New Yorkers now being given $500 rewards if they report gun owners to law enforcement

[Bum Luck]

As stated by Supreme court police do not have the duty to provide protection to individuals except under specific assignments...

Wade vs Dist of Columbia...1981

Supreme Court has kept that stance for over 30 years.
.

That statement means you can't sue a PD for "failing to protect you".

Again, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that police providing protection to citizens is unconstitutional.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

That statement means you can't sue a PD for "failing to protect you".

Again, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that police providing protection to citizens is unconstitutional.

spin it how you want, bottom line is Supreme Court ruled police not responsible for protecting individual citizens.. Read the ruling....

 

[0121stockpicker]

"Protecting" is a proactive action and would deny any felon their due process by assuming that a crime will be committed. Police in NYC are "protecting" the public by doing their "random checks" program but many posters on this board and the ACLU are against such actions. You can't have it both ways people! Have proactive policing and you feel and the ACLU feel rights are being trampled or respond to crime and its too late. Don't be too proactive - preventative about crime or you will end up with a homicide charge or wrongful death charge. Best.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

That statement means you can't sue a PD for "failing to protect you".

Again, show me where the Supreme Court has ruled that police providing protection to citizens is unconstitutional.

Show me where Supreme Court says it is their job to protect the citizens I can show where they ruled it is not...

 

[0121stockpicker]

Show me where Supreme Court says it is their job to protect the citizens I can show where they ruled it is not...

That's only because liberals like you and the ACLU won't let cops do their job. Too worried about criminals rights.

 

[Bum Luck]

Show me where Supreme Court says it is their job to protect the citizens I can show where they ruled it is not...

Again: That statement means you can't sue a PD for "failing to protect you".

I can't be any plainer, and if you choose not to understand, I can't make you do so. You can't even pretend to spin it; it can't be spun.

My Sheriff's Department is protecting me right now.

They are patrolling and looking out for criminals. They will apprehend them since they are proactive in seeking them out. They are required to do that by their duly elected Sheriff (you need to look up the history and duties of the Sheriff in the USA) and took an oath to do so. They are fulfilling that oath. They go in harm's way since they are dedicated and sworn officers of the Sheriff.

They will enter a hostage situation or school shooting and take fire to protect their citizens. They will respond to a call from me, or any citizen, for protection. They train for that all the time. With firearms. I know, I've trained with them. I've seen them act in those situations, and reviewed their actions later.

They are dedicated and courageous men and women, and they will take issue with any statement that it is not their job to protect us.

Here's the spin, from Posse Comitatus web sites:
If the police don’t have a duty to protect us, then what is the point in having them? answer: Revenue enhancement and donut sales." Someone has to shoot the dogs. "

Really? Like I said before, that is an insult to these professionals.

More:
"I agree with this decision. As citizens, we do not and should not have a “constitutional right” to government services."

"Okay, that means we all must protect ourselves and we need our guns to do that in a lawless society the Satan now leads"

"Then we shouldn’t have to pay for them, right?"

"We have police because someone has to do the paperwork after a crime has been committed."

"...it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say."

"There is no duty to protect > there is no obligation of negligence > there are no citizens > there is no body politic > there is no State."

Do these sound like reasonable positions? "There is no State"?

These people are making an excellent argument that they should not have firearms, sedition being among them and lacking only action to become treason.

Come on now, say it with me:

I Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

BL,

Do not question my loyalty to this country, I served in the military, I went into harms way when I was not required to do so as a volunteer. I took oath to protect and defend the constitution, I will take that oath to my grave. I still salute the flag when it passes and stand for the National Anthem anytime it is played live.

I never said the police will not do everything in their power to protect the citizens, I said as per the US Supreme Court that is not their duty.

As per the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court I have the right to defend my self and my family as I am the one that responsibility primarily falls on.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bum Luck]

That is their duty. Their solemn duty.

 

[0121stockpicker]

That is their duty. Their solemn duty.

I agree 100 percent with you BL. I just don't understand why these anarchists dislike this great country of ours so much. We have crime rates at decades lows - obviously the police are doing something. It is totally disrespectful to these men and women who put themselves in harms way everyday. If they want to live in a country with no government with everyone playing with their guns they are free to move to Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, etc. Ill even pay for the plane ticket and good riddance. We live in the greatest country in the world with freedoms and opportunities that billions of people would die to have. I'm just sick of these people trashing this country - sorry for the rant.

 

[Bum Luck]

I agree 100 percent with you BL. I just don't understand why these anarchists dislike this great country of ours so much. We have crime rates at decades lows - obviously the police are doing something. It is totally disrespectful to these men and women who put themselves in harms way everyday. If they want to live in a country with no government with everyone playing with their guns they are free to move to Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, etc. Ill even pay for the plane ticket and good riddance. We live in the greatest country in the world with freedoms and opportunities that billions of people would die to have. I'm just sick of these people trashing this country - sorry for the rant.

I'm with you. I vote for emigration to Somalia.

