> > > > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
> > > > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
> > > > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
> > > > >I doubt it.
> > > > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
> > > > then.
> > > I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
> > > What is the duty of a police officer?
> > A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
> The operative word is "sees."
> There are not enough people to protect each and every person from being > the victim of a crime.
For the most part, the police spend a lot more time visiting past crime
scenes to take down the "particulars" than they spend actually stopping
crimes in progress.
>> > > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
>> > > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
>> > > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
>> > > >I doubt it.
>> > > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
>> > > then.
>> > I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
>> > What is the duty of a police officer?
>> A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
>The operative word is "sees."
Guess again. That only applies to misdemeanors (crimes that would
result in county jail time, not prison time, if convicted). And for a
misdemeanor case any eyewitness civilian can make an arrest, though
the paperwork and time discussing it with the police may make it not
worth while.
>There are not enough people to protect each and every person from being >the victim of a crime.
Do you think anyone is brainless enough to believe that there are? It
seems you always try to push any discussion to pure absurdity. Feel
free to join us in the real world - it's really a nice place to be.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>> >> >> >> >>> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>> news:te55a8hjoebkejfqe4u0hisviu70olk8g7@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> >>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>> >> >> >> >>>>> auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>> >> >> >> >>>>> MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>> >> >> >> >>>> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>> >> >> >> >>> What is it about?
>> >> >> >> >> National defense.
>> >> >> >> >Not entirely.
>> >> >> >> Not entirely what, and why?
>> >> >> >Dig a little deeper into English law.
>> >> >> For what? English law hasn't been part of the American experience
>> >> >> since the Revolution.
>> >> >Read the Federalist Papers.
>> >> Where I went to school the Federalist Papers were part of the
>> >> curriculum. They explain the reasons the Constitution needed to be
>> >> ratified, but that doesn't mean they automatically still apply to the
>> >> current national issues. Maybe you need to re-read them yourself.
>> >The provided arguments for the inclusion and exclusion of specific >> >language.
>> That still doesn't mean that their thoughts automatically still apply
>> to our current national issues, does it?
>Freedom, liberty, limiting government and the supremacy of the >individual are not relevant in this day and age. Welcome to serfdom.
Who said that? I said their thoughts don't automatically apply, not
that they should be forgotten. Argumentum ad absurdum.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
> > >> > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
> > >> > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
> > >> > >I doubt it.
> > >> > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
> > >> > then.
> > >> I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
> > >> What is the duty of a police officer?
> > >A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
> > Right, and if that crime causes or a victim is in danger of bodily
> > harm the officer can use deadly force if necessary to protect
> > individuals.
> > -- > > Don Kirkman
> > dons...@charter.net
> Yes.
You are assuming that the police officer is in close proximity, can see the crime, when the crime is being committed.
>> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
>> > >> > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
>> > >> > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
>> > >> > >I doubt it.
>> > >> > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
>> > >> > then.
>> > >> I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
>> > >> What is the duty of a police officer?
>> > >A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
>> > Right, and if that crime causes or a victim is in danger of bodily
>> > harm the officer can use deadly force if necessary to protect
>> > individuals.
>> > -- >> > Don Kirkman
>> > dons...@charter.net
>> Yes.
>You are assuming that the police officer is in close proximity, can see >the crime, when the crime is being committed.
I'm not assuming that at all.
From a discussion concerning observing a criminal act on a video
system:
"Did the crime occur within the presence of an officer or a citizen
willing to make a citizen's arrest? --- This is where it gets tricky.
In Calif. a citizen or an officer can only arrest on a misdemeanor
when the crime was committed in their presence. Case law states (in
CA) someone on the phone would be "in the presence" even though the
"victim" and suspect are miles apart. I think based on that we can
infer the "in the presence rule" for misdemeanors, would apply and the
rule would be valid for a citizen monitoring the video system. I would
have them authorize a citizen's arrest. If they said no, I would write
the case up for a warrant."
http://forums.officer.com/t177416/ -- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
On Friday, 16 November 2012 23:06:44 UTC, BAR wrote:
> > > A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed. > The operative word is "sees."
No it isn't. What about "knows"?
> There are not enough people to protect each and every person from being the victim of a crime.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:29:23 -0800 (PST), johnty <john...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, 16 November 2012 23:06:44 UTC, BAR wrote:
>> > > A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
>> The operative word is "sees."
>No it isn't. What about "knows"?
>> There are not enough people to protect each and every person from being the victim of a crime.
> True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty.
Besides, there are other ways police "serve and protect", the primary
one being creating an environment where criminals know that there are
consequences that they are likely to have for their crimes.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:29:23 -0800 (PST), johnty <john...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, 16 November 2012 23:06:44 UTC, BAR wrote:
> >> > > A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
> >> The operative word is "sees."
> >No it isn't. What about "knows"?
