>> I'll quote the beginning of the thread:"
>>
>><quote>Executive summary: In a 7-2 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that the
>>police have no mandate to protect anyone, *****not even when a
>>restraining order explicitly says they do and the person protected by
>>the restraining order is in immediate danger and has requested that they
>>enforce it and the police demonstrably have nothing else to do.*****
>></quote>
>>
>>"Now; since my post that you replied to was in *direct response* to this
>>one, I'm curious as to why it was unclear."
>
>
> Because you didn't specify in your response that we should fire all
> the cops for not protecting -people protected by a restraining order.-
> To my eyes, it was a blanket response to the overall thesis- that the
> police have no mandate to protect anyone.
"That's your problem, then, not mine - apparently, you saw what you
*expected* (*wanted*?) to see. I shouldn't need to re-type every
bleedin' word of the previous post in order for my response to make
sense. Especially since I *left the bleedin' post* in mine, so that it
*would*."
<snip>
>>Is it your contention that a police officer's duty is to actively *wait*
>>until a crime has been committed, **even when they know it's in
>>progress, either by first-hand knowledge or by having it reported, and
>>could possibly prevent it**?
>
>
> A crime in progress is a crime which has been committed.
>
> However, it's extremely difficult for a policeman to act if a crime
> has -not yet- been committed, and I really don't think we want to live
> in a society where the police have that power.
>
> Of course, it might already be too late for that...
"What part of 'even when they know it's in progress' don't you
understand? If a guy is breaking in my window, a crime has been
committed, and if I call the cops and *say*, 'A guy is breaking in my
window right now,' they bleedin' well *know* it's in progress. What
alternate reality do you live in where it's *not* a crime until the guy
*finishes breaking in, steals whatever he wants, kills whomever he
wants, and then leaves*? You were talking about self-defense earlier;
what kind of claim do you think you'd have for self-defense in this case
if you shot someone who *isn't even committing any crime yet*?"
>
>
>>What I *do* want is police presence *in an emergency*, for
>>*anyone* who calls for help, rich or poor, **within the limits of what's
>>reasonably possible**.
>
>
> The only way the police can enforce a restraining order, absent a
> violation of that order, is to lock up either the restrained (which is
> presumption of guilt) or place the protected person in "protective
> custody," Otherwise, they have to wait at least until a violation of
> the restraining order can be proven.
"You're absolutely right; in which case, at this point I have to ask:
Dude, what is your comprehension problem with this thread? The whole
**point** of the original post was a case which **centered** around a
violation of a restraining order, and the non-response of the police to
that violation - are you overlooking the phrase '_immediate danger_' or
just **ignoring** it because it makes your entire argument a non-sequitur?
If I were suggesting placing a cop as bodyguard to every single citizen,
every point you've raised is valid; but that was *not* the point of the
original post, nor was it *my* point."
Rowan Hawthorn
majorly on edge for the past week or two, and probably shouldn't even be
posting at all. Sorry about that."
Tim Merrigan
> The only way the police can enforce a restraining order, absent a
> violation of that order, is to lock up either the restrained (which is
> presumption of guilt) or place the protected person in "protective
> custody," Otherwise, they have to wait at least until a violation of
> the restraining order can be proven.
>
> Redneck
>
All of the cases I've heard of of the police refusing to enforce a
restraining order were cases in which the restrainee was in the act of
violating the restraining order when they were called in. In the case
that keeps coming to my mind as I read this thread three girls ended up
dead, killed by their father who was under a restraining order the local
police refused to enforce in three or four previous encounters.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Tim Merrigan
> Kris Overstreet <red...@wlpcomics.com> wrote in
> news:67csf15fet1kqhj0v...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>The only way the police can enforce a restraining order, absent a
>>violation of that order, is to lock up either the restrained (which is
>>presumption of guilt) or place the protected person in "protective
>>custody," Otherwise, they have to wait at least until a violation of
>>the restraining order can be proven.
>
>
> something that happens at trial. They only need a complaint, or other
> "probable cause" to suspect a violation, to investigate and make an
> arrest.
>
...to investigate, and make an arrest, if necessary.
Don't forget, there *are* such things as false accusations.
Kris Overstreet
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>Is it your contention that a police officer's duty is to actively *wait*
>>>until a crime has been committed, **even when they know it's in
>>>progress, either by first-hand knowledge or by having it reported, and
>>>could possibly prevent it**?
>>
>>
>> A crime in progress is a crime which has been committed.
>>
>> However, it's extremely difficult for a policeman to act if a crime
>> has -not yet- been committed, and I really don't think we want to live
>> in a society where the police have that power.
>"What part of 'even when they know it's in progress' don't you
>understand?
The part that comes -before- it, "Is it your contention that a police
officer's duty is to actively *wait* until a crime has been
committed?"
That's the main part of the sentence. That's what I was answering.
Everything from "even" on is only a modifier of that sentence, and
thus of secondary importance.
As for "even when they know it's in progress," I -answered- that. "A
crime in progress is a crime which has been committed."
>"You're absolutely right; in which case, at this point I have to ask:
>Dude, what is your comprehension problem with this thread?
See above.
>If I were suggesting placing a cop as bodyguard to every single citizen,
>every point you've raised is valid; but that was *not* the point of the
>original post, nor was it *my* point."
Then don't make your main point a weak modifier of your fundamental
statement.
Yes, I know it's pedantic, I know it's nitpicking, but I'm reading,
not hearing, your words. I have to go by grammar to tell which parts
of what you're saying are most important to you. In this case, and the
one prior, you've jumped my shit for addressing a part of your
statement which you didn't intend to be your main idea, but -wrote- as
your main idea.
If you'd written, in the first place, "Why the hell do we employ cops
who won't enforce the rulings of the court?" I wouldn't have said a
thing in this thread at all, because I don't do "AOL" responses. I
find cops who refuse to respond to obvious and immediate danger to the
innocent intolerable too. What I read, though, was, "Why the hell do
we employ cops who won't protect us, even when (etc. etc.)?" and that
pushed a button, so I responded.
I'm doing my best, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding your intent- but
please remember that idiots like me are trying to read what you type,
and we need all the help we can get.
Redneck