I have a deep respect for our law enforcement professionals. In 2011, 72 law enforcement officers from around the nation were killed in the line of duty, while another 53 officers died in accidents while performing their duties. And 54,774 officers were assaulted in the line of duty - a hefty 10% of sworn officers. (Source: FBI)

Here's a web site that has some sobering reading: Law Enforcement Line of Duty Deaths in 2013. 26 reported deaths this year already, of which 13 were from gunfire.

The bottom line is "and to the Republic for which it stands" means that we must obey ALL laws, not picking and choosing at our whims. A Republic is the form of government in which we elect representatives to makes laws that govern us. The remedy of dissatisfaction is to elect new representatives. And if you don't get your own way, you have NO right to depersonalize others by calling them "zombies" and killing them. You are then outside The Law.

Here's the opening statement from the Boone County Sheriff's web site Sheriff's Office | Boone County, Illinois (emphasis mine, since selective reading seems to be an issue:

Sheriff Duane Wirth is the chief law enforcement officer in Boone County. As Sheriff of Boone County, Sheriff Wirth is responsible for the operation of the largest law enforcement agency in the Boone County. The most fundamental function of this department is to protect the lives and property of the citizens of Boone County. The Sheriff is charged with the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of enforcing federal and state laws, as well as local county ordinances within the unincorporated areas of the county.

For all the smart talk, these career bloggers couldn't last 20 seconds in a real gunfight.

 

[Chadeaux]

I agree 100 percent with you BL. I just don't understand why these anarchists dislike this great country of ours so much. We have crime rates at decades lows - obviously the police are doing something. It is totally disrespectful to these men and women who put themselves in harms way everyday. If they want to live in a country with no government with everyone playing with their guns they are free to move to Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, etc. Ill even pay for the plane ticket and good riddance. We live in the greatest country in the world with freedoms and opportunities that billions of people would die to have. I'm just sick of these people trashing this country - sorry for the rant.

Hmmm....http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&

Domestic Violence

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 -

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Hmmm....http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&

No doubt that police need to take domestic violence cases more seriously. I completely agree with you. On the flip side if the court had ruled differently every town in the country would be bust from lawsuits against the cops.

 

[Bum Luck]

Hmmm....http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=2&

Please read my prior posts.

 

[Chadeaux]

Please read my prior posts.

I read your posts, and you stated correctly that the police cannot be sued . . . and for good reason.

That being said, the SCOTUS decision makes it plain that "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm" - exactly as TH had stated.

 

[releventchair]

Police are protecting people from harm every day of the week, every second if the day. You are completely taking the court decision out of context. The case is about whether someone can sue the police or not. It's extremely insulting to any cop out there who is constantly putting their life on the line to protect American citizens.

Were you talking about this same crap during the bush years or is all this just part of an anti Obama rant? Or have you always just been anti America?

After the 1992 l.a. rioting when police left people on their own there was much talk. Go N.R.A.!and you know there are law enforcement members who are part of the. N.R.A.? The people being attacked probably did not care who was president at the time. But they learned who is responsible for their protection. Over 50 never voted again.

 

[0121stockpicker]

After the 1992 l.a. rioting when police left people on their own there was much talk. Go N.R.A.!and you know there are law enforcement members who are part of the. N.R.A.? The people being attacked probably did not care who was president at the time. But they learned who is responsible for their protection. Over 50 never voted again.

There is always going to be examples - right? The fact that it happens so infrequently is a testament to the hard work and bravery of the folks in uniform.

 

[releventchair]

There is always going to be examples - right? The fact that it happens so infrequently is a testament to the hard work and bravery of the folks in uniform.

I cheer the vast majority. The last one to pull me over was in the right. and patient. No problem with my being armed and when he was leaving i shook his hand and thanked him for what he does.

 

[Chadeaux]

Over 50 never voted again.

. . . well, maybe not themselves --- as they were dead --- but a good democrat wouldn't let death stop them from voting.

I remember after Hurricane Betsy there were lots of those dead folks voting. Just look at Chi - town, What's his name's home.

As they used to say in my home town (New Orleans) - Vote early, vote often, and death is not an excuse not to vote.

 

[Bum Luck]

I read your posts, and you stated correctly that the police cannot be sued . . . and for good reason.

That being said, the SCOTUS decision makes it plain that "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm" - exactly as TH had stated.

That is what the decision was about..... that the police cannot be sued.

It doesn't mean that police have no duty to protect the citizens. They do. Just not under the Constitution.

It is an illogical step to claim that since the "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm", therefore by exclusion it is up to citizens to protect themselves. That is taking one meaning and forcing it to a desired conclusion.

 

[0121stockpicker]

That is what the decision was about..... that the police cannot be sued.

It doesn't mean that police have no duty to protect the citizens. They do. Just not under the Constitution.

It is an illogical step to claim that since the "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm", therefore by exclusion it is up to citizens to protect themselves. That is taking one meaning and forcing it to a desired conclusion.

That's exactly right but it can sure be twisted for propaganda purposes and can be affective against those who are willing to be spoon fed instead of using their own minds.