> >> There are not enough people to protect each and every person from being the victim of a crime.
> > True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty.
> Besides, there are other ways police "serve and protect", the primary
> one being creating an environment where criminals know that there are
> consequences that they are likely to have for their crimes.
We have a deputy sheriff who lives in our neighborhood. He parks his black and white out on the street. That didn't deter the hoodlums from the next neighborhood from coming over and slashing tires in our neighborhood.
> >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
> >> > >> > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
> >> > >> > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
> >> > >> > >I doubt it.
> >> > >> > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
> >> > >> > then.
> >> > >> I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
> >> > >> What is the duty of a police officer?
> >> > >A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
> >> > Right, and if that crime causes or a victim is in danger of bodily
> >> > harm the officer can use deadly force if necessary to protect
> >> > individuals.
> >> > -- > >> > Don Kirkman
> >> > dons...@charter.net
> >> Yes.
> >You are assuming that the police officer is in close proximity, can see > >the crime, when the crime is being committed.
> I'm not assuming that at all.
> From a discussion concerning observing a criminal act on a video
> system:
> "Did the crime occur within the presence of an officer or a citizen
> willing to make a citizen's arrest? --- This is where it gets tricky.
> In Calif. a citizen or an officer can only arrest on a misdemeanor
> when the crime was committed in their presence. Case law states (in
> CA) someone on the phone would be "in the presence" even though the
> "victim" and suspect are miles apart. I think based on that we can
> infer the "in the presence rule" for misdemeanors, would apply and the
> rule would be valid for a citizen monitoring the video system. I would
> have them authorize a citizen's arrest. If they said no, I would write
> the case up for a warrant."
> http://forums.officer.com/t177416/
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:56:54 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>In article <alangbaker-2C090F.16035612112...@news.shawcable.net>, >alangba...@telus.net says...
>> In article <agddc5Fofu...@mid.individual.net>,
>> MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:04:24 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
>> > >>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:16:45 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >>>> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:01:01 -0800, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> In order for any treaty to go into effect, it must be ratified by 2/3 >> > >>>>>>> of
>> > >>>>>>> the Senate. The probability of this treaty being ratified by the >> > >>>>>>> Senate
>> > >>>>>>> is zero.
>> > >>>>>> And this isn't even a treaty yet: this is talks to create a treaty.
>> > >>>>> Actually what "this" is would be paranoia from the machos who think
>> > >>>>> that machine guns should be in every home.
>> > >>>> You've never read it apparently.
>> > >>> Nope.
>> > >>> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
>> > >>> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
>> > >> This IS the UN. You never what they are up to. If it was up to them,
>> > >> they would abolish the 2nd amendment entirely. The 2nd amendment isn't
>> > >> about hunting.
>> > > I was dead on about this.
>> > > How in hell could the UN abolish a US constitutional amendment? I
>> > > know full well what the amendment is about. There is no threat to it
>> > > at all and this thread is bullshit. Gun control in the US is now a
>> > > reality because of this? Not a chance.
>> > I said IF it was up to them. Gun control has been a reality in the US >> > for decades.
>> Actually, the information provided to you shows that the contemplated >> treaty says they want to maintain the right of each member state to >> decide its own internal policies.
>> What I pity you let your pre-conceptions override the facts.
>In the words of Speaker Pelosi, we have to pass the law so that you can >see what is in it.
>I would rather read the treaty before anyone votes on it.
Which existing treaties did you read before Congress approved them?
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
>>> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:51:12 UTC, BAR wrote:
>>> > >> > >> > The police have no duty to protect you.
>>> > >> > >> This will come as a major surprise to a lot of police forces.
>>> > >> > >I doubt it.
>>> > >> > I guess all those "protect and serve" decals on police cars a lies,
>>> > >> > then.
>>> > >> I like that decals, you are falling for the marketing.
>>> > >> What is the duty of a police officer?
>>> > >A police officer is required to act if he sees a crime being committed.
>>> > Right, and if that crime causes or a victim is in danger of bodily
>>> > harm the officer can use deadly force if necessary to protect
>>> > individuals.
>>> > -- >>> > Don Kirkman
>>> > dons...@charter.net
>>> Yes.
>>You are assuming that the police officer is in close proximity, can see >>the crime, when the crime is being committed.
>I'm not assuming that at all.
>From a discussion concerning observing a criminal act on a video
>system:
>"Did the crime occur within the presence of an officer or a citizen
>willing to make a citizen's arrest? --- This is where it gets tricky.
>In Calif. a citizen or an officer can only arrest on a misdemeanor
>when the crime was committed in their presence. Case law states (in
>CA) someone on the phone would be "in the presence" even though the
>"victim" and suspect are miles apart. I think based on that we can
>infer the "in the presence rule" for misdemeanors, would apply and the
>rule would be valid for a citizen monitoring the video system. I would
>have them authorize a citizen's arrest. If they said no, I would write
>the case up for a warrant."
>http://forums.officer.com/t177416/
Follow up. This officer believes viewing a video would be
substantially the same as being in telephone contact with the suspect.
I doubt a court would rule that way, because in a telephone contact
the officer and the subject in direct contact; that would likely not
be true in viewing a video.
-- Don Kirkman
dons...@charter.net
On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:13:59 UTC, BAR wrote:
> In article <f7adc388-7100-43fb-902b-a09b893554ee@googlegroups.com>, john...@hotmail.com says... > > > True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty. > You haven't provided proof that a police officer's duty is to protect citizens from crimes.
Here's the first line of the charter from the police force where I live:
"The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen’s peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences."
In article <cd5f130a-c286-4fa3-846f-3769a836b4c6@googlegroups.com>, john...@hotmail.com says...
> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:13:59 UTC, BAR wrote:
> > In article <f7adc388-7100-43fb-902b-a09b893554ee@googlegroups.com>, john...@hotmail.com says... > > > True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty.
> > You haven't provided proof that a police officer's duty is to protect citizens from crimes.
> Here's the first line of the charter from the police force where I live:
> "The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen?s peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences."
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:26:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>In article <cd5f130a-c286-4fa3-846f-3769a836b4c6@googlegroups.com>, >john...@hotmail.com says...
>> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:13:59 UTC, BAR wrote:
>> > In article <f7adc388-7100-43fb-902b-a09b893554ee@googlegroups.com>, john...@hotmail.com says... > > > True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty.
>> > You haven't provided proof that a police officer's duty is to protect citizens from crimes.
>> Here's the first line of the charter from the police force where I live:
>> "The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen?s peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences."
>> OK?
, >
>Please provide a link to your source.
You doofus. Do you think he's lying? First of all he's from London,
which you'll dismiss as irrelevant, then suggest that he has to prove
that this duty is worthy.
Here's the mission statement from a major U.S. city. Pick it apart
and look more foolish.
On Monday, 19 November 2012 14:58:28 UTC, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:26:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote: > > >Please provide a link to your source. > You doofus. Do you think he's lying? First of all he's from London, which you'll dismiss as irrelevant, > then suggest that he has to prove that this duty is worthy.
A couple of hours north of London, Bobby, but that's only important to us non-Londoners.
More intesting to note is that bert is soooo colossally stupid that he is totally oblivious to the fact that he could copy and paste my quote into any search engine and it will find the link for him.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:28:36 -0800 (PST), johnty <john...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Monday, 19 November 2012 14:58:28 UTC, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:26:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote: >> > >Please provide a link to your source.
>> You doofus. Do you think he's lying? First of all he's from London, which you'll dismiss as irrelevant, >> then suggest that he has to prove that this duty is worthy.
>A couple of hours north of London, Bobby, but that's only important to us non-Londoners.
>More intesting to note is that bert is soooo colossally stupid that he is totally oblivious to the fact that he could copy and paste my quote into any search engine and it will find the link for him.
>Don't tell him!
It wouldn't help. Bert is diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
>They seem to have a high casualty rate. Guns galore?
I didn't see anything about a casualty rate, but there are about 80
million people who own almost 300 million guns in the USA. I'm sure
that Dallas has it's share.
> >They seem to have a high casualty rate. Guns galore?
> I didn't see anything about a casualty rate, but there are about 80
> million people who own almost 300 million guns in the USA. I'm sure
> that Dallas has it's share.
In 2010, Dallas had the exact same per-capita homicide rate as Boston. They tied for number 23 in the nation.
>> >They seem to have a high casualty rate. Guns galore?
>> I didn't see anything about a casualty rate, but there are about 80
>> million people who own almost 300 million guns in the USA. I'm sure
>> that Dallas has it's share.
>In 2010, Dallas had the exact same per-capita homicide rate as Boston. >They tied for number 23 in the nation.
I saw that while googling....but it didn't say anything about
gun-related homicides so I didn't think it relevant.
> >> On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:13:59 UTC, BAR wrote:
> >> > In article <f7adc388-7100-43fb-902b-a09b893554ee@googlegroups.com>, john...@hotmail.com says... > > > True, but that doesn't alter a statutory duty.
> >> > You haven't provided proof that a police officer's duty is to protect citizens from crimes.
> >> Here's the first line of the charter from the police force where I live:
> >> "The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen?s peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences."
> >> OK?
> , >
> >Please provide a link to your source.
> You doofus. Do you think he's lying? First of all he's from London,
> which you'll dismiss as irrelevant, then suggest that he has to prove
> that this duty is worthy.
What did RWR say, God rest his soul? Trust but verify."
> Here's the mission statement from a major U.S. city. Pick it apart
> and look more foolish.
