- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Police are under no obligation to protect you from harm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:11 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:11 am
Happliy posted for all the geniuses who downvoted me in the other thread.
LINK
quote:
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.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 6:26 am
23
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:13 am to weagle99
So. The police were not at the scene, observing all of this occur, and still not acting?
I suspect even you can distinguish that case from San Jose.
I suspect even you can distinguish that case from San Jose.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:16 am to udtiger
I never said they aren't supposed to enforce the law, which can be a distinction with a difference.
People in the other thread started blathering about how protecting people 'was their job.' It isn't.
People in the other thread started blathering about how protecting people 'was their job.' It isn't.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:17 am to weagle99
To Protect and to Serve
Is now not obligated to do so and a useless motto.
Is now not obligated to do so and a useless motto.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:18 am to weagle99
So, this would apply where police just stood there and let these folks get pummeled?
They have no obligation to step in when witnessing people getting assaulted?
They have no obligation to step in when witnessing people getting assaulted?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:19 am to weagle99
quote:
weagle99
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:19 am to weagle99
Well dumbass that is not the issue.
Their duty is to enforce the law, which includes prohibitions against assault.
What a stupid and irrelevant line of argument
and independent of that I suppose they ought to take off that "protect and serve" line that is on at least 80% of the fricking police cars in the whole God damned country
Their duty is to enforce the law, which includes prohibitions against assault.
What a stupid and irrelevant line of argument
and independent of that I suppose they ought to take off that "protect and serve" line that is on at least 80% of the fricking police cars in the whole God damned country
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:19 am to weagle99
But they do have an obligation to shoot your dog
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:22 am to weagle99
Protext?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:23 am to weagle99
I thought this has been the case for quite some time.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:24 am to gthog61
I agree with all your points, even the last one you made in sarcasm. During my conceal and carry course our instructor (a sheriff's deputy) said police are not legally obligated or expected to protect. They are legally obligated to investigate crimes and arrest criminals. However they cannot be everywhere to protect you, hence the need for conceal and carry
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:24 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Protext?
That means tweet good stuff about you
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:25 am to gthog61
quote:
Well dumbass that is not the issue.
Certainly is the issue given my specific comment in the other thread about enforcing law and the hyperbolic emotional response from people who jumped to conclusions.
People don't understand the way it be, but it do.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:28 am to weptiger
quote:
So, this would apply where police just stood there and let these folks get pummeled?
They have no obligation to step in when witnessing people getting assaulted?
That is a distinction with a difference because they are witnessing law being broken, which is different than protection.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:31 am to weagle99
OP is a moron.
Case doesn't say what he thinks says as related to his idiocy in the San Jose thread.
That OP can't figure out the difference is a testament to OPs dishonesty or lack of intellect
Case doesn't say what he thinks says as related to his idiocy in the San Jose thread.
That OP can't figure out the difference is a testament to OPs dishonesty or lack of intellect
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:33 am to gthog61
quote:
Their duty is to enforce the law, which includes prohibitions against assault.
What a stupid and irrelevant line of argument
Basically. OP is saying that stopping assault isn't "protecting" people.
This genius line of thought makes OP believe he's got some key special insight.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:39 am to ShortyRob
I addressed your example in my comment above about assault.
And I have never commented in the San Jose case.
I assume you think the Supreme Court ruling on this topic didn't happen?
And I have never commented in the San Jose case.
I assume you think the Supreme Court ruling on this topic didn't happen?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:41 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Basically. OP is saying that stopping assault isn't "protecting" people.
Wrong.
Go to any self defense or concealed class in your area and see if the instructors tell you that the police are there to protect you and report back.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:43 am to weagle99
Plus, some of you are clueless if you think this case won't be used in the Sam Jose situation.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:55 am to weagle99
quote:
Go to any self defense or concealed class in your area and see if the instructors tell you that the police are there to protect you and report back.
Repeating your silliness doesn't make it less stupid.
They were under obligation to stop the crimes they were WITNESSING if they were able.
Saying, "but that's not protecting" is a distinction without a difference in the thread you chimed in on.
You just thought it made you look smart. It didn't. It makes you look like a rube.
The case in the OP was not a case of police ignoring action while they were on site.
You look like an idiot for holding on to this
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 6:56 am
